How much of Scripture is inspired?

[Guest]

I guess it always will be...

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I thought nothing was supposed to be added or taken away from the Bible. The comma johanneum was added.

NTMOMITF

[Guest]

As long as YOU didn't add it, there's nothing to worry about.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

wrong answer, but that's okay

[Guest]

What's the right answer?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I already said that nothing should be added or taken away from the Bible. The comma johanneum was added in the 16th century by Erasmus. What if other things have been added that we don't know about?

[Guest]

That's what this book is about.

[Guest]

Saving Acts vs. Factual Statements.

As we pointed out in Chapter Five, Part III, some scholars suggest that we can accept the Exodus miracle but that the exact number of people involved in the Exodus is not that crucial; they claim that there was a miraculous flood in Noah's day but that it was less than a universal event. In effect, these scholars suggest that in

Scripture some things are "essential" and others are "debatable."

Their model for biblical inspiration allows for human imperfections in the "lesser matters" of Scriptures. Can we make a distinction between theological statements of God's saving acts and their

accompanying historical descriptions? Is there a dichotomy between true doctrine and true science?

For example, can we separate the theology of creation (the "who" of creation) from the scientific issues (the "how" and the "how long" of creation)? Can we separate the miracles of the exodus from the actual number of people who left Egypt and the biblical dating of that event?

On what basis do we accept one and not the other? Bible writers make no such distinction between saving acts and the historicity of the

details. Some 400-500 years after the events of Moses' day, later Old Testament writers reaffirmed their historicity (see, for example, Ps 105; 106; Isa 28:21; 1 Kings 16:34).

The New Testament writers, more than a thousand years after the events, trusted even the smallest details of the Old Testament narratives. They wrote about detailed aspects in the Old

Testament accounts of Abraham, Rebecca, and the history of Israel (Acts 13:17-23; Rom 4:10, 19; 9:10-12; 1 Cor 10:1-11). They gave a detailed description of the Old Testament sanctuary (Heb 9:1-5, 19-21), the manner of creation (Heb 11:3), the particulars of the lives of Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Rahab and others (Heb 11; 7:2; James 2:25), Esau (Heb 12:16-17), the saving of eight persons during the universal flood (1 Pet 3:20; 2 Pet 2:5; 3:5,6), and the talking of Balaam's donkey (2 Pet 2:16), etc.

Moreover, Jesus, our example, accepted the full trustworthiness of the Old Testament accounts, making no distinction between history and theology. For example, He believed in the historicity of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah's universal flood, and Jonah's story

(Matt 19:4, 5; 23:35; 24:38, 39; 12:40).

On the basis of the Scriptures, Bible-believing scholars make no dichotomy between so-called "essential" and "debatable" aspects of Old Testament saving acts. They do not claim to be more Christlike than Christ, or more apostolic than the apostles, in their use of

Scripture. Like their Savior, they accept every historical detail--chronology, numbers, events and people--as a matter of faith and practice.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

That's what this book is about.

Sorry, but it's been too wordy for me to get much out of it. Too bad, too, because it's a great subject and would have been very interesting to me if written in a different way.

[Guest]

Some of his sermons are on the topic. You could listen, but he has a pretty severe South African accent.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

No...I'm just going to have to find a good book about it that's readable for me. Thanks, though.. :smile:

[Guest]

Diminishing Scholarly Distortions

We have mentioned that moderate liberals' distortions of the Word arise from their viewing evaluation as part of interpretation of the biblical text. By imposing their ideological assumptions on the Bible, such scholars reject as unreliable, mistaken, or erroneous the parts

of Scripture which do not conform to their presuppositions.

In a later chapter, Receiving the Word will address some of the problem passages which historical-critical scholars often cite as untrustworthy. Here, however, we shall state some key principles for Bible-believing Adventists to remember whenever they are confronted with apparent errors, contradictions, or mistakes in the Bible.

The following principles are based on the fact that the Bible is both human and divine.

This mysterious union finds a fitting analogy in the Person of Jesus Christ at his incarnation. Just as Christ was fully divine even in His humanity, so Scripture is of divine origin though written by human hands. This truth should caution us against hastily ascribing mistakes or contradictions to the Bible writers.

[karl]

I already said that nothing should be added or taken away from the Bible. The comma johanneum was added in the 16th century by Erasmus. What if other things have been added that we don't know about?

I guess if that may have happened, the only thing left to do is cash in on all of this Christ-consciousness racket and become closet infidels?

Reminds me of the security people at the airport. They used to ask, "Has anyone done anything to your luggage without your knowledge?" Well, if it was done without my knowledge, I wouldn't know about it, would I?

