How did the Bible writers get the exact information?

That was exactly my point.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Several years ago I read some Baptist writer who espoused the Mechanical Dictation view. That is, that God actually dictated the bible directly to the writers or otherwise told them what to put in.
Haven't heard this now in years. Does anybody here hold that view, has anybody ever heard of Mechanical Dictation, and does anybody know of someone who holds that view today?

 

The closest one was a guy named John R. Rice, but even he didn't promote true "mechanical dictation" but only what he called "verbal dictation."

 

I don't hold to that because you can see the writers personality coming through their pen..

If it were Mechanical Dictation only God's personality would show.

 

Tim,

How do you know what God's personality is? Through Scripture which was written by men, right? If this is true, then how could you possibly know what God's personality is unless it is mechanical dictation? Playing Mechanical advocate here, does not mean that this is what I believe.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Jesus refers to Moses several times as having written scripture, as in Jn 5.46

The sources may have varied for the writers, but all the words put down were inspired by the Holy Spirit and that is what matters most -- it is something we can count on because we know the words are from God.

BTW, two of you said "pigment" of the imagination. Don't you mean "figment" of the imagination?

 

Originally posted by Bro.Ruben

Why did they have to be present? I just did a search of the phrase "the word of the Lord came" and found that phrase about 34 times. Here are some of them:

1 Kings 6:11: And the word of the LORD came to Solomon, saying,

1 Kings 13:20: And it came to pass, as they sat at the table, that the word of the LORD came unto the prophet that brought him back:

1 Kings 18:1: And it came to pass after many days, that the word of the LORD came to Elijah in the third year, saying, Go, shew thyself unto Ahab; and I will send rain upon the earth.

1 Kings 21:17: And the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying,

2 Kings 20:4: And it came to pass, afore Isaiah was gone out into the middle court, that the word of the LORD came to him, saying,

1 Chronicles 11:3: Therefore came all the elders of Israel to the king to Hebron; and David made a covenant with them in Hebron before the LORD; and they anointed David king over Israel, according to the word of the LORD by Samuel.

Jeremiah 36:1: And it came to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, that this word came unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,

Jeremiah 42:7: And it came to pass after ten days, that the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah.

Ezekiel 3:16: And it came to pass at the end of seven days, that the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

Micah 1:1: The word of the LORD that came to Micah the Morasthite in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, which he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem.

Zechariah 7:1: And it came to pass in the fourth year of king Darius, that the word of the LORD came unto Zechariah in the fourth day of the ninth month, even in Chisleu;

It is obvious that the word of the Lord came upon these people--they did not need to be present at any occasion, they just needed to be obedient to the word of the Lord.

 

Mosos didn't write the pentateuch. The pentateuch was probably compiled at Moses' behest, but he did not write them. For exxample, Gen 1 and Gen 2 were written by different authors. The writing styles in Hebrew are noticeably different (that is much less clear in English translations). The authors were writing down accounts that had prior been handed down from generation to generation.
</font>[/QUOTE]Well, this is a strange theory, that an author can't have a different style from one chapter to another! As a matter of fact, in my first book I used a narrative/anecdotal style in the first two chapters and a theological/poetic style in my second two! If a novice writer like me could do that, a brilliant man trained in all the knowledge of Egypt like Moses could certainly do it!!

As for Moses writing the Pentateuch, Jesus thought he did, since Christ quotes and/or refers to the Penteteuch as by Moses many times in the Gospels. Luke thought Moses wrote it because Luke refers many times in the book of Acts to Moses, and of course Paul did, since you can find the same type of quotes all through Paul's writings. Hmmm--I think I'll take the word of Jesus, Luke and Paul over that of the higher critics of the Bible.

 

It isn't much of a leap to postulate that Moses likely did not author the last section of Deuteronomy describing his death and the Israelite reaction to it. </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for the little correction, Gold Dragon. Most conservative scholars will agree with this. I was, of course, referring to the JEDP theory of higher criticism.

 

This is an accurate statement, Humblesmith. Rice delineated his theory in Our God-Breathed Book, the Bible, in which he quotes several other theologians, such as Gaussen, who used the word "dictation" in relation to inspiration.

The term "mechanical dictation" was originally invented by liberals as a straw man to ridicule the conservative doctrine of verbal-plenary inspiration.

