Bible Inspiration

I have a friend I know is truly born again, but in a discussion with him a little while ago, the topic turned to bible translations. (I read KJV only.) I was shocked to find out he doesn't consider the bible to be verbally inspired. I asked him "if you take out one word, is it still the bible?" His response was "yes". He said "as long as you get the point across, it's fine." I quoted Matthew 5:18, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." He said "that's only the law of Moses." I then quoted the warning in Revelation 22:19, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Book of life, NOT tree of life like every other version says.) I see this as a very serious problem. Any advice on this anyone?

Drifter-

What do you mean by "verbal" inspiration?

RE: ///Any advice on this anyone?///

What do you want to know ? I have well over a hundred books concerning inspiration from various views and actually just bought several more today.

The fact is most men do not seem to except the nature that the Scriptures seem to reveal about themselves.

I would advise not to get caught up into alot of KJV Only material, there zeal often times leads them beyound facts.
If you do though , read more reputable authors such as Burgon,Hills,etc.
Do not quote riplinger,ruckman,gipp etc. many will try to create a false strawman. And they will try to sterotype you with the likes of the such.

Recognize that Godly preachers such as Keith Daniels also hold strong convictions about what feels to be a Special anointing on the KJV that does not seem to exist at the same degree with most of the other modern Versions,

As far as I am aware men have several preferences when it comes to English Translation but I am only aware of one common English Translation that men have a conviction to use.

I would highly recommend this book : "Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology: Reflections of a Bultmannian Turned Evangelical" Eta Linnemann A former liberal scholar and student of Rudolph Bultmann and Ernst Fuchs tells how modern biblical scholarship has drifted far from the truth, and why its assumptions are nonetheless so influential and thereby dangerous.
http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Criticism-Bible-Methodology-Reflections/dp/082543095X

RE: ///What do you mean by "verbal" inspiration?///

Charles C. Ryrie (Th.M.,Th.D.,Dallas Theological Seminary;Ph.D.,University of Edinburgh) in his book : "What you should know about Inerrancy" Moody Press 1981 writes p. : 15-17 : So Many Words :
"To affirm clearly one's belief in the inspiration of the Bible demands many words today. That was not always so. Formerly, it was enough to say, 'I believe in the inspiration of the Bible.' That said it all. Everyone understood those words to mean that the Bible was from God, completely accurate and reliable, and therefore authoritative.
Verbal Inspiration. Later, it became necessary to add, 'I believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible.' Verbal emphasized the fact that the very words were inspired, not only the thoughts, as some were saying. If only thoughts are inspired, they said, there can be considerable freedom in the choice of words to express those thoughts; thus, they concluded, 'It is not possible to speak about the inspiration of the words of the text of Scripture.' But those who held to full inspiration of words as well as thought insisted that God must have guided the very words used by the writers, or the Bible is less than inspired. Hence the phrase "verbal inspiration" seemed necessary.
Verbal, plenary inspiration. But some sought to undermine inspiration by asserting that although words might be inspired, not all of them were. They insisted that there was no way to claim that every word in the Bible was inspired. So to affirm inspiration it became necessary to add, 'I believe in the verbal, plenary (complete, full) inspiration of the Bible.' That assured that no part of the Bible would be omitted.
Verbal, plenary, infallible inspiration. In time another attack on the complete inspiration of all the Bible was launched. Some denied that the Bible, though 'inspired,' was infallible. Then it became necessary to say, 'I believe in the verbal, plenary, infallible inspiration of the Bible.' That affirmed that the words were exactly the ones God wanted in the text, and therefore every word was authoritative.
Verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrant inspiration. nevertheless, some could not accept the idea that the words were exactly those God intended, and yet they were reluctant to abandon the authority of Scripture. So there developed the attempt to allow for errors in the text while keeping the 'infallibility' of the message. To counter that, it became necessary to say, 'I believe in the verbal, plenary, infallible, and inerrant (without error) inspiration of the Bible.' Adding the word 'inerrant' focused on the necessary relation between accuracy of the words and authority of the message.
Verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrant, unlimited inspiration. Today there has appeared yet another attempt to undermine full inspiration. The new doctrine affirms belief in inerrancy but limits the extent of inerrancy. The Bible, they say, 'is inerrant when it speaks of science, history, or genealogies, and so on.' In other words, it possesses only 'limited inerrancy.'
But why say 'limited inerrancy'? Why not 'limited errancy'? If the Bible has limitations on its inerrancy, then obviously it is errant, though not completely so. So limited inerrancy and limited errancy amount to the same thing. But why do the proponents of limited inerrancy not want to use the equivalent label 'limited errancy'? One cannot be sure of the answer, but it could hardly be denied that limited inerrancy is a much more palatable label than anything that has the word errancy in it. What evangelical would not want to avoid using a label that suggests he believes that there are errors in the Bible? To speak of limited inerrancy seems much more respectable, but it is also more deceiful. Intentional or not, it is a semantic game played to help cover up a dangerously deceptive view. We need to expose limited inerrancy for what it is. If parts of the Bible are not inerrant, then those parts are errant. That is an inescapable conclusion.
Therefore today, 'inorder to affirm clearly a belief in the full inspiration of the Scripture,' it has become necessary to say, 'I believe in the verbal, plenary, infallible, unlimited inerrancy of the Bible.'"

RE: /// I see this as a very serious problem.///

This is a most serious problem and one that I believe will continue to prevent any type of wide spread revival amoung the english speaking people.

To overcome this the Church must recognize the philosophical paradigm shift that took place in the area of biblical scholoarship after 1611 and how this age of enlightenment shift has effected the philosophies of most modern translations to some extent.

Dr. Gerhard Maier makes an eye opening statement in his book "The End of the Historical Critical Method" concordia publishing 1977 p.63 writes :

"Ever since the Enlightenment the statement that Scripture contains divine revelation has prevailed and has become a leading dogma. But we have ruled it out. The true statement reads : "Scripture is revelation"

Do we see the subtle but yet substantial difference that Maier points out.

On p. 24 Linnemann writes speaking on how : "scholatism undertook "to bring the new rational knowledge into agreement with the articles of faith"...
"The Bible came to be regarded as authoritive only in those areas touching on redemption and the Christian life. Aristotle, in contrast, became the source of all valid knowledge of the world, that is, for the realm of natural sciences, social analysis, and so on."

Linnemann writes p.25 : "Humanism made the decision to make man the measure of all things. That was a decisive renunciation of God, even if such humanism adopted a thoroughly pious deportment and constantly mouthed God's Word. What was said about God no longer sprang from Gods revealed Word but rather from the human spirit, which increasingly distanced itself from Gods Word."

When we except bible's that have omitted entire verses such as :
1. Matthew 17:21: "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."
2. Matthew 18:11: "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."
3. Matthew 23:14: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."
4. Mark 7:16: "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."
5. Mark 9:44: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
6. Mark 9:46: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
7. Mark 11:26: "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."
8. Mark 15:28: "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."
9. Luke 17:36: "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."
10. John 5:4: "For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."
11. Acts 8:37: "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
12. Acts 15:34: "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."
13. Acts 24:7: "But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,"
14. Acts 28:29: "And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."
15. Romans 16:24: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."
16. I John 5:7: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

We than must admitt that we have to some extent succumbed to a sceptical view of Scriptures.

As Dr. Ryrie wrote : "..if even one part of the Bible is thought to be false,how can any of it be trusted to be true?."