Inspiration of the Bible

Inspiration establishes that the Bible is a divine product. In other words, Scripture is divinely inspired in that God actively worked through the process and had his hand in the outcome of what Scripture would say. Inspired Scripture is simply written revelation. "Scripture is not only man's word, but also, and equally God's word, spoken through man's lips or written with man's pen" (J.I. Packer, The Origin of the Bible, p. 31).

The term comes from Latin and English translations of the Greek word theopneustos in 2 Timothy 3:16. The KJV renders it "inspiration", while the RSV uses "inspired of God". However, the word literally means "God-breathed".

•Matthew 5:18
•Acts 1:16
•Galatians 3:16
•2 Peter 1:19-21 (ESV)
And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. - 2 Timothy 3:16 (ESV)

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

There are tyipcally four main views that are associated with the doctrine of Inspiration.

A common belief of neo-orthodoxy is its view of the utter transcendence of God. That is, God is so completely different and set apart from us that we cannot comprehend him apart from his revelation to us (this entails a rejection of natural theology). The issue appears when neo-orthodoxy is compared to Evangelicalism regarding what the title "Word of God" means. Proponents of neo-orthodoxy claimed the Word of God was God himself, and thus the Bible is a witness to the Word of God. As a witness, the Bible cannot be the Word of God (i.e. God is not the Bible), but the Bible still remains a mediator of the Word of God in some manner. Because the writers were finite and sinful, they were capable of error in their writings. Thus, while the writers of the Old and New Testament recorded their experiences and witness to revelation, their writings may contain errors. Problems with this account are raised when one understands that Scripture is God's Word (2 Tim 3:16) and that people were inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:20-21). They were not merely accounts of each person's experience with God.

Although not popular, the dictation theory is prevelant within some conservative Christian circles. This view expresses the belief that God simply dictated what he wanted to be written down. Therefore, all the author did was write down as he was told from God and the end product is the Word of God. Although Scripture does portray this idea (Jer 26:2; Rev 2:1,8), this is not the way all of it was written. At other times authors expressed their own personalities (Gal 1:6, 3:1; Phil 1:3, 4, 8) and the Holy Spirit still insured that the writings reflected God's desired outcome.

This view proposes that Scripture is inspired, yet it is limited to certain aspects. It affirms that God guided the writers, yet also allowed them the freedom to express their own thoughts regarding history and experiences they had. This allows the Bible to contain historical errors, yet, it is claimed that the Holy Spirit protected writers against any doctrinal error. Thus, the Bible may contain historical errors but it remains a reliable source of doctrine. Problems with this view appear in its rejection of the historical trustworthiness of Scripture. Archaeology has proven many biblical accounts (and even removed earlier difficulties) correct, and although the Bible is divinely inspired it also remains a historical document that contains accurate details. This view appears to easily conclude that errors may be possible within difficult passages whereas this is not the case.

The word plenary means "full" or "complete". Therefore, plenary verbal inspiration asserts that God inspired the complete text(s) of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, including both historical and doctrinal details. The word verbal affirms the idea that inspiration extends to the very words the writers chose. For example, in Acts 1:16 the Apostle Peter says "the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake" (KJV). Paul calls all scripture "God-breathed" in 2 Timothy 3:16 (referring to the Old Testament). Thus, the Holy Spirit guided the writers along (cf. 2 Peter 1:20-21) while allowing their own personalities and freedom to produce the Bible we have today. This view recognizes and asserts both the human and divine element within Scripture. This understanding has sometimes been compared and contrasted to the understanding of the two natures of Jesus.

In order to insure the clarity of what inspiration is and is not, the following four points should be helpful:

\1) The idea is not of mechanical dictation, or automatic writing, or any process which involved the suspending of the action of the human writer's mind. Such concepts of inspiration are found in the Talmud, Philo, and the Fathers, but not in the Bible. The divine direction and control under which the biblical authors wrote was not a physical or psychological force, and it did not detract from but rather heightened the freedom, spontaneity, and creativeness of their writing.

\2) The fact that in inspiration God did not obliterate the personality, style, outlook, and cultural conditioning of his penmen does not mean that his control of them was imperfect, or that they inevitably distorted the truth they had been given to convey in the process of writing it down. B.B. Warfield gently mocks the notion that, when God wanted Paul's letters written,

\3) Inspiredness is not a quality attaching to corruptions that intrude in the course of the transmission of the text, but only to the text as originally produced by the inspired writers. The acknowledgement of biblical inspiration thus makes more urgent the task of meticulous textual criticism, in order to eliminate such corruptions and ascertain what the original text was.

