WHAT IS GOD-BREATHED SCRIPTURE?
EDWARD J. YOUNG
In our last lecture we sought to
show, upon the basis of an exposition of 2 Timothy
The
Original Copies of Scripture
Perhaps one answer to the above
questions may be found in the fact that in the copies of the Scriptures now in
our possession there are minor errors, and hence, it is assumed, these errors
were probably also in the original copies. There are men who refuse to accept
the position that in the original copies (the so-called autographa)
of the Bible we have works that are entirely free from error. All too often, it
is asserted that an appeal to the originals is really a flight from reality. We
do not have these originals, so the argument runs; how then do we know that
they are errorless? How can we say of them that they
are infallible and inerrant? An appeal to the originals is too often discarded
as being unworthy of consideration.
Nevertheless, we must consider the
originals. Of course, it is true that we today do
not possess these autographa; it is perfectly true that we have not seen them
nor has any living man seen them. Does it therefore follow that an appeal to
them is merely a way out of the difficulty? The present copies of the Bible do
contain errors, we must acknowledge, and so we appeal to the originals which we
have never seen. Is not this merely an escape from difficulty? It might seem
that such were indeed the case; that is, at first sight it might appear to be
so, until we begin to investigate the question more closely. And as an
introduction to the question we may well consider again the language of Paul to
Timothy.
When Paul makes his double statement
about all Scripture, what Scripture precisely does he have in mind? When he
declares that all Scripture is God-breathed and that it is profitable, of what
Scripture is he speaking? Is he referring to the copies of the Bible that were
extant in his day or is he referring to the autographa?
In the little work to which we have already made reference, Professor Beegle asserts that the extant manuscripts of Scripture
were regarded as being the same as the originals because the attribute of theopneustos
applied permanently to them. Paul, he tells us,"--probably never thought
in terms of the technical distinction between
13
14
GRACE
JOURNAL
the autographs and copies of
Scripture" (op. cit., p. 29).
Nor does Paul, we are told
any special claims for or
characterize the originals in such a way as would set them
from the copies of
the Bible that were extant in his own day. No explicit statements in the
Testament,
we are told, single out the autographs as being different from the copies of
Bible which the
copies of the
Scriptures are not inspired. In one passage, Professor Beegle
explicitly
states that Paul was
thinking in terms of the extant manuscripts, namely, 2 Timothy 3:16.1
We are grateful to Professor Beegle for thus setting the issue clearly before us.
His
words require considerable comment and cannot be dismissed offhand. Basically,
then, the question
that is often raised may be stated as follows: “When Paul wrote 2
Timothy
3:16, he was thinking of the copies of the Bible then extant, and so what he
wrote concerning the Scripture applies to those copies."
In the first place, we must be cautious
when we speak of what may have been in Paul's mind when he wrote. We do not
know what was in his mind except as we have the Scriptures. As he wrote, he was
borne of the Holy Spirit. The whole question of the mode of the outbreathing of Scripture is one that is filled with
mystery. How far the human penman of Scripture may have understood what he was
writing is a matter that we cannot assert with positiveness.
How much he may have been conscious of divine
superintendence is again a matter
upon which we cannot speak. The whole subject is
fraught with mystery.
We do not actually know what was in the mind of Paul when he
wrote. We certainly
do not know all that was in his mind. How he actually came to
express in writing the
majestic thoughts which are found in his epistles is something into
which we cannot
probe.
We simply have the Scripture before us.
To assume that Paul may have been aware of all the implications of what he
wrote is not warranted. We can but examine and study the Scripture itself,
knowing that its ultimate author is the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity.
Our question therefore must be reformulated. We must not ask, for we are unable
to answer, "Did Paul in writing to Timothy have
in mind the autographa or the extant copies of Scripture?
Was he thinking of the originals of the Bible or of the copies that were
present in his day?" We must rather ask, "Does 2 Timothy
Approaching the subject in this way we
then ask whether the passage in Timothy has reference to the autographa or to extant copies of the Bible. A mere glance
at the verse makes clear that Paul is speaking generally of the Scripture. This
is the Scripture which is able to make one wise unto salvation. In the verse
under consideration he makes no explicit distinction between autographa and extant copies. That point is obvious and can
hardly be disputed Paul says however that the Scripture is God-breathed, and in
so doing is making a statement which has to do with the origin of Scripture.
