If the apographs were not inspired, how can we say that they are inerrant and infallible?
God has said that He would preserve His Word. How? In what form? we do not know. We merely accept God's word by faith, which is, btw, why we do not write dissertations on things which we do not know.
Words have meanings. Words must only mean what they say. Otherwise, they are useless.
The Scriptures in the "original languages" in Article 4.2.1 must only mean the autographs in order to claim verbal and plenary inspiration.
If "original languages" in Article 4.2.1 also describe the apographs, the dean is saying that the apographs were also verbally and plenarily inspired.
If that were so, then the Scriptures would have multiple inspirations because every time a copy is made in the original languages, it would have to be verbally and plenarily inspired.
And if the dean is right, then any ancient biblical text (apographs) found written in the Aramaic and Hebrew and Greek must be divinely inspired.
Why? Because they are written in the original languages.
And the irony is that these apographs would comprise the TR and other non-TR Greek manuscripts, including those used by Westcott and Hort (Yipes!)
After all, Westcott and Hort were accused of, found guilty and condemned by the dean (he being the accuser, jury and judge all in one) for leaving out words in their Greek NT Text. They were never accused of adding words!
But consider this: whatever Westcott and Hort did not have in the Greek NT Text, they did not have.
And whatever Westcott and Hort had in the Greek NT Text are similar to the parts that are found in other apographs. They are all in the original languages. Ergo: they must be inerrant and infallible.
Why? Because -- as the dean says -- they are in the original languages, what.
By a strange twist of logic, the dean of FEBC becomes the defender of his long departed enemies.