\4) The inspiredness of the biblical writing is not to be equated with the inspiredness of great literature, not even when (as is often true) the biblical writing is in fact great literature. The biblical idea of inspiration relates not to the literary quality of what is written, but to its character as divine revelation in writing.

If you are implying that the Bible is untrustworthy, I will have to disagree with you. I'll address your points, if it will help you to better know the value and authority of Holy Scripture.

God feeds the birds but he does not take it to the nests for them. In the same sense God inspired the Bible but he did not do the writing and translating, there are mistakes or there would be nothing to disagree about.

God gave the bird an INNATE ability (instinct) to know to build nests in the first place and which foods are best for them and then provides the food dependent on the regions where they live. In the same way, God gives to those who are believers the Holy Spirit and this is how we can understand the things of God - without which it would be foolishness to us (I Cor. 2:14). We hear and recognize the voice of our Shepherd, as well. That we have the texts in their original languages (thousands of manuscript copies going back to the early centuries), and language experts who are able to translate into English - for example - all the truths God has desired we know, there is no real reason to doubt what we have in the Bible today is lacking what God gave to us.

Even the apostles obviously made mistakes, Paul accused Peter of leaving the Gentiles and eating with the Jews, if it was true then both of them made mistakes, Peter for doing it and Paul for telling the world about it rather than going to Peter in private as Jesus said to do.

All men are fallible and do make mistakes as well as sin. The reason Paul rebuked Peter "to his face" was because he was publicly doing something that would have a huge effect on all Christians had he not been openly corrected. Paul did what had to be done and that incident established doctrine. He wasn't "picking on" poor Peter by trying to embarrass him in front of others. No doubt, had Paul made a similar error, Peter would have been urged to act the same. These men were APOSTLES. What they did and said had influence over all Christians. If you remember in Paul's letter to the Corinthians, he advised them to openly rebuke a member who committed gross sin (sex with his father's wife) and who had not been corrected or called to repentance. This doesn't contradict Jesus in any way because it was not just a simple problem between two people - it affected the entire church.

Also in Tim 2:8 Paul said to pray lifting up holy hands. What did Jesus say? Mat 6 5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Can you not lift up holy hands in your prayer closet? I've done it while praying all alone in my car. It is not something one does in order to appear pious or holy to others and is why we can do so even in worship with others. It is the attitude that counts. Jesus rebuked the religious leaders who made a show of praying in the temple square.

If you continue to have doubts about the reliability of Scripture, here is a good site to investigate all those "seeming" contradictions in the Bible Countering Bible Contradictions.

God bless you as you live for Christ and seek to know His word.

If you are implying that the Bible is untrustworthy,

No, I am not implying that at all.

You wrote
All men are fallible and do make mistakes as well as sin.

But then you make excuses for Paul telling the world Peters fault.

You wrote
The reason Paul rebuked Peter “to his face” was because he was publicly doing something that would have a huge effect on all Christians had he not been openly corrected. Paul did what had to be done and that incident established doctrine.

What Paul did wrong was to tell all about it in a letter.

But before he said anything in public he should have went to peter privately.

You wrote
These men were APOSTLES.

Yes, we all know that Peter was an apostle who Jesus chose but we only have Pauls word that he was an apostle.

You wrote
If you remember in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, he advised them to openly rebuke a member who committed gross sin (sex with his father’s wife) and who had not been corrected or called to repentance. This doesn’t contradict Jesus in any way because it was not just a simple problem between two people - it affected the entire church.

Actually I get the idea that Paul told them to get him out of the Church.

But they should go to him in private first because it would be a grave mistake to accuse some one of something and not be able to prove it or worse yet, to actually be wrong about it.

Paul could easily have been wrong about Peters action, it is so easy to think you know why some one is doing what they are doing and you may be a thousand miles off.

You wrote
Jesus rebuked the religious leaders who made a show of praying in the temple square.

Yes, that is why Jesus tells his followers not to make a big show of it.

It is amazing how people who believe in Jesus will use technical points to go ahead and do those things he warned us against,

I was at the altar one sunday night with my head bowed in prayer when two or three men came and started pounding on me and telling me to pray, i told them I was praying, they told me to shout it out.

I guess they thought that they needed to hear my prayer to God or maybe thought God is deaf but I do not see it that way.

I do not really need an explanation on this because this was almost fifty years ago, I know how people make a show of praying.

You wrote
If you continue to have doubts about the reliability of Scripture

I do not have any doubts about the reliability of the scripture and I think Paul uses good judgment on most things but my faith is in Jesus not Paul.

Jesus is Lord.
have a good good day.