This point is often overlooked. It seems to be overlooked in Professor Beegle's discussion of the passage. Professor Beegle constantly speaks of the "inspiration" of
the Scripture, but, as we have sought to point out in the previous lecture, the
word "inspiration” is not a satisfactory word to render into English the
Greek word theopneustos.
WHAT IS THE GOD-BREATHED SCRIPTURE? 15
What we must insist upon is that in
using this word theopneustos,
Paul is making a statement about the origin of the Bible. How did the Bible
come into existence? The answer to this question, according to Paul, is that
the Bible is God-breathed. It is the use of this very word upon the part of
Paul which compels us to look more closely into the matter. Can it be said that
the copies of the Bible extant in Paul's day were God-breathed? Obviously this
cannot have been said of them. Assuming that Paul's primary emphasis is upon
the Old Testament, we may well ask whether any of the Hebrew Bibles which were
found in the Jerusalem of Paul's day were God-breathed. Of course, they were
not. In those days one would have found copies of the Hebrew Old Testament
written on scrolls which were kept in the synagogues. It would have been
possible both in
In our previous lecture we sought to
show what the true meaning of this Greek word was. It is a word that is in
perfect keeping with such expressions in the Old Testament as "the mouth
of the Lord hath spoken it." In the very nature of the case then, this
word refers to the origin of the Scriptures. The Scripture finds its origin in
God and not in man. It is not a product of human composition, but was breathed
forth by God Himself. When therefore, Paul says that Scripture is God-breathed
the meaning is that the origin of the Bible is to be found in an act of God. He
breathed forth the words of the Scriptures, and therefore, this word can only
apply to the autographa. It certainly does not apply
to extant copies of the Bible and to maintain that it does is simply to betray
an ignorance of the Greek language.
The appeal to the autographa
therefore does not owe its existence to a desire to escape from difficulties
that are present in the extant copies of the Bible. It is Paul himself who speaks
of the origin of the Bible, and we are led by his words to a consideration
thereof. The predicate theopneustos,
(God-breathed), we must insist, does not have reference to extant copies of the
Scriptures. It characterizes the origin of the Bible, and in the very nature of
the case, unless we wish to deprive language of all meaning, refers to the autographa.
The force of this fact may become
clearer by means of an illustration. Suppose that a man says, "I believe
that the Bible is a revelation from God." His language is general and what
he says about the Bible is true. We begin, however, to examine in greater
detail the force of his statement. Is he speaking about the autographa
or about the King James Version that he holds in his hand? In his declaration
perhaps these alternatives were not in view. He is making a general statement
about Scripture. We begin to examine his statement. When we say that the Bible
is a revelation from God we are asserting that the Bible was revealed to us by
God. Now, there can hardly be any question about the King James Version of the
Bible. Despite the respect that many of us have for that version, we are not
willing to say that it was revealed to us by God. That is not its origin at
all, and to insist that it is, is to betray a woeful ignorance of the facts of
the origin of Scripture. When one says therefore that the Bible is a revelation
from God he is saying that God revealed the words of the Bible to man, and in
the very nature of the case is referring to the autographa.
The statement, "The Bible is a revelation
16 GRACE
JOURNAL
from God," is a
general declaration about the Bible. It is perfectly true. When, however, we begin
to ask the question, "In what sense is the Bible a revelation, “we are
brought face to face
with the autographa.
So it is also with Paul's utterance in 2
Timothy 3:16. What Paul here declares is a general declaration about the Bible.
When, however, we begin to ask in what sense Paul's words are true, we are
brought face to face with the autographa. The
Scriptures are truly God-breathed, but it was the first copies of the Bible
that came directly from the divine mouth. These copies alone were given to us
by God. Paul is talking about the origin of the Bible and to force his language
to refer to something else is to do an injustice to that language.
