The fallacy of "Double Inspiration"

Yeah yeah, of course with a title like that you're expecting a rant against Ruckman or against the fringe King James onlyists, but you'll get none of that here. I simply want to put to rest this idea of "Double Inspiration" by defining what exactly inspiration really is. Of course I'll use nothing but a King James Bible to do it, so if you can't submit to that as your authority for the definition of the words found therein, then do yourself a favor and move your bohunkus out of the way of people who are actually trying to get something accomplished.

The word "inspiration" is used twice in the Bible, and if you're a Bible believer like I am, you'll submit the words within the Bible to Its own definition, meaning you'll put the two verses together in context and accept that meaning as factual. Can we give that a shot?

II Timothy 3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Please notice, this verse most emphatically does NOT say that all scripture is inspired: it says that all scripture is GIVEN BY INSPIRATION. If you say "the Bible is inspired," you're subjecting the words of God to your own private interpretation, contrary to 2 Peter 1:20.

Job 32:8: But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

So here we have the other verse, and as anyone with a brain in their head can see, "inspiration" is dealing with supernatural involvement in human comprehension; i.e. the "Almighty" giving understanding through inspiration.

Therefore, when you combine the two verses, as true Bible believers should do, you'll see that all scripture (including the Bible that you claim to believe, if you really believe it) is given by the supernatural understanding given by God to men. As a result, scripture is not inspired: the men who write it are! Therefore, there's no such thing as "double inspiration," since the Bible was never inspired even once in the first place! God preserved His perfect words through the centuries and compiled them in the King James Bible in 1604-1611, but He never inspired them. He inspires the men that He uses to preserve and translate that Word.

Got a better explanation? Biblical, of course; I don't give two farts about any other kind.

Blogs are great for ranting

I love popping up and flaring my nostrils online; no repercussions, I can delete comments, and there's a spell check feature. Quite handy, that.

Basically, I've been toying around with this guy named Randy Ross on here: you can probably find him if you search; I'm not linking to his midden heap. Yes, he has some decent articles about simple things like Santa Claus and the like, but some of his other stuff is total poison. Take his advice about computers, for example. Now, every logical individual knows that a good computer system shouldn't need anti-virus, anti-spyware and anti-spam software on it; it shouldn't have all those security issues in the first place. But he goes off talking about firewalls and virus checkers and internet blockers like he doesn't know the first thing about computers. (Not entirely true; he hacked his MySql database and got my password from a phony userID I had on his site; he subsequently shut down my associated Yahoo e-mail address. Not a total idiot, computer-wise anyhow.)

Actually, humor aside, the real problem with his stuff is the apparent innocence and authenticity of it. Take this, for example:

"

1. The Bible is inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16-17, 2 Pet 1:21, )
2. The Bible is without error (Psa 12:6, Psa 19:7-8)
3. The Bible is complete (Rev 22:18-19, 1 Cor 13:8)
4. The Bible is preserved (Mat 24:35, Psa 119:89, 1 Pet 1:23, 25)
5. The Bible is our final authority for faith and practice (2 Tim 3:16-17, Rev 22:18-19)"

Sounds good, does it not? Of course it does, it's completely Biblical. But THAT'S wherein the problem lieth; look at what follows.

"
6. While the King James translation is not directly inspired (the Apostle Paul, for example, did not speak Victorian era English), the KJV is the faithfully, divinely preserved, text of God's Word for English speaking man."

BLAM! Lookie there. Mr. Ross just bombed big time! Of course, Paul didn't speak English! What kind of an idiot thinks that has to be stated?? The big problem here is that Ross is casting doubt (however slyly) on the SCRIPTURAL definition of inspiration. We'll get into that later, but this is something that I disagree on just about EVERYONE with, even Dr. Ruckman, who Ross, for some reason, believes that I follow. I follow no man but Christ, and Paul, because of his command to do so.

Basically, a God that could inspire men to WRITE His Book, and then NOT inspire those who translated It
is impotent and weak. Interesting "God" you have there, Ross. Why does the modern "IFB" (Independent Fundamental Baptist) mind have so much trouble wrapping itself around that? If He did it once, HE for dang sure can do it again! You limit the Holy One of Israel through your unbelief, ladies.

Ok, I'll shut up for now, but I'll probably be back...I like dropping little comments on him, and since he's a little more accountable now, he shouldn't be refusing them. Of course macho guy has to reply (that rhymes!) to make sure he looks smart and spiritual, so that'll give me something else to rant about.