But then you make excuses for Paul telling the world Peters fault. You wrote The reason Paul rebuked Peter “to his face” was because he was publicly doing something that would have a huge effect on all Christians had he not been openly corrected. Paul did what had to be done and that incident established doctrine. What Paul did wrong was to tell all about it in a letter. But before he said anything in public he should have went to peter privately. You wrote These men were APOSTLES. Yes, we all know that Peter was an apostle who Jesus chose but we only have Pauls word that he was an apostle.

I made no "excuses" for anyone. I only explained what Scripture already said concerning the incident between Peter and Paul. We don't know if there was a private talk between the two, but only what Scripture does say. It is spoken of by Paul in his letter to the Galatians and it was FOURTEEN years after Paul's conversion that this happened with Peter to whom Peter even asserted his ministry was to the Jews (the Circumcision) and Paul's was to the Gentiles:

When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

“We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.

“For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” (Galatians 2:11-21)

This is the only time we read of any kind of disagreement between Peter and Paul and there is no question that Paul was right and Peter admitted his error. You can read how big a deal this was in light of what Peter was found doing. This, by the way, was after he had been given the vision from God about nothing being unclean and God wanting the gospel preached to the Gentiles. There IS a reason God included this in Scripture - it was not just Paul's idea to humiliate Peter, God inspired him to include that IN Scripture and it taught a very important point. Nothing is in Scripture that doesn't have a reason to be in there.

As for Paul's apostleship, either you trust in Paul's saying so - II Tim. 1:1; Colossians 1:1; I Tim. 1:1; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; II Cor. 1:1; Titus 1:1; I Cor. 1:1; Romans 1:1 and Acts 14:14 (even calls both Paul and Barnabus Apostles) - or you have to toss out ALL he wrote if you decide he was just lying about it. If that is your conclusion, then you can't have much faith in any of the rest of Scripture either.

Actually I get the idea that Paul told them to get him out of the Church. But they should go to him in private first because it would be a grave mistake to accuse some one of something and not be able to prove it or worse yet, to actually be wrong about it. Paul could easily have been wrong about Peters action, it is so easy to think you know why some one is doing what they are doing and you may be a thousand miles off.

Paul wasn't even there in Corinth but had heard about the scandal which is why he wrote to the church at Corinth and admonished them for NOT dealing with the man and instead boasting over it! He told them:

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people - not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.” (I Cor. 5)

It doesn't sound like anyone there thought they SHOULD go to the man first in private! It sounds like they would have grown worse and worse as a congregation had Paul not stepped in to set them straight.

It is amazing how people who believe in Jesus will use technical points to go ahead and do those things he warned us against,

It certainly didn't start with Christians. The religious class of Judaism was doing that long before and was why Jesus often rebuked them for nullifying the word of God with their traditions. Did Jesus "go to them privately" or did he openly criticize them before others to make a point? As we can see in much of what Jesus taught, there is the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law". He is more concerned with the latter and he showed to those proud religious leaders that their outward shows of righteousness only made them whitewashed tombs full of stinking, decaying corpses.

My faith is also in Jesus Christ and not Paul OR Peter. These men wrote the words the Holy Spirit moved them to write and we can honor them because they practiced what they preached. They were in subjection to the word of God every bit as much as we are today.

Amen! Jesus IS Lord.

This is the only time we read of any kind of disagreement between Peter and Paul and there is no question that Paul was right and Peter admitted his error.

I see no place it being mentioned by Peter so it is just assumptions.

Jesus explains it very plain in Mathew 18

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

and there is no question that Paul was right and Peter admitted his error.>>>>>

There is a question in my mind and that is the fact that there is no recording of the account except after the fact and Paul is telling it to the Galatians.

How could Peter admit something that as far as we know he knew nothing about?

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church:

If this happened the way Jesus instructed his apostles then it would have been recorded in the church but why is it that Paul is the only one to know anything about it?

It has the sign of back biting to me, it is not what Jesus preached.

Where did Peter have a chance to defend himself? or was he even aware that it was said of him?

Paul wasn’t even there in Corinth >>>

That is true, Paul maybe got a letter on this matter which may indicate that the matter was rehashed in Church and it may have already started out in private, some of the members did not like the outcome of its end.

But since this was one of Pauls churches then maybe the above is not so.

As for Paul’s apostleship, either you trust in Paul’s saying so - II Tim. 1:1; Colossians 1:1; I Tim. 1:1; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; II Cor. 1:1; Titus 1:1; I Cor. 1:1; Romans 1:1 and Acts 14:14 (even calls both Paul and Barnabus Apostles) - or you have to toss out ALL he wrote if you decide he was just lying about it. If that is your conclusion, then you can’t have much faith in any of the rest of Scripture either.>>>>>

Acts 14:14 is the only scripture except for Paul and we don`t even know for sure who wrote it.

