Inspiration of scriptures

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by russell55, Feb 3, 2004.

  1. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Could those of you who participate regularly here give us a summary of your view of what it means that scripture was "God-breathed"? Please don't just say "I believe in verbal plenary inspiration"--tell us what you mean by any theological terminology that you use. Let's start with the original manuscripts--explain your view of their inspiration first and then move on from there if you see the word "inspiration" as rightly applying to anything more than the originals.

    Its my wish to keep discussions of particular versions out of this thread and keep it sort of an informative thread only, so if you respond to someone else's post, could you make that response in the form of a question seeking specific clarification of someone's viewpoint?

    (And, "how can you possibly believe that, you nincompoop!?" is not the sort of clarifying question I'm seeking.)
     
  2. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe the inspiration of scriptures to be God’s superintending of human authors so that, using their own individual personalities, they composed and recorded without error in the words of the original autographs His revelation. The thoughts of scripture are inspired.

    Some people believe that divine inspiration equates to divine dictation. Others believe that the message it divinely inspired, but the actual words used are not.

    In the very least, all must accept a plenary view of scriptural inspiration (that is, that Scripture is complete in all respects). The plenary view asserts God's divine influence on the writers, by which they were qualified to communicate God's moral or religious truth with authority.

    Plenary inspiration (inspiration which excludes all defect in the utterance of the inspired message) differs from verbal inspiration (inspiration which extends to the very words and forms of expression of the divine message).
     
  3. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, so I agree with this so far. But I also think the words are inspired in that the particular words used are approved by the Holy Spirit as fitting to express the thoughts. Would you agree with this or not?
     
  4. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    I personally believe that the "thoughts" of scripture are completely inerrant. Human language however, as a vehicle, is incapable of holding God's truth absolutely. Consider Hebrew which is much more primitive gramatically and syntactically than Greek. Context sometimes has to determine the exact meaning of some Hebrew and Palestinian Aramaic constructions.

    As such I think that the bible is the "inspired word of God" as much as our pencil marks on paper can hold such a thing.

    Several corollaries:

    The original "autographs" are not MORE inspired than this - why would they be? Why would God inspire an "original" perfectly and then allow it to decay without being replicated?

    Having several different words here and there does not necessarily change the "essence" of the word and does not per se compromise the integrity of God's revelation.

    Different languages have different verbal systems in terms of time, aspect, person etc. If a passage was absolutely inspired in one language how could it be so in another since no 2 languages line up exactly?

    It is clear that God has promised to preserve His word. The Greek "logos" and Hebrew "emer/imrah" do not necessarily mean a literal written word - they often mean the essence of speech!

    Just look at the hundreds of angry posts back and forth about individual words in versions! Is this what God intended?? I think not!
     
  5. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not sure I understand this statement. How would you see this as fitting with Paul saying that the "writings" are "God-breathed."
     
  6. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    I believe that inspiration applies also to the words themselves (of the originals). Jesus talked about jots and titles which are letter/particles of the Hebrew language.

    "God-breathed" to me means that there was a filling of the Holy Spirit of the inspired writer so that the Spirit flowed throw the being of the writer motivating the thoughts and enlightening the mind and memory, while protecting from error as well (but not dictating as to a secretary).

    HankD
     
  7. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    How can I say this??

    When God "breathed" scripture, holy men spake as they were moved... The MEN spake.

    If I read:

    "Wayiqqtol YHWH pesel melekh"

    What is the translation of this? There are multiple possibilities.

    1. And God will kill the king of the idol.
    2. And God killed the king of the idol.
    3. And God will kill the idol of the king.
    4. And God killed the idol of the king.

    Human language is limited - agreed? God is NOT.
     
  8. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very interesting, I had never thought of it that way.
    I have never considered the limitation of human speech when thinking about versions.

    A simple, and I do mean simple illustration to this is humans communicating to dolphins. We have the better ability to communicate, (at least some of us lol)
    If we are communicating to a dolphin we must limit ourselves in what we "say" to them.
    The same way God had to limit what he told us.

    His ways are definately higher than ours.
    Some things for me to consider.
    Thanks a lot!!
     
  9. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think it's a necessary requirement for "inspiration of scriptures" to be so, no. I personally don't think the words written on paper can truly contain God's truth perfectly. The message, however, contained in the context of what is written, is completely inspired and inerrant.
     
  10. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, we know.
    Are you using your own thoughts to determine what is completely inspired and inerrant?

    Let me say that I believe in the inspiration of scripture, from the day they were first penned to 1611, which was the day the inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God was put in my language for me to read.

    Johnv, I highly recommend reading Foxes book of Martyrs and maybe then you'll see how men and women died defending those spritures that you believe are not God's truth perfectly.
     