The Profitable Scripture
It is often asserted at the present time
that we can have all the blessings of the Christian faith without an inerrant
original. Therefore, so the conclusion seems to be, an inerrant original is not
very important, for God did not deem it necessary to preserve it for our
benefit. The Bibles which we have are errant, and yet we are blessed through
their message. Inerrancy then, we are told, is not so very important after all.
God has been willing to permit the work of His kingdom to be carried on with an
errant Bible. Again, we must turn to 2 Timothy for help in considering this
question. Paul here makes the statement that "all Scripture is profitable.”
And again the question may be raised: Is Paul speaking of the copies of the Scripture
extant in his day or is he speaking of the original? And again we must insist
that this question is really beside the point. Paul is simply making a general
truthful declaration about the Bible. He tells us that the whole Bible is
profitable. When we hear his words we again ask, "In what sense is this
statement true?" When we ask this question we realize that this assertion
of Paul's has to do with a quality of Scripture and not with its origin. When
Paul had said that "all Scripture is God-breathed" he was asserting
something concerning the origin of the Scripture, and
in the nature of the case could only have been referring to the autographa. When, however, he tells us that all Scripture
is profitable, he is making a general characterization of Scripture. Scripture,
wherever it may be found, is profitable, or, to put the matter
in a slightly different fashion,
"Whatever is Scripture is profitable."
Does this statement refer to the extant
copies of the Bible? Our answer is, "It most
certainly does insofar as
these copies are Scripture." If there are copyist's errors in the
extant copies of the
Bible, obviously these errors are not Scripture. Let us illustrate by means of
an extreme example. Suppose, for some reason, I decide to copy out by hand the
book of Exodus. That would be quite an undertaking and quite difficult. In copying
I find that I become quite tired. Exodus is a long book, and unfortunately I
make some mistakes. When I am copying out the eighth commandment, for example,
inadvertently, I omit the negative. Instead of copying the commandment,
"Thou shalt not steal," my copy reads,
"Thou shalt steal." This unfortunate error
is not Scripture. The words "thou shalt steal,”
whatever else may be said about them, are not profitable to anyone. Hence, we
must say, that the present, copies of the Bible are profitable, insofar as they
are Scripture. If there are copyist's or other errors
in them, we must seek by means of the science of textual criticism to correct
these errors. Error, in the nature of the case, cannot be profitable. It is the
Scripture which is profitable, and Scripture cannot be confined to any
one copy or to copies written in
anyone language.
WHAT IS THE GOD-BREATHED SCRIPTURE? 17
When
we say that the Scripture is profitable, what is meant is that the truth which
the
words of Scripture
expresses, is profitable. It is for this reason, that the science of textual
criticism is so important
and that the science of translation is equally if not more significant. What we
need is to know precisely what it is that God said to man. To know this we must
engage in translation.
Perhaps it is not out of place to stress
the fact that competent translation is one of the most important tasks of the
serious Bible student as it is also one of the great needs of the day. And the
reason why it is so important is that translation attempts to place in our own
language the very thoughts of the original. The competent translator seeks not
to impose upon the original his own thoughts nor merely to paraphrase the
original but rather to say in his own language precisely what is found in the
original.
Hence we see the importance of
maintaining the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of the Bible, for it is only
through the words of Scripture that the truths of Scripture may be conveyed. At
first sight it might seem, and indeed there are those who tell us that such is
the case, that the really important thing is not the words of the Bible after
all, but rather the truths which the Bible teaches. "If we have these
truths," so the argument seems to run, “we have the message which God
wanted us to have, and that is the crucial thing.” And coupled with such
assertions one often finds a warning against the sin of Bibliolatry.
Truth, however, must be conveyed in
words if there is to be an effective and lasting communication. We cannot
really have the truth of the Bible or its teachings unless these things find
expression in words. The divorce between the message of the Scripture and the
words in which that message is couched is largely an illusory one. If we
destroy the words of the Bible we simply do not have its message. It is
important that we have the words of God in order that we have the Word of God.
Indeed, without the one we do not have the other, for the two are really one.
The words which God has spoken to us are His message, His Word.
Hence, in the nature of the case it
should appear that only the words which God spoke are of profit to us today.
And the loving care which has been expended by so many upon the text of the
Bible is really an evidence of the fact that those who expend this care realize
how all important it is that we have the very words of God. With the copies of
the Bible extant sufficient of the original has been preserved so that we have
the message of God. That, however, which is profitable is Scripture, and if we
are to receive profit we must have the Scripture.
Difficulties and the Profitableness of the Bible
There are those who point to some of the
difficulties found in the present copies of the Bible and who go on to make the
assumption that those difficulties were found in the autographa
and so are actually part of the inspired Bible. They then come to the
conclusion that a Bible which contains errors, which is errant and not
infallible may nevertheless be a Bible that exists for our profit. We have
already considered this question somewhat, but it is now necessary to examine
it a bit more closely.
18
GRACE
JOURNAL
In his interesting work on The Inspiration of the Bible, Professor Beegle adduces
certain of the
difficulties which a study Scriptural phenomena presents, and concludes
that the doctrine of
an inerrant Scripture has not faced up to these difficulties.2 Professor
Beegle mentions
several problems, some of which the present lecturer has discussed
elsewhere. Before we
proceed to consider the relationship that the phenomena of
Scripture
sustain to the question of Scripture's profitableness, we must note that it is
not incumbent upon us to answer every difficulty in the Bible, and furthermore,
if we are not able to give an answer or a solution to every conceivable
difficulty, we have no right to conclude that there must be a genuine error
present.
Among the difficulties which Professor Beegle discusses are the following: Jude 14, Jude 9, The
Reign of Pekah, the Reign of Hezekiah, Genesis 5,
Acts 7:4, the speech of Stephen, Acts 7:15, 16, Galatians 3:17 and Mark
14:30,72, and 1 Corinthians 3:19. This is an imposing list. These questions
have been studied over and over again and it cannot be said that they have been
satisfactorily answered. But there is no warrant for asserting that there were
actual errors found in the autographa. If we knew all
that was to be known about these difficulties we should be more restrained in
declaring that the Scripture is errant.
Our present concern, however, is with
the question of the profitability of the Scripture, and it is in this
connection that we shall consider the remarks which Professor Beegle makes on Genesis 5. In Genesis 5 there is obviously
present a certain pattern. The genealogy of man is traced from Adam through the
three sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. We are told that a certain man
lived so many years and then begat a son, then it is stated how long this
particular man lived after his begetting the son and there is added the
statement, "and he begat sons and daughters." Finally the total years
of the man's life is given together with the statement "and he died,"
the notable exception of course being Enoch. On the basis of
this chapter Archbishop Ussher, as is well known, reckoned the date of the
creation to be 4004 B. C.
Today, of course, we know that the earth
is older than 4004 B.C. and so we reject the chronology which was given by
Ussher. But what about the one who wrote down the fifth chapter of Genesis?
Professor Beegle asks some pertinent questions. If
the writer merely wished to highlight the main men in the pre-Flood world, why
did he give the three numbers for each man named; i.e. age at birth of the son,
years lived after the birth of the son and then the total number of years?
Evidently the writer intended these figures to be interpreted literally. Many believers,
before the discoveries of geology, thought that the purpose of the genealogy in
Genesis 5 was to provide a chronology, and they accepted that chronology at
face value.
Evangelicals today, however, have come
up with the interpretation which sees in the genealogy merely a genealogy and
not a chronology. They believe that there are gaps in the lists and hence they
simply do not any longer regard the chapter as presenting chronological information.
Most decisively they reject Archbishop Ussher's chronology. What, however, about
the original intention of the writer? The writer intended the passage to be
chronological, whereas we today, because of the modern discoveries in the
scientific field, impute to the passage another meaning. Because we have
obtained new scientific knowledge, we, according to Professor Beegle's charge, ignore the clear meaning of the passage.
We cannot accommodate the intent of the Biblical writer to the scientific knowledge
which is our possession today. And, we may add in passing, if this is really
the situation which faces us, what becomes of the
WHAT IS THE GOD-BREATHED SCRIPTURE? 19
profitability of Scripture?
