How much of Scripture is inspired?

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

So it's in the same boat with KJ2000. Right?

Yes, all three-- the KJV, the NKJV, and the KJV2000-- are all in the boat as far as the manuscript evidence is concerned. All are based on the TR. Some words-- relatively few-- have no basis in the Greek Mss. Most editions of the NKJV will show in the notes how it differs from the Majority Text and the Critical Text.

Thanks

[Guest]

>>Actually it was 2:00 AM when I said that. There's 3 hours between us<<

My mistake, my 'puter clock had already switched to daylight savings.

I logged out shortly after and per my custom - left for supper.

So you eat a late supper eh? I tend to do that myself.

[Guest]

Doesn't Mr. Murphy give good backrubs? That would put me to sleep!

He don't do back rubs.

[jasd]

>>the personality and personal problems of the various editors shouldn't be an issue since all the evidence is available for comparison and study.<<

Then, a person ought not to have a problem with whoever contributed - to our texts, yes?

What do you think of how texts based upon the N-A or WH text - treat "begotten" in the NT?

[John317]

What do you think of how texts based upon the N-A or WH text - treat "begotten" in the NT?

Except for John 1: 18, the underlying Greek text is the same in those verses in both the TR and the WH. You're apparently asking about the translations, which is different from the printed Greek texts that the translations are based on.

Are you talking about the translations that read, "one of a kind," or "only son"?

[jasd]

Re above:

John317, I posted precipitously, as I was in a rush to drop the post and return my rented DVDs before the late fine kicked-in. Having done so, did errands and Burger King, dropped by the neighbours - I return to find that

I cannot remember the point I was going to make.

It will come...

note: you're right in that they both work off of

MONOGENHS

[John317]

note: you're right in that they both work off of

MONOGENHS

Am I right to assume that you are firmly convinced the only correct translation is "only begotten"?

I'm fine with "only begotten" or "only Son," since correctly understood, they are both (I believe) saying the same thing.

[Guest]

Revising of Ellen White's View.

Some Adventist scholars subtly suggest that while the

Bible is infallible in matters of salvation, the same cannot be said bout the factual, historical, or scientific accounts in Scripture. An Adventist historian who offers a nuanced endorsement of Inspiration even goes so far as to make Ellen G. White a party to his own "moderate stance on inspiration," which he also terms a "common-sense flexibility on inspiration." Without any

shred of support from Ellen White and contrary to what she unambiguously asserted in several places in her works, he popularizes his revisionist reinterpretation of Ellen White's

position: "The Bible, she held, was infallible in the realm of salvation, but it was not infallible or inerrant in the radical sense of being beyond any possibility of factual difficulties or

errors"! One searches in vain for such a statement from Ellen White.

[Guest]

The Genesis Account. In the same spirit of distinguishing between the Bible's theological statements as infallible and the accompanying historical facts as debatable, a contributor to

the book, The Welcome Table, uses "sanctified imagination" to assert: "First we need to make clear what Genesis 2 is and what it isn't. It is a story of beginnings, a story to instruct and

even entertain, told in such a fashion as to be easily remembered and retold. It is not history or science." In other words, we cannot always trust the historical or scientific accuracy of Genesis 2.

Also, contrary to the Bible's clear teaching that Adam was a male, this writer states: "Even though we may deduce that the first human being was a male being, the storyteller does not specifically say so." She suggests that Adam is presented as "an androgynous being" (i.e. bisexual)!

The obliteration of gender differentiation in Genesis 2 is only a few steps away from positing homosexuality or bisexuality in the first created pair. And since human beings were created in God's image, if Adam was "an androgynous being" does it not mean that God also is androgynous? One wonders what is really behind the gender-inclusive reconstructions of the Bible: "Son of God" becomes "Child of God"; "Son of Man" becomes "Human one"; "our heavenly Father" becomes "our heavenly Parent." Is this also the reason why an Adventist author promotes the Holy Spirit as the female member of the Godhead and repeatedly refers to the Creator as "He/She"?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Are you writing this or are you taking it from a book?