As for Paul’s apostleship, either you trust in Paul’s saying so>>>>>

or you have to toss out ALL he wrote if you decide he was just lying about it.>>>>>

No, I do not have to do that, although that may be your conclusion it is not exactly mine, that is why I said in my other comment that we might be a thousand miles off if we try to decide on the reason for the actions of some one else.

then you can’t have much faith in any of the rest of Scripture either.>>>>>

Just assuming again,

I could easily accuse you of having more faith and putting more stock in what Paul said than what Jesus said but I don`t really believe it.

As for either believing every thing or nothing about what Paul said I do not see it that way at all because on many things Paul makes a lot of sense, but he seems to be hostile to the Jews in general and also with out plainly saying so to make the 12 apostle that Jesus chose seem as nothing.

I am not a robot, I do not have to believe exactly as I am told, I have a mind of my own and if I can plainly see what I believe are contradictions in the scriptures, especially where Paul is concerned since he was the only one who made a big deal about his apostleship and still believe in the father, the son and the holy spirit then it gives me even more faith.

Peter DID acknowledge he was wrong>>>

Would you please show me the scripture where Peter said that.?

we only have a passage or two that even talks about it.>>>>

That is right, and some one is always pointing out that Paul rebuked Peter and the only reason they do this is because Paul is their apostle, although Peter happens to be one Jesus personally chose.

If peter made a mistake it is only fair to point out that Paul also made a mistake, but when Peter is accused it is gospel but if Paul is accused it is :oh no, it can not be: because scripture is inspired by God. what a contradiction.

It is ALL divinely-inspired and written for our edification.>>>>

Scripture was inspired by God but it was wrote by men and as you said men make mistakes.

All men are fallible and do make mistakes as well as sin.>>>

Fifty years ago I would argue that there were no contradictions but I have found many contradictions and feel the better for it because I realize the scriptures were wrote by real people and is not a fairy tale.

We can not have it both ways if Paul was guided by the holy spirit and could do no wrong then it would also be true of peter.

But any one who points out that Paul rightfully rebuked Peter can not believe that the apostles could not make mistakes.

So it appears to me that scripture is infallible only when it was Paul who wrote it.

There really ARE no “contradictions” in Scripture.>>>

I believe there are contradictions in Pauls writing at least and that any one who can not see them are considering the Bible written by angels or by God himself, and are afraid to admit it to them selves.

Jesus said that many false teachers would come and deceive the very elect if possible, so I think it wise to look into these things.

Well yes, I expected you to start making it about me instead of the scriptures.

It's not making it personal when I try to summarize what I am hearing from what you have said. I apologize if I have given you the impression I'm attacking you. I most certainly am not.

I point out a few things Paul said or did that I believe contradicts what Jesus said but the way you ignore or put it off makes me wonder, was Jesus just a forerunner of Paul?

But I've NOT put off anything dear ravenwolf. I have tried to answer all your concerns with what I know about Scripture. I don't know why you keep coming back to saying I am glorifying Paul. You want to indict Scripture as having "many" contradictions and you give this incident with Peter and Paul as an example of one. If, as you concluded, Paul was wrong by publicly rebuking Peter instead of going to him privately as Jesus said, then explain why Jesus PUBLICALLY rebuked Peter several times. Is Jesus a sinner, too? A hypocrite? Are there not times when a public rebuke MUST be done?

Scripture was written for our benefit and I don't believe ANYTHING that is in there - of all the other millions of other words and actions - is there by accident. Was Paul a sinner? Yes. Was Peter? Yes. Are we all? Yes, all have sinned. I have said this before but it seems you haven't seen it. It is in Jesus alone that we have our being and He is our redeemer and King. All things were made by Him and for him and in Him all things consist. Neither Peter nor Paul will ever suffice.

Was Paul a sinner? Yes. Was Peter? Yes. Are we all? Yes, all have sinned. I have said this before but it seems you haven’t seen it

Yes, I have seen it and i see it exactly the same way, that is what my first comment to you was about, read it again.

You don`t seem to mind me saying that Peter may have made a mistake but you seem to put Paul in a different category.

then explain why Jesus PUBLICALLY rebuked Peter several times. >>>>

Because Peter was publicly speaking to Jesus, Peter was saying things to Jesus in the presence of the other apostles, a completely different matter.

Also you mentioned Jesus talking about the religious leaders, they were not brothers in the faith and also Jesus did not make it personal by naming names.