[John317]

I already said that nothing should be added or taken away from the Bible. The comma johanneum was added in the 16th century by Erasmus. What if other things have been added that we don't know about?

I'm comparing about 15 different Greek texts word for word along with their manuscript evidence, and I can assure you that the comma johanneum is not the only verses that were added to the Bible. See, for instance, John 5: 4. There were many changes made by editors, as well. For example, 1 Cor. 10:9. Some manuscripts read "Lord," while the majority as well as the oldest read, "Christ." At least one manuscript reads, "God."

Actually, as far as 1 John 5: 7 is concerned, there is some evidence that it may have been an original part of John's letter but that it was removed for a while, then worked its way back in.

Both in the Old and the New Testaments, some things that were initially written in the margins became part of the main body of the text.

Despite these things, the Bible is reliable and worthy of our confidence. There's no other ancient book as well attested by manuscript evidence as is the Bible. God protected the Bible from being corrupted with false teachings. 1 John 5: 7 may well have been added but that verse doesn't teach anything that is not supported by the rest of Scripture. My study of the Bible gives me confidence that we can say the same about the entire book. I don't know of a single doctrine of the Bible that is changed by either the addition or subtraction of the variants found in its pages.

[teresaq]

I'm comparing about 15 different Greek texts word for word along with their manuscript evidence,

wow, thats interesting. how does one get these manuscrpts? are they online? i guess comparing the words wouldnt be that difficult since it would be mostly comparing the letters of the words, but i would be interested in checking out manuscripts myself.

[Guest]

John can read the Greek. (Greek scholar)

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Lots of people can read Greek. I can't but lots of people can.

[Guest]

1. A Divine Document.

As a divine document the Bible shares in the unquestionable, supreme, and infallible authority of God. In the words of Ellen G. White, Christ "pointed to the Scriptures as of unquestionable authority, and we should do the same. The Bible is to be

presented as the word of the infinite God, as the end of all controversy and the foundation of all faith." "God and heaven alone are infallible. . . . Man is fallible, but God's Word is

infallible." Therefore the Bible is "an unerring counselor, and infallible guide" and the "perfect guide under all circumstances of life"; "an unerring guide," "the one unerring guide," "the unerring standard," "an unerring light," "that unerring test," and "the unerring counsel of God."

Because the Bible shares in the unerring character of God, we should not question the truth of any of its parts or pick flaws with what may seem to be mistakes, inconsistencies, or errors. Neither should we criticize nor ridicule the Scriptures. "We should reverence God's word. For the printed volume we should show respect, never putting it to common uses, or handling it carelessly."

[Guest]

2. A Human Document.

As a human document the Bible reflects the individuality of its

human writers. "God has been pleased to communicate His truth to the world by human agencies, and He Himself, by His Holy Spirit, qualified men and enabled them to do this work. He guided the mind in the selection of what to speak and what to write (The Great

Controversy, p. vi).

"In our Bible, we might ask, Why need Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in the Gospels, why need the Acts of the Apostles, and the variety of writers in the Epistles, go over the same thing? The Lord gave His word in just the way He wanted it to come. He gave it through

different writers, each having his own individuality, though going over the same history.

Their testimonies are brought together in one Book, and are like the testimonies in a social meeting [testimony service]. They do not represent things in just the same style. Each has an experience of his own, and this diversity broadens and deepens the knowledge that is brought out to meet the necessities of varied minds. The thoughts expressed have not a set uniformity, as if cast in an iron mold, making the very hearing monotonous. In such uniformity there would be a loss of grace" (Selected Messages, 1:21-22).

Rather than looking for alleged contradictions in the parallel accounts (e.g., the different ways the Gospel writers presented their accounts), we must look for underlying harmony.

"The Creator of all ideas may impress different minds with the same thought, but each may express it in a different way, yet without contradiction. The fact that this difference exists should not perplex or confuse us. It is seldom that two persons will view and express truth in the very same way. Each dwells on particular points which his constitution and education have fitted him to appreciate. The sunlight falling upon the different objects gives those objects a different hue" (Selected Messages, 1:22, emphasis supplied).

[doug yowell]

1. A Divine Document.

As a divine document the Bible shares in the unquestionable, supreme, and infallible authority of God. In the words of Ellen G. White, Christ "pointed to the Scriptures as of unquestionable authority, and we should do the same. The Bible is to be

presented as the word of the infinite God, as the end of all controversy and the foundation of all faith." "God and heaven alone are infallible. . . . Man is fallible, but God's Word is

infallible." Therefore the Bible is "an unerring counselor, and infallible guide" and the "perfect guide under all circumstances of life"; "an unerring guide," "the one unerring guide," "the unerring standard," "an unerring light," "that unerring test," and "the unerring counsel of God."

