Featured Are there any inspired translations today?

I think I may have misunderstood your point with my earlier reply. Your comment does seem to be addressing the original writers whereas I was speaking of Scribes. But I do see your point.

I disagree not that God "moved" the writers to record Scripture, but that God determined the exact words that those being moved (actively) wrote. John, for example, wrote what he saw. I don't think that God said "Now..write 'I saw...'". While inspiration is always active on the part of God, I do not believe that the result is that we can consider each word to have been chosen by God to express what God was revealing.

 

Dude....you keep saying the same thing as if your opinion proves it.

We can disagree, but you have to stop saying stuff as if coming from your fingers makes it true.

 

The problem is that the inspiration used was not verbal plenary type!

 

Why?

 

Then please provide someone who also believes that Jesus was not referring to the OT but was referring to gospels and epistles yet unpenned when He referred to Scripture.

It would not really matter because I did provide people who hold my view (Martin Luther, for example) and that is no real authority. But I am very interesting in reading how your idea is supported.

 

Why not? If God chose the exact words that these men would use and they had nothing to do with the communication then why would God use their mannerisms?

 

No, I seriously doubt it. Most evangelicals (in my experience anyway....we really can't speak for the "most" part) seem to believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. This is true of the Reformed Church also. John Calvin and Martin Luther both viewed inspiration as God's revelation to man, but written by human's in their own words to communicate what was given.

Your view of inspiration is not, however, foreign to evangelical faith. It has become more popular due to liberal theology.

BUT your view that Jesus was speaking of Scripture yet to be recorded, and Paul was writing to Timothy of Scripture yet to be recorded, not only seems strange and invented but it is also foreign to Christian theology (Reformed and evangelical) as far as I know.

That idea of yours is the most interesting. Just provide ONE source stating that Paul was telling Timothy that all future Scripture is inspired but all past Scripture is just infallible.

 

This is inconsistent. You first said that you affirm verbal plenary, but now you say the opposite (that each writer "expressed themselves based upon their vocabulary and styles".

Make up your mind, brother.

 

I did not misquote you. This is what YOU posted and I quoted:

Yet Paul and Jesus were not referencing yet unwritten Scripture. Granted, these are included.