 

Amen on your reply to Johnv.

 

It isn't much of a leap to postulate that Moses likely did not author the last section of Deuteronomy describing his death and the Israelite reaction to it. </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for the little correction, Gold Dragon. Most conservative scholars will agree with this. I was, of course, referring to the JEDP theory of higher criticism. </font>[/QUOTE]We will probably disagree on JEPD theory and higher criticism. My view based on limited study is that there is strong internal textual evidence for redaction of the Pentateuch and Isaiah and other parts of scripture. For the Pentateuch, Moses may have redacted other sources or other folks redacted Moses work or something else entirely. There may have been a lot of redaction or only a little bit (only the last part of Deut). I believe that figuring all that out isn't necessarily as important as seeing that the final redacted form of the text is the inspired scriptures of God for all generations afterwards.

I believe redaction criticism is a valid and valuable methodology of studying the holy scriptures. However I consider it to be significally less valuable than folks like CBTS who consider redaction criticism to be the epitome of biblical studies.

 

A hearty AMEN!

 

Simply because some of the Biblical writers used sources and redacted them, that does not deny inspiration. Inspiration can and, I think, does come in many forms. I find the source theories of the Pentateuch generally convincing, overall, although some of the splitting of verses into J and E elements, for example, seems very unlikely. In the case of Isaiah, a number of years ago, intending to preach from Isaiah 58, I found that it was more relevant as preachable material to assume the general correctness of the multiple authorship theory than to get stuck in an Isaiah who predicts both the exile and the post-exilic period.

As for the Gospels, and the question of how the writers knew seemingly private events -- ancient tradition suggests that Luke interviewed Mary, Mark interviewed Peter, etc. It is true that "Q" is a hypothetical document, but let me tell you that anyone who has ever graded papers can readily recognize how writers copy one another without even knowing they are doing so! &lt;grin&gt; In fact, I have found that in Bible commentaries. But my real point is that a common source, evident throughout the Synoptic gospels, has been posited for a long time, is rather obvious, and does not contradict inspiration.

As for the idea that we should accept Mosaic authorship because Jesus "believed" it, let us remember that Jesus as a human being was a man of His time and did not have at His disposal the same linguistic tools we have today. If you want to say, "But He is omniscient", I have to say that the church has always taught that He is truly man as well as truly God, simultaneously, and that He suffered the limitations of time, space, the body, and information that we still deal with.

 

wow, nervy of you, Joseph.

You actually came in here and said "Jesus? Well, He didn't know what He was talking about....."

 

Perhaps Mary just made up the statement as recorded in Luke19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost! According to Mr. Smith, Luke interviewed Mary, and we all know how mothers are, they like to brag on their children! Woe is us! Woe is us! Woe is us!

 

Let me get this straight. You believe source theories that didn't even exist until German rationalism in the 1900's, over 2500 years after the fact, and have no historical data whatsoever to back them. But you deny the clear statements of our Savior, the Apostle Paul (a brilliant linguist and scholar trained in all the knowledge of his age), and other Biblical writers? (Not to mention Josephus and every single other scholar of the first century. Amazing how modern higher critics think first century Jewish scholars, writing a few hundred years after the fact, were stupid and ignorant! ) Strange!

I suggest you put away your higher critics and look at some conservative scholars. O. T. Allis, who knew some 40 different ancient languages, blows away the higher critical view of the Pentateuch in The Five books of Moses, and many conservative scholars have debunked the Deutero-Isaiah theory.

 

If you believe in inspiration, then there is most certainly a common source for the Gospels--the Holy Spirit! I certainly don't need the mythical Q to explain the similarities in the Synoptics! (Poor John--guess he couldn't find Q either! )

You are comparing the eternal Word of God to school tests, commentaries and the like. Surely you believe in the inspiration of Scripture, don't you? Then how can you think of it in this way? Is the Bible not unique?

 

We went through the higher critics' theories and had to research write two papers on it - one on the JEPD stuff and one on the Isaiah issue (that there was more than one author). I am glad I did this because it allowed me now to see that these theories have been refuted by many scholars adn that they don't hold water.

Many of these theories were based on what are now outdated archeological and historical information and speculation that is no longer valid, and has been invalid for some time. These old theories were proposed mostly by men who denied the supernatural hand of God.

John of Japan, your responses on this thread rock!