Because the Bible shares in the unerring character of God, we should not question the truth of any of its parts or pick flaws with what may seem to be mistakes, inconsistencies, or errors. Neither should we criticize nor ridicule the Scriptures. "We should reverence God's word. For the printed volume we should show respect, never putting it to common uses, or handling it carelessly."

Amen.

[Guest]

3. A Trustworthy Document.

In a trustworthy document, unresolved difficulties should challenge interpreters' assumptions, attitudes, and approaches. Since the Bible is reliable and trustworthy, and since there is an underlying harmony in all of its parts, whenever there appears to be a contradiction or mistake in the Scriptures, Bible-believing students should seriously examine their own presuppositions, attitudes, and approach to Scripture.

Conclusion

This chapter has briefly discussed why and how the authority of the Bible is often diminished from the liberating Word (at the hands of the inspired writers), through the process of liberating the Word (by copyists and translators who seek to make the Bible accessible to average people), to the liberated Word (at the hands of interpreters). While there was no distortion of the Word when the Bible writers communicated their inspired messages, and while minor distortions of the Word developed during the time of transmission (i.e., copying and translation), the grossest distortions of the Word occur at the hand of interpreters.

This raises the question: How can Christians today, who have received the Word as inspired, trustworthy, and their sole authoritative norm, ensure that the Bible in their hands will truly function as the liberating Word of God? The answer lies in rightly dividing the Word. To this issue we turn our attention in the next chapter.

[Guest]

Chapter Nine

Rightly Dividing the Word

One major reason for today's gross distortion of the Word is that students, teachers, preachers, and leaders handle the Scriptures in a careless manner.

Lamenting this lackadaisical recklessness toward Scripture, one non-Adventist author wrote: "Imagine the practical implications if teachers of mathematics or chemistry were as slapdash as some who handle the Word of God. Would you want to be served by a pharmacist, for example, who used the 'best guess' method of filling

prescriptions?

Or would you take your business to an architect who worked mostly with approximations? Or would you allow a surgeon to operate on you with a table knife instead of a scalpel? The sad truth is that society would quickly grind to a halt if most professions approached their work the way many Bible teachers do.

Against this background of recklessness toward the Word, the charge of the apostle Paul to Timothy becomes particularly relevant. "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15).

Rightly dividing the Word demands that in interpreting the Scriptures, the Bible student must: (1) not depart from the Word; (2) not doubt the Word; (3) adopt the right presuppositions and

attitudes toward the Word; and (4) uphold the plain reading of Scripture.

These four requirements arise from Scripture itself, which is why they are found in the 1986 "Methods of Bible Study" document. In this chapter of Receiving the Word, we shall flesh out these guidelines by citing some relevant passages from the writings of Ellen G. White.

[Guest]

Do Not Depart from the Word

In order to divide the Word rightly, the Bible student must first accept the Word wholeheartedly as the inspired, trustworthy, and solely authoritative norm for the Christian.

Regrettably, many in our day are reluctant to do so. But Bible-believing Seventh-day Adventists have not been left in the dark about how Satan is working to lead people away from the truth.

Deceiving Bible students, teachers, preachers, and scholars is part of Satan's end-time strategy to cut people away from their only source of authoritative knowledge.

"In these days of delusion, every one who is established in the truth will have to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. Every variety of error will be brought out in the

mysterious working of Satan, which would, if it were possible, deceive the very elect, and turn them from the truth" (Selected Messages, 2:98).

Ellen White proceeded to identify four major kinds of deception that Satan will introduce in order to lead Christians away from their trust and reliance in the Bible: deception from learned persons, deception through ignorance and folly, deception from false dreams and visions, and deception subtly disguised as truth (see Selected Messages, 2:98-100).

In view of these deceptions, Christians must always insist upon the Bible as more authoritative than the opinions of human beings, whether educated or not, and regardless of whether these human opinions are attended by supernatural phenomena or disguised in

angelic garments.

Rightly dividing the Word demands an uncompromising insistence upon the Word as the one non-negotiable basis of all theological discussions. Not even the decisions of church committees, the majority vote of church members, or results from public opinion polls should be exalted above the plain teaching of Scripture.

We are told: "God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms.

The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority--not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith.

Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain 'Thus saith the Lord' in its support" (The Great Controversy, p. 595, emphasis supplied).

[John317]

Thanks so much for this last post, Richard. The truth of what it says is even more clear to me now than it ever was before. It's as if it was written just for this time and in response to what I see going on in the world and the church today.

[Guest]

Thank you Pam...my sentiments exactly.