Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Lee R. Martin" <lmartin AT vol.com>]

Dear Doug,
Point well taken.
I agree with your and Peter's concept of "default text."  What I object to is 
the
identification of "inspiration" with the "proto-Masoretic text," as Peter 
called it.
If he had omitted the word "inspired" I would have agreed with his post.  
Furthermore,
someone (I don't remember who) had said, "only the autographs are inspired."  
If that
is true, then we have no inspired Scripture.  2 Tim 3:16 suggests to me that 
the early
Christian community did not hold to such a view.  Since they used the Greek
translation as "Scripture" they apparently considered it to be "inspired."

Doug Kasten wrote:

> Lee,
>
> It seems to me that Peter's effort was to define a 'default' text, and
> not to focus on the nature of inspiration itself.  It seems also that he
> went some distance to keep a battle over the nature of inspiration OUT of
> the issue by putting quote marks around 'inspired' in his posting.

--

Lee R. Martin
Pastor, Prospect Church of God, Cleveland, Tennessee
Instructor in Hebrew and Old Testament
Church of God Theological Seminary
http://earth.vol.com/~lmartin/