How much of Scripture is inspired?

[Guest]

It is also very relevant to understand the meaning of the actual words used in the text that is the crux of this whole topic. The Greek word translated as "scripture" or "scriptures" and the Hebrew words translated as "scripture"

means simply "writing" or words written down, anything in writing.

Consider how much written material was available in Biblical times compared to now and the comparative literacy of people then and now. Written words were extra-ordinary and special. Those who could write and read were likewise viewed as specially gifted, indeed blessed by God. To the illiterate, words on paper have almost a magical power and those who can interpret those odd symbols are indeed looked upon as gifted by God.

Now read the text as it is written - "All writing is from God and valuable..."

Writing has become trivialized and too common...

I take it then that you don't believe the Bible is inspired at all. Just a bunch of writing huh? How foolish of those who don't know any better, and believe the whole thing to be the inspired word of God.

Here's a thought. Why don't you try reading some of this thread? You may learn something you didn't know, if you think that's possible.

[Guest]

A Unique Cooperation: Inspiration

Probably the most mysterious thing about the Bible is the manner in which the Principal

Authors of the Book--the members of the Holy Trinity--were able to employ fallible human

beings as their instruments to write down, in a trustworthy manner, the message of God. This process is called "inspiration."

Fallible Writers, Infallible Record.

Some might entertain the thought that (1) the prophetic message was the invention of the Bible writers and that (2) because the human writers

were fallible, the Bible is not absolutely dependable. In response to such ideas, the apostle Peter

asserts:

"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths [Greek mythos, a story, whatever its

significance, that has no factual basis] when we made known to you the power and coming of our

Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. . . . And we have the prophetic word

made more sure [Greek bebaioteron, which has the force of "standing firm on the feet,"

"steadfast," "reliable," "valid"].

You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a

dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. First of all you must

understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no

prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved [Greek pheromenoi, literally,

"carried along"10] by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Pet 1:16-21).

Peter, himself a recipient of inspiration, does not deny human will or personality in the

writing of Scriptures (the writers actually "spoke"); rather he underscores three important facts about the inspiration phenomenon: (1) the ultimate source of the message was not the human

messengers' thoughts and impulses; (2) the human writers were divinely aided ("carried along") by the Holy Spirit to communicate their divine messages, so that (3) the product of this

cooperative effort between the human and the divine was trustworthy ("more sure").

Because of the unique cooperation between God and the human writers of the Bible, both Jesus and the New Testament Christians acknowledged that while the Bible writers employed

their own words and expressions, the final product (the Bible) had God's stamp of approval as being truly His Word. This last point is very important. Some modern theologians (called Neo-orthodox or

Barthians, following the Swiss theologian Karl Barth) hold that the Bible is not the word of God but can become the word of God at the moment the Bible speaks to a person in a significant

personal encounter. In a subtle denial of the Bible's inspiration, these theologians suggest that until the Bible "becomes" the Word of God, it is merely the word of humans, or at best a human

document that contains the Word of God. Because this position has gained a large number of adherents, it is important to consider what the Bible itself says on whether the Bible is the word

of humans or is actually the Word of God.

[Dr. Rich]

Olger wrote: "Every word of God is pure" (Proverbs 30:5). Ok, would not we all agree with this? Question is this, so what IS the "word of God"?

Every quote given about 'scripture' being the word of God was directed ONLY to the Old Testament. When Jