PrincetonGuy, did you read the Baptist Confession of 1646, and 1689? Just in case you didnt; here it is again:
Paragraph 8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old),14 and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.15 But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read,16 and search them,17 therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,18 that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.19
14 Rom. 3:2
15 Isa. 8:20
16 Acts 15:15
17 John 5:39
18 1 Cor. 14:6,9,11,12,24,28
19 Col. 3:16
The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689. 1
So what is the relevance here? Again, the relevance is that there were clearly Baptist in 1689 that believed the Scriptures being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.
The question to be asked is, Why do many have the perspective you now share, while others (like myself), still believe as they did in 1689? There is a very simple answer.
Unlike the literature of various other religions, the Bible has always been subject to some measure of scholarly criticism and correction. This criticism undoubtedly developed because Jews and Christians conceive of religion as historical, as the product of definite historical events. Even though the great majority of the Old and New Testament writings are, in fact, anonymous, they have always been ascribed to particular human authors. It has therefore been considered legitimate for other human beings to evaluate them. They have never been regarded simply as a literature transmitted directly from heaven or as so remote from the contemporary human condition as to render them immune to critical study. This is in distinct contrast, for example, to the Islamic and Hindu scriptures (see Koran; Veda). Despite its long standing, however, the notion of critical biblical study has changed radically over the years.
Biblical Scholarship
Notice the above words: This criticism undoubtedly developed because Jews and Christians conceive of religion as historical, as the product of definite historical events. Even though the great majority of the Old and New Testament writings are, in fact, anonymous, they have always been ascribed to particular human authors.
This is an absolute lie. The proof of this is in the 1689 Baptist Confession. These men in no way believed that the Scriptures were written by human authors. Now allow me to clarify a major point. God used humans to WRITE the Scriptures, but it is the Holy Spirit that gave those same humans the words which they were to write. This is why the Bible is called the Word of God.
2 Timothy 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Peter 1: 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
So why do some people now believe that the Scriptures were authored by human authors, vs. God; as is clearly shown in the Confession of 1689? A simple look at history gives us the answer.
Johann Salomo Semler | biography - German theologian | Encyclopedia Britannica
Johann Salomo Semler, (born Dec. 18, 1725, Saalfeld, duchy of Saxe-Saalfeld [Germany]died March 14, 1791, Halle, Brandenburg), German Lutheran theologian who was a major figure in the development of biblical textual criticism during his tenure (175391) as professor of theology at the University of Halle.
Semler was a disciple of the rationalist Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten, whom he succeeded on his death in 1757 as head of the theological faculty. Seeking to study biblical texts scientifically, Semler evolved an undogmatic and strictly historical interpretation of Scripture that provoked strong opposition. He was the first to deny, and to offer substantial evidence supporting his denial, that the entirety of the text of Old and New Testaments was divinely inspired and fully correct. He challenged the divine authority of the biblical canon, which he reexamined in order to determine the sequence of composition of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission. From this work he drew a crucial distinction between an earlier, Jewish form of Christianity and a later, broader form.
Please notice the following:
There are three things shown here that are noteworthy: 1) Semler was professor of theology starting in 1753 (this is only one year after Johann Gottfried Eichhorn was born); showing that Semler was at least one gerneration before Eichhorn; 2) Semler was a disciple of the rationalist Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten (this gives indication that it may to well to examine of Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten as well); and 3) He was the first to deny, and to offer substantial evidence supporting his denial, that the entirety of the Old and New Testaments was divinely inspired and fully correct. He challenged the divine authority of the biblical canon, which he reexamined in order to determine the sequence of composition of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission.
Please notice, Semler was a theologian, who denied the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures. The question of the hour at this juncture is simply this: On or by what authority does he deny divine inspiration and thereby challenge divine authority of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission? Did Semler actually believe that his 'intellect' and or learning allowed him that authority? I guess he did, (along with a lot of other scholars that have followed in his footsteps).
How did Semler arrive at his conclusion?
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (16461716) German philosopher
Wolff (1679-1754) was the most eminent German philosopher between Leibniz and Kant.
Immanuel Kant (17241804) German philosopher
Baumgarten (1706-1757)was a follower of the philosophical teachings of Christian Wolff
Semler (1725-1791) was a disciple of the rationalist Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten
Through the years there was a building belief among much of the intellectual philosophers that the Word of God was not the Divine Word of God. This belief was first made public by Johann Salomo Semler. Again I remind the reader, Johann Salomo Semler, (born Dec. 18, 1725, Saalfeld, duchy of Saxe-Saalfeld [Germany]died March 14, 1791, Halle, Brandenburg), German Lutheran theologian who was a major figure in the development of biblical textual criticism during his tenure (175391) as professor of theology at the University of Halle.
By the end of the 1700's and into the 1800's the work of Textual Criticism was gaining a much better footing with the works of Johann Gottfried Eichhorn. The key thing to remember here is that one of the men that brought Textual Criticism through its infancy, (Johann Salomo Semler) denied not only the inspiration of the Scriptures, but also the authority of the scriptures.
Why then do we have this debate?
The simple answer is, German rationalism led to textual criticism. Textual critics do not believe in 'Providential Preservation. They insist (according to them) that because God nowhere 'promised' to preserve His Word perfectly, He did not do it. That job was left to man. That is why we have textual critics, to put the Word of God back together the way it was 'in the originals'.
Let me make this clear.
1. God gave His Word perfectly to man. (Inspiration)
2. God then leaves His Word to the care of men to preserve. (Which men fail to do, because we are sinners, and prone to error.)
3. God then appoints more men (sinners who are prone to error) to find the errors that the other men made, (without giving them a true copy of the originals to judge what is in error), to then produce a Bible that is almost without error (because we can never be sure we have all the errors out (because we don't have a perfect template to go by)).
That is what the scholarly textual critics want us to believe.
Rules of Textual Criticism
When the manuscripts differ, how do scholars decide which words are the original ones? There is more to it than simply choosing the readings of the oldest available manuscripts. Here are three historically important sets of rules published by some influential scholars of textual criticism: Bengel, Griesbach, and Hort.
I am not going to post Griesbach's Fifteen Rules, but Griesbach, (which I am sure you will agree) was a major Textual Critic along with Bengel and Hort.
Now about this time many people are saying, All those guys have been dead and gone for years. Well, you are right. The question then is simple; Have the beliefs of both Semler, Eichhorn, and others continued unto this generation? It takes but a small amount of research to get our answer. I must say before I continue, I am fully aware that I will be accused of giving in to a conspiracy theory, but, what can I say? The men that we are going to look at, have passed as well, but a bit more recently. Between 1994 and 2012; hence, these men truly have had a direct influence on the Bibles we hold in our hands (unless you're holding a King James Bible).
Jack