So I shot a video tonight and my mic was not selected so the whole video was a waste and then summarily deleted. Rather than doing nothing I asked the machine (ChatGPT) to share a word on qualitative vs quantitative change in Scripture and the following are its rather adroit conclusions.
At StandardSacredText.com, we often encourage defenders of the Bible to grapple with deep and often overlooked philosophical distinctions to sharpen their understanding of Scriptural truths. Today, we turn to the topic of qualitative versus quantitative change and how these distinctions illuminate the ongoing debate over the inspiration of particular biblical texts.
In its simplest terms, quantitative change refers to a difference in amount—more or less of the same thing—while qualitative change refers to a transformation in kind, altering the nature or essence of the thing in question. Both categories of change are pervasive in our world, but when applied to the realm of Scripture, the implications become far more consequential.
Consider the statement: “God gave this verse by inspiration.” To affirm this is to assert a particular quality about the text, namely that it is God-breathed, perfect, and authoritative. Now consider its antithesis: “God did not give this verse by inspiration.” This is not merely a subtraction, as if removing one verse from a collection of inspired texts is akin to removing one apple from a basket. Instead, it represents a qualitative shift.
To claim that some verses of Scripture are uninspired is to introduce an entirely different category into our understanding of the Bible. It transforms Scripture from being wholly God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16) into a composite text—part divine, part human. This isn’t a matter of numerical reduction but of altering the very nature of what we mean by “the Bible.”
Imagine two Christians debating a contested verse: One asserts it is inspired; the other denies it. Is this disagreement simply a quantitative one, like disputing whether there are 39 or 40 apples in a basket? Or is it qualitative, questioning whether the basket itself contains pure apples or a mixture of apples and stones?
The implications are profound. A Christian affirming inspiration sees the verse as qualitatively distinct—it carries divine authority, unerring truth, and the breath of God. To deny that inspiration is to relegate the verse to a human product, fallible and subject to critique. The disagreement isn’t over “how many inspired verses” exist but over what kind of book the Bible is.
Quantitative shifts, such as variations in manuscript copying, are often cited as evidence against the doctrine of perfect preservation or inspiration. Critics argue that no two manuscripts are identical, implying a purely numerical, human problem with the text. But the defenders of the Textus Receptus and the KJV assert something radically different: that beneath these numerical variations lies a qualitative reality—the inspired, preserved Word of God as He gave it.
This debate extends beyond scholarly circles and into the pews. When believers are told, “This verse might not be inspired,” they are not merely losing one verse; they are being asked to accept a qualitatively different Bible. One that no longer reflects the absolute perfection of God’s Word but becomes a mosaic of divine truth and human error.
The defenders of the Textus Receptus and KJV insist on the qualitative integrity of Scripture. The inspired text is not a sliding scale, subject to the vicissitudes of scholarly consensus or textual criticism. It is, and must remain, the pure and unchanging Word of God.
So, the next time someone suggests that inspiration is a negotiable or partial quality of the Bible, remember that the shift they propose is not quantitative but qualitative. It is not merely a matter of less inspiration but of a fundamentally different kind of Scripture—one where divine certainty is replaced by human speculation.
And as we at StandardSacredText.com proclaim, 5+5 must equal 10, not 9.999. If God gave all Scripture by inspiration, then every word matters. A Bible partially inspired is no Bible at all.
Standard Sacred Text.com 
It was necessary for man’s salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: “The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee” (Is. 66:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man’s whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation.
LikeLike