  11. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Brother JohnV -- Preach it! [​IMG]

    To bad some will tie God's hand
    by limiting God's inspired
    and inerrant written word to one edition
    of one English version [​IMG]
    Fortunately God is bigger than some
    concieve of Him being.
     
  12. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    HomeBound:"Let me say that I believe in the inspiration of scripture, from the day they were first penned to 1611, which was the day the inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God was put in my language for me to read."

    Duh...the first complete English Bible translation distributed among the people, albeit illegal in the eyes of the RCC, was Tyndale's 1535 Bible, 90% of which was used in the AV 1611. Why was that Bible abandoned? What about the 10% not used for the AV?

    Tyndale translated the Scriptures into the most modern English of his time, and NOT the archaic English of the 1100s. And he indeed died for his work. The AV was made under the authorization of a king who hated the standers English Bible at the time, the Geneva Bible. Unlike Tyndale, the AV makers were honored and well-paid. They were so well-paid that they took their good ole country time in completing their work, lest they kill their cash cow.

    The KJVO seeks to LIMIT GOD, telling us that the BVs that followed the AV 1611 are not valid, much as KJ blasted the Geneva Bible, which was barely 40 years old at the time.
     
  13. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think my question wasn't stated as well as it should have been. This isn't really what I was asking about.

    Let me try it like this. You agree that God inspired the thoughts that are being communicated through the text. So what if one of those writers chose a word that he thought would help communicate that thought well enough, but it actually communitcated (to a reasonable person reading the text) something a little different than that? Did the guidence of the Holy Spirit prevent things like that?

    And any of you who don't believe inspiration extends to the words can answer that question, too. I'm curious....
     
  14. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does this mean that you don't think the texts as originally written by the authors of scripture were inspired?

    What relationship do you see the original manuscripts as having with the scripture penned in 1611? When you use the word "penned" to describe what the KJV translators wrote, are you suggesting they were not really translating, but writing something new, with no relationship to what was written before?
     
  15. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Everyone,

    Can we try really, really, really, hard to keep this from becoming the regular old standard to this forum KJV vs any other version conversation? It might involve ignoring things that are difficult to ignore, I know, but if something really eats at you, you could always start another thread. Thanks.
     
  16. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Another poster said recently that she did not serve a powerless God. Well put - neither do I!! The idea is that God has given us what He wanted us to have - that makes it sufficient!!

    When we read the words of scripture the Holy Spirit speaks to our hearts and thereupon are the verses written. It is the truth of scripture that is God's inspired word.

    Consider Matthew 12:1. The disciples were hungry so they were pulling off ears of corn and eating them and thus breaking the Sabbath. The Pharisees were upset because they broke the letter of the Law. Were the Pharisees ignorant of the LETTER of the law? Certainly not - they knew it by heart!! But Jesus basically says to them that they don't get it - they know not the spirit of the Law. Men were not made for the Sabbath!

    In addition whenever the OT is quoted in the NT the text reading is usually more similar to the LXX than the BHS (of today). These are not word for word the same!

    Regarding us today - we've got multiple English versions from which to choose. I personally like the KJV but most of the MVs are sound. The versions are a little different, the manuscripts are a little different, the LXX is a little different than the BHS. Thus we cannot assert that any particular version or manuscript or language is absolutely WORD FOR WORD inspired.

    Beware the leaven of the "Pharisees"!! They miss the forest for the trees.
     
  17. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Charles,

    Is your response to this question?

    If it is, I'm not sure I understand whether it is a yes or a no.... (Not trying to be snitty here, just trying to understand the various viewpoints.)

    Do you see any oversight (I'm not talking dictation here, but oversight) of the particular words used in the original text by the Holy Spirit?
     
  18. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Russell55

    I think that the scriptures contain the Word of God. Multiple words or letters here and there are a little different in different manuscripts - that's what happens when people copy stuff!

    I assert that the GOSPEL has not been altered. The KERYGMA is unchanged from version to version. There are some slight differences in places but none that affect salvation. There are many who would nit pick here but the point is clear. The GOSPEL is not changed. Why is it this way? I don't know but it is!!

    Regarding the guidance of the Spirit... A believer prayerfully reading will get the ESSENCE of the passage if he/she is open to it. Now if someone sits down and reads it and then goes and beats another believer over the head with a verse because he/she interprets it differently then I doubt that first believer had a correct frame of mind anyway!

    Paul said we see through a glass darkly now but...
    We'll never understand everything until we get there. But God WILL give us what we NEED. The other stuff theologians can debate! ;)
     
  19. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    :confused: This is not a KJVO topic. It's an inspiration definition topic.
     
  20. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is what inspiration in the Bible is not:

    God told the writers the exact letters to use to
    make the words AND to encode the hidden messages.

    Since inspiration is NOT like that, translations
    can also be "inspired by God" if they are faithful
    to God's meaning in the Bible.

    "Bible Codes" are an Abomination before God and
    using them to divine your future is a deadly.

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...