So my only question to you would be that if you agree with Paul that Peter was wrong why can`t you admit that Paul may also have been wrong.

Also you said that Peter admitted he was wrong, if he did I would like to see the scripture.

But still I have no doubt that you are a believer even if you don`t see it the same way I do.

And yes our salvation is in Jesus alone.

On what basis do you pick and choose?

I for one am not qualified to answer a question that could not be answered even by the chosen apostles.

The reason I say that is because it is hard to find two people that agree on every thing and exactly agree on any thing, and we all read the same scripture.

So is it just us or were the writers of scripture merely human beings who had their own ideas and could make mistakes?

I believe the Bible is God inspired but I also believe the Apostles had their own ideas of how to build the Church and preach the Gospel.

The message of Jesus is the important thing.

We believe that Jesus is the son of God and that he was crucified and rose the third day, or if it was the second day or the fourth day matters not to me.

Some people believe we are saved by faith alone, others believe that if we have faith it will be shown by our works, I am kind of in this opinion myself and I will confess it puts me in not so good a light.

People will say that there are no contradictions, then why are there so many disagreements just because one person is reading a scripture by Paul and some one else reading a scripture written by James?

I am sure some one will tell us that we are not rightly dividing the word, but still I believe the Apostles had their way of saying things just like we do and they might or might not have agreed on every thing.

What they did agree on was the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus.

I believe if we think there is a contradiction we need to read what the Lord himself had to say about it, not what he did or told some one else but what he said to us in general.

John3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting life.

John 6
38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

So regardless of what I think about faith being shown by works this is what Jesus said.

Paul told timothy to drink a little wine for the stomachs sake but does that have any thing to do with my salvation?

I don`t think so, and there are many other scriptures of the same type.

I believe the Apostles were sent to spread the gospel to the world and this is what they did and this they agreed on and the gospel are the words Jesus spoke.

So it maters not that the Apostles had a few differences, and incidentally Paul was accused of not being an Apostle at the time of his writing, not by the Apostles but probably by the people in Asia and this was spread to the Corinthian church because Paul was defending himself to them.

On what basis do you pick and choose?>>>>>

I believe if there is any doubt, the words Jesus spoke are the only ones needed.

>>>The books known as the Apocrypha, however, are not the inspired Word of God in any sense whatsoever. <<<

Some of the Apocryphal books were part of the King James 1611 version for over 250 years. Many commentaries reference them, such as Matthew Henry's commentaries. In particular Henry referenced 1 Maccabees in his commentary on the Maccabean revolt in Daniel 11 & 12 to explain, in part, the first "abomination of desolation" that occurred during the tyranny of the Syrian, Antiochus IV, about 170 BC. You can see some of Henry's references to 1 Maccabees in the following links:

http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/matthew-henry/Dan.11.21-Dan.11.45
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/matthew-henry/Dan.12.5-Dan.12.13

Some others over the years who make use of the Apocrypha for the book of Daniel are:

Calvin, John: Commentaries by John Calvin, 16th Century (b1509-d1564))
Gill, John: John Gill’s Old Testament Commentary, 18th Century (b1697-d1771)
Newton, Sir Isaac: Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St John, 1733
Clarke, Adam: Commentary on the Whole Bible, pub. 1810-1832
MacDonald, James M: The Coming of the Lord - A Key To The Book of the Revelation, 1846
Lee, Samuel: Inquiry into the Nature, Progress, and End of Prophecy Book I, 1849
Stuart, Moses: Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 1850
Fairburn, Patrick: Prophecy, 1866
Keil & Delitzsch: Biblical Commentary on the Books of the Prophet Daniel, 1872
Cowles, Henry: Ezekiel and Daniel with Notes, 1875
Gray, James Comper: The Biblical Museum - Old Testament Vol 10 - Daniel Minor Prophets, 1876
Lange & Schaff: Commentary on the Old Testament Vol XIII - Ezek Daniel; 1876
Desprez, Philip S: Daniel and John or The Apocalypse of the Old and that of the New Testament, 1878
Ewald, Heinrich: Commentary on Haggai Zechariah Malachi Jonah Baruch Daniel - 1881
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown: A Commentary - Old Testament Vol II - Proverbs to Malachi, 1884
Farrar, F W: The Book of Daniel, 1895
Terry, Milton S: Biblical Apocalyptics, 1896
Smith, Uriah - Daniel and the Revelation - 1897
Cobern, Camden M: Commentary on The Old Testament Vol III Ezekiel & Daniel, 1901
Swete, Henry Barclay: An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 1914
Howie, Carl G: The Laymans Bible Commentary Vol 13 - Ezekiel & Daniel, 1961

Philip

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.