If this fifth chapter of Genesis cannot agree with that which is actual fact,
then how can we say that all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness? In particular is it difficult
to understand how this chapter can be of instruction in righteousness if it is
out of harmony with what we today know to be true.
This question must be carefully faced.
Is Paul correct when he says that "all Scripture is . . . profitable?"
Genesis 5 is Scripture, but if it is basically in error and presents a wrong view
of reality or if it even leads or compels us to accept a wrong view of reality,
then, how can we say that it is profitable? In the first place, we may say by
way of answer, we have no way of knowing what may have been in the mind of the
human writer of this portion of the Bible when he composed Genesis 5. We simply
do not know whether he intended it to be chronological or not. Suppose that
Moses did compose this chapter having used other previously existing written
documents to aid him. Suppose, too, that he was acquainted with the cuneiform accounts
of the longevity of kings before the flood. When Moses arranged the fifth
chapter of Genesis, how do we know what was in his mind? He nowhere states that
his intention was to give either a chronological or a nonchronological
account.
By way of illustration we may ask what
was in the mind of the composer of the prediluvian long
lists which the cuneiform documents have preserved for us. Is there any
possible way to tell? He must be a bold man indeed who would claim to be able
to answer such a question. Nor are we able to tell what the intention of the
human writer of Genesis 5 was. More important, however, is the fact that the
ultimate author of Genesis 5 is God Himself. Was the Lord seeking at this point
to teach us that the names of Genesis 5 were necessarily chronological and that
only such an interpretation does them justice? These are the questions which we
must face.
It is perfectly true that believers
regarded the chapter as teaching chronology and that they held this opinion for
years. It is also true, as far as the present lecturer knows that what caused a
shift in interpretation was the discovery that the earth is presumably older
than 4004 B. C. There can be no question but that this caused interpreters to
take another look at the chapter. And we can certainly be grateful for anything
that causes us to take another look at the Bible. We must constantly be willing
to submit our interpretations to the Scriptures themselves to be tested
thereby. This is not interpreting the Bible by science as some would put it.
But natural revelation can often be of aid in enabling us rightly to understand
the Scripture.
An example may be in point. For years
students of the Bible believed that the true Mt. Sinai was the
20
GRACE
JOURNAL
It is often the case that we read the
Bible with closed eyes. For years men read the
epistle to the
Galatians but apparently could see nothing in it incongruous with a religion of
works righteousness. Finally, however, God raised up a
monk who read the epistle to the Galatians with his own eyes and the
Reformation was born. And so it may be with the fifth chapter of Genesis. For
years men may have read this with their eyes closed, merely
accepting what others had
said. Tradition can be a very powerful thing and there was not much reason why
any should break from tradition. It needed, in this one instance at least,
something to jar men out
of their misinterpretation to take another look at the chapter. If
science was responsible
for this, we may indeed be grateful.
Did the fifth chapter of Genesis,
however, in any sense deceive men? Was it written in such a way as to lead men
to embrace a wrong interpretation or might it simply be that men did not notice
the chapter as carefully as they might have done? We believe that the latter is
the case. God has not deceived men, for the Scripture, being His Word, is
infallible; it neither deceives nor is it itself deceived.
It will be well to examine the content
of the chapter somewhat carefully, in order to discover whether it does intend
to teach a chronology. First of all, we note that there are ten names from Adam
to Noah. Inasmuch as ten is a number similarly employed elsewhere in Genesis it
is quite possible that this very fact would point toward a definite
schematization. The same number appears again in the genealogy in chapter ten,
and also there are ten sections of generations in the composition of the book
of Genesis.
Throughout the chapter emphasis also
falls upon the number of years that a man lived until he begat a descendant.
This appears to be important. It must be noted that a general statement is also
made, that each one also begat sons and daughters. From the birth of the first
descendant to the phrase, "And he begat sons and daughters, " it is
said that the patriarch in question lived so many years. Now it would seem to
be very unlikely that the text meant that he begat sons and daughters all at
once. In fact such an interpretation is definitely excluded. For example, Seth
lived one hundred and five years and begat Enos.