[Guest]

I wish I could say I'm writing it, but no it is Samuel Pipim from Africa.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

then maybe you should be crediting him with the writing...I thought we were supposed to do that if we copied someone else's work...

[Guest]

I think most people know who it is. I surely don't take credit for it.

[Gail]

I would appreciate knowing :)

[Guest]

This whole thread is a book by: Samuel Koranteng Pipim, called "Receiving the Word"

[Guest]

I named the thread after the first chapter, thinking that was all I would post.

[Guest]

The New Testament Use of the Old.

Scholars highlight the alleged distortion of the biblical message when they express their views on how New Testament writers used the Old Testament. They maintain that, using rabbinic methods current in their times, the writers of

the New Testament sometimes read back into Old Testament passages meanings that were foreign to the original meaning. This implies that we cannot always trust the New Testament writers, since they allegedly took texts out of context and imposed their own meanings upon them.

Apparently believing that he understands the Old Testament better than the apostle Paul did, one author maintains that Paul misused Isaiah 64:4 in his quotation of 1 Corinthians 2:9: "It appears Paul used Old Testament verses out of context on occasion as he wrote in the New Testament!" Similarly, others suggest that though the inspired writer Matthew cited Isaiah 7:14, Hosea 11:1, and Jeremiah 31:15 as prophecies in connection with Jesus's birth, childhood, and flight to Egypt to escape Herod's massacre, each of the Old Testament verses was "not intended as a prophecy at all." In other words, Matthew used the Old Testament out of context.

What makes these authors think they have a better understanding of the Old Testament than the inspired writers of the New Testament had?

[John317]

I would appreciate knowing

With Richard's permission, I'll give the author credit on the first post.

[Gail]

Cool- thanks!

[Guest]

Sure, go ahead.

[Guest]

Do you like it so far Gail?

[John317]

OK, done! :-)

[Guest]

Alleged Contradictions in Parallel Accounts.

Another effort to undermine the trustworthiness of Scripture is the suggestion that there are discrepancies or contradictions in

parallel accounts of the Bible. The euphemistic term often employed is "diversity" or "differences" in Scriptures. For instance, one teacher and Adventist university chaplain cites as an "obvious example" of "theological contradictions in the Bible" the apparent discrepancy between 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 a point that is also made in Inspiration. In Chapter Ten we shall show that the so-called "theological contradiction" does not reside in the biblical texts, but rather in the imagination of scholars conditioned by the

historical-critical methodology.

Similarly, an Adventist New Testament scholar employs redaction criticism (an aspect of the historical-critical method) in his book, Luke, A Plagiarist? He attempts to show that the gospel writers performed major "surgery" on the sayings of Jesus which they reported. Differences between parallel accounts in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the result of these writers' editorial genius in deliberately introducing some "minor" or "even more radical"

"discrepancies" or "changes" into their sources (the actual teachings of Christ). The author explains that "each change makes a contribution to what the writer is saying about Jesus."

Thus, two of his chapter titles are: "Small, Unimportant Changes" and "Large, Important Changes."

Unlike the publishers of Inspiration, who apparently did not recognize that the book was the product of historical-critical viewpoints, the publishers of Luke, A Plagiarist?

judiciously included a disclaimer: "The purpose of this book is to investigate a concept of inspiration not generally held by most Seventh-day Adventists. . . . This book does not represent an official pronouncement of the Seventh-day Adventist Church nor does it necessarily reflect the editorial opinion of the Pacific Press Publishing Association." In any case, both historical-critical works from Adventist publishing houses suggest that differences

in parallel accounts in the Bible constitute contradictions.

