How much of a role?

Divine revelation given to men without the errors and corruptions made by men. Each language having its root in the Chaldean.

God keeps his word in pefect harmony/ man corrupts the word of God by his failure as if to grant himself some privilege God never did.:godisgood:

 

Huh??

 

Wisdom can be difficult to discern.
Sals posts are more understandable if you use the Yodaspeak translator

********************

Scripture does have an incarnational character (fully God and fully man) but it’s not a perfect analogy.

Rob

 

Is this you're "Which version today" face?

 

So you think Jesus being fully God and fully man has some imperfections to it?:laugh: You so think fully God and fully man imperfections some has it to Jesus being?

 

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=verdana,sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=verdana,sans-serif] [/FONT]

Ed

 

God's Word never confuses me. It may at times convict, console, direct, (and a multitude of other verbs) me, but it never confuses, because God is not the author of confusion.

Now man' s words, that's a whole other story.

 

This is not Paul giving his opinion. When he writes "I, not the Lord," he means he is not quoting or appealing to OT scriptures.

Moreover, his words are inspired by the Holy Spirit, so his statement is not just his "opinion." It is from the Lord, but it is not from the Jewish scriptures.

 

Hey it almost makes sense!

To men without the errors and corruptions made by men divine revelation given. Each language having its root in the chaldean.

To grant himself some privilege god never did god keeps his word in pefect harmony/ man corrupts the word of god by his failure as if. Yeesssssss.:laugh:

 

That seems a very liberal interpretation. I do not see where Paul says, "This is the Lord speaking" that it is quotes from the Old Testament. Can you enlighten me on this?

 

OK, but when God cast you down to earth don't say you haven't been warned.

 

I did not come up with this. I read it in a commentary and also heard it explained this way, but it escapes me exactly where and from whom. I know these were credible sources or I would not repeat it. It also makes sense in the context of what Paul is saying and in the context of the NT.

I will try to find a resource that explains this view and post it.

 

Deleted based on mistaken verse.

 

Btw, I got thrown off on my research looking at 1 Cor 7.6 as it was cited earlier (wrongly). The verse in question is actually 1 Cor 7.12:
But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.

It seems to be in contrast to verse 10:
But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband


Here is one commentary:

Source: http://www.blueletterbible.org/comm...ontentID=8004&commInfo=31&topic=1 Corinthians

From Matthew Henry:

The first commentary is closest to what I was recalling.

 

Here's another comment on both verses 10 and 12. This is an excerpt - the whole comment is somewhat longer.

(Emphasis added)

I was recalling it as Paul saying it was not from OT scripture but actually it seems he's saying it was not explicitly taught by Jesus as was the commandment in verse 10. Nevertheless, this is a teaching now being given under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit although it is not something explicitly taught by Jesus as was the instruction given in verse 10.
There is absolutely no basis for claiming this is Paul giving his own private or personal view here.

 

Here is the source for what I posted above. I tried to go back and put it in, but it wouldn't let me.

http://www.challies.com/archives/articles/i-not-the-lord.php

 

This is totally taking something out of context! We are not talking about Jesus being only God, but the Bible being fully a work of God!

This view of the Bible as being totally from God is not docetism, which was a view that denied that Jesus was in a real human body. That has nothing to do with the question on the Bible.

I think David's emotions were real, but he was directed or led by the Spirit to record what he recorded. Therefore, although God used David (and other writers), this was all God's initation and words. The process is beyond our comprehension. If all the words are not from God, but only partly from God, then we do not have an inerrant scripture.

When we try to dissect something like this (or salvation or the incarnation), we end up in murky theology because this has to do with God's nature which we cannot fully explain or understand (though we have enough revelation to know who God is and to know what we need to know).