After the begetting of Enos he lived eight hundred
and seven years and begat sons and daughters. The total number of years of his
life, however, is nine hundred twelve, or one hundred and five plus eight
hundred and seven. Having lived nine hundred and twelve years Seth died. Are we
to assume that in one year he begat sons and daughters and that this was also
the year of his death? Obviously such an interpretation does not satisfy the
requirements of the text. The text itself requires us to interpret that Seth
lived one hundred and five years and then begat Enos.
With respect to the begetting of the other sons and daughters, however, it
would seem that this occurred over a period of eight hundred and seven years,
or, to put it differently, throughout the remainder of Seth's life. What stands
out from this then is that a great distinction is made between the notice of
the birth of the first-born and the notice of the birth of other sons and
daughters. Emphasis falls upon the first-born in each instance. What is the reason
for this?
With each of the patriarchs also, apart
from Enoch, there occurs the statement, "and he died." These words
sound like a refrain calling to mind the assurance of the serpent, “ye shall
not die." Into this continuous reign of death there is interjected the
declaration concerning Enoch, "and he was not, for God took him."
Death appears to have sovereign control over
WHAT IS THE GOD-BREATHED SCRIPTURE? 21
the destiny of the human race, but
its control is only apparent. Here in the line of promise,
death's wide reign is
interrupted, and Enoch escapes death, because of God's intervention.
God
is mindful of His promise, and shows to a world under the universal power of
death that He is the God of life, and that the promise of life is greater than
the power of death.
It is very difficult to escape the
conclusion, wholly apart from any considerations of science, that Moses has
given to us here a schematic arrangement. This seems to be supported by the
number ten. That Seth was the actual son of Adam appears from
If
this interpretation is correct, then it is clear that not everyone in the line
of descent is mentioned. That the arrangement is schematic appears also in that
Enoch the seventh in the line is taken by God. The verb laqah which is here used of Enoch
is suitable to express the thought that God had translated him, i. e., had taken him from this earthly existence into the
heavenly existence to be with Himself. In the Babylonian list of
ante-diluvian kings we may
note also that it is the seventh king who is carried away to be with the gods
and to share in their secrets. Furthermore, it is the tenth in the Babylonian
list who is the hero of the Flood. These correspondences do not mean that the
list in Genesis derives from the Babylonian list. What they mean is that the
truth was handed down among the Babylonians also and that what they have
preserved for us in their lists is simply a garbled version of what had once
taken place. In the fifth chapter of Genesis, however, we have the truth which in
corrupted form comes to light in the cuneiform documents.
It is also to the point to ask what the
purpose of Genesis 5 really is. Is the writer here setting before us as his
primary purpose the giving of a chronology which will enable us to add up the
figures and so come to an understanding of the age of the earth? That hardly
seems to be the purpose at all. Rather, a close reading of the chapter would
seem to show that what the writer wishes to convey is that even during the line
of promise death exercised its universal, almost unrestrained reign. When we
compare the list in chapter five with the list of the Cainites
in chapter four we notice that there the schematic arrangement is completely
lacking. In this line emphasis falls upon certain members of the sons of Cain
and the purpose is quite different from that which is found in chapter five.
The actual line of descent is given in quite hasty terms, "And unto Enoch
was born Irad: and Irad
begat Mehujael: and Mehujael
begat Methusael: and Methusael
begat Lamech" (Genesis
the Lord to defend him Lamech boastfully declared that he could take care of
himself. Wickedness characterized the line of Cain.
Even among the line of Seth there was
death, and Moses' purpose is to show that,
although the patriarchs
belonged to the line of promise, nevertheless, with the exception of Enoch,
they yet were subject to death. Nowhere, however, does the writer make the
figures
22
GRACE
JOURNAL
of this chapter the basis for a
chronology. It would seem that the purpose of the chapter is not to teach
chronology.
How then is this Scripture profitable
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness?
There are several lessons which stand out and which could at all times have
been learned from the chapter. Devout believers who have read this chapter, no matter
the age in which they lived, could see from this chapter that, even though
death reached its powerful hand over those who were in the line of promise,
nevertheless, God has not forgotten His promise, and
the light of life breaks through to take Enoch from death's almost universal
sway. Then, too, and this is certainly one of the most fundamental lessons to
be learned, death, great and powerful as it was, never intervened until the
patriarch in question had begotten the son through whom the promise of life was
to be carried on. Death, in every instance was too late. When it came and
claimed the life of the patriarch, he had already begotten the line of promise.
Hence, when Noah is born, Lamech, not to be
identified with the Lamech of chapter four, could
say, "This same shall comfort us concerning our work, and toil of our
hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed" (Genesis
These great lessons stand out for all to
learn. Suppose, however, that some godly men misunderstood the figures in the
chapter, and like Ussher, used them to determine the age of the earth. That
does not mean that the chapter is of no profit; it simply means that some aspects
of it were misunderstood. For the central message of the chapter lies not in
the numbers, but in the lessons which are taught. If some men took the numbers
as giving a chronology and overlooked the obvious schematic character of the
chapter, that does not mean that the Scripture was of no profit; but merely
that they misunderstood one aspect of it. And it must be confessed that those
who did this were mistaken, yet even this mistake was based upon a desire to be
faithful to the Scriptures. They misused the Scriptures so we believe, but the error
which they made did not lead to great harm. If a man happens to believe that
the earth was created in 4004 B. C., we think that he is in error and that he
is guilty of poor exegesis. On the other hand, we do not think that his study
of Genesis 5 need necessarily be without profit. He used the numbers of the
chapter to form a chronology, and that we think is unwarranted, for it is going
beyond the Bible.
Today we believe that a more accurate
interpretation of the chapter is, as we have said, to regard it as containing a
scheme, and we insist that in so regarding it we are not doing violence to the
true nature of the chapter. Genesis 5 is Scripture, and it requires our serious
study and exegesis, just as do all parts of the Bible. Inasmuch as it is
Scripture, however, it is profitable, as Paul says that it is.
We are far from denying that there are
serious difficulties in the Bible. The study of these difficulties is the work
of the exegete, and those who write serious commentaries on the books of the
Bible engage in the study of these difficulties and in an endeavor to resolve
them, if, with our present knowledge, that is possible.
But we insist that these difficulties
are not evidence that there is actual error in the
original manuscripts of
Scripture. If there is error in the Scripture, then all Scripture is not
WHAT IS THE GOD-BREATHED SCRIPTURE? 23
profitable. Paul says that
all Scripture is profitable, and consequently, there is no error
therein. The case is as
simple as that. As believers, we may safely accept Paul's word.
DOCUMENTATION
1.
Dewey M. Beegle. The Inspiration of Scripture.
2.
Op. cit., pp. 41-69.
:
Grace
Theological Seminary
www.grace.edu
|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| The Orthodox Faith (Dogma) || Family and Youth || Sermons || Bible Study || Devotional || Spirituals || Fasts & Feasts || Coptics || Religious Education || Monasticism || Seasons || Missiology || Ethics || Ecumenical Relations || Church Music || Pentecost || Miscellaneous || Saints || Church History || Pope Shenouda || Patrology || Canon Law || Lent || Pastoral Theology || Father Matta || Bibles || Iconography || Liturgics || Orthodox Biblical topics || Orthodox articles || St Chrysostom ||
|| Bible Study || Biblical topics || Bibles || Orthodox Bible Study || Coptic Bible Study || King James Version || New King James Version || Scripture Nuggets || Index of the Parables and Metaphors of Jesus || Index of the Miracles of Jesus || Index of Doctrines || Index of Charts || Index of Maps || Index of Topical Essays || Index of Word Studies || Colored Maps || Index of Biblical names Notes || Old Testament activities for Sunday School kids || New Testament activities for Sunday School kids || Bible Illustrations || Bible short notes|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| Prayer of the First Hour || Third Hour || Sixth Hour || Ninth Hour || Vespers (Eleventh Hour) || Compline (Twelfth Hour) || The First Watch of the midnight prayers || The Second Watch of the midnight prayers || The Third Watch of the midnight prayers || The Prayer of the Veil || Various Prayers from the Agbia || Synaxarium