In a similar fashion, the author of Inspiration, building his "incarnational view of inspiration" on alleged discrepancies in Scripture (technically referred to as the "phenomena"

of Scripture), writes: "Certainly the differences between the two editions of the decalogue (Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5) suggest that we do not know precisely what came from God's finger when he inscribed the law on tables of stone, yet we would certainly say that the decalogue is 'revelation.'" He also maintains that "the gospel writers could differ from one another in their recording and interpreting of Gospel traditions, being more concerned about

practical application than absolute historical precision." The coded message is that we may not always rely on the accounts of Moses and the gospel writers as fully trustworthy. If the content of the Ten Commandments cannot be known precisely, on what basis was

Paul led to declare the law "holy, and just, and good" (Rom 7:12)? And how can human beings be expected to obey a law of which they are not sure?

Many more examples can be cited to show how higher-critical assumptions are shaping the views of some regarding the reliability or trustworthiness of parallel biblical accounts. The allegation that there are two different, even contradictory, creation accounts (Gen 1 and 2) and flood narratives (Gen 6-9) provides two more examples that are often cited. But the above are enough to illustrate our point.

Notice the three major implications of maintaining that the differences in parallel accounts are contradictions. First, it suggests that today's scholar may use historical-critical principles

of interpretation to determine the factual trustworthiness of biblical accounts. Second, attempts by Bible-believing Adventists to harmonize apparent discrepancies in parallel accounts of Scripture are often dismissed as "proof-text" method. Third, since in the Bible we supposedly find evidence of inspired writers holding contradictory views, the Adventist church should allow "diversity" of views (i.e., contradictory theologies) in the church. This is

the recipe for theological pluralism, which holds that conflicting theological views are legitimate and must be allowed to cohabit in the same church.

[Guest]

A Bible-Believing Adventist Response

How should Bible-believing Seventh-day Adventists respond to such an approach? Proponents of the historical-critical method claim that "objectivity in exegesis [interpretation]" and not "proof-text subjectivity" is the goal of biblical study. Yet their approach is a true expression of "proof-text subjectivity." For instead of exegesis (reading out of the text what is already there), they practice eisegesis (reading into the text what was not originally there). Instead of a faithful exposition of the biblical text, they make an imposition on the text, as we have shown in the several preceding pages. How can the historical-critical method be "objective" when speculation overshadows evidence and when twentieth-century liberal assumptions reduce the inspired message to a mere reflection of the scholars' own ideological convictions? To the extent that it does this, the historical-critical method is the

worst kind of proof-texting.

[jasd]

>>This whole thread is a book by: Samuel Koranteng Pipim, called "Receiving the Word"<<

Not entirely so, good fellow. There are a few posts in this thread, wherein czar jasd – opines

– no small matter, guy.

>>"obvious example" of "theological contradictions in the Bible" the apparent discrepancy between 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 a point that is also made in Inspiration.<< [/ed.jasd]

Ahh, the author diverges from a seeming soliloquy to ‘textual’ criticism, hmm? …and who/what is “Inspiration”?

>>…the so-called "theological contradiction" does not reside in the biblical texts, but rather in the imagination of scholars conditioned by the

historical-critical methodology.<< [ed.jasd]

Ahh, gee shucks, it was just a simple segue - to facilitate diminishing the “scholars”. Okaayyy, mind, I think those “scholars” sometimes carry things too far; however…

>>Unlike the publishers of Inspiration,<<

Again with the “Inspiration”. Is it the title of another work by Pipim?

>>"Certainly the differences between the two editions of the decalogue (Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5) suggest that we do not know precisely what came from God's finger when he inscribed the law on tables of stone, yet we would certainly say that the decalogue is 'revelation.'"<<

To the above we might add Exodus 34, yes? Per “the Decalogue is ‘revelation.’” – indeed, as found silver? …bearing in mind that usually ‘found’ silver tends to be corroded.

>>And how can human beings be expected to obey a law of which they are not sure?<<

If it ‘written’ on their hearts?

>>…attempts by Bible-believing Adventists to harmonize apparent discrepancies in parallel accounts of Scripture are often dismissed as "proof-text" method.<<

Whoo boy! I know, …I get that “proof-text” thingee, a lot! especially from those same aforementioned in the above.

(Oh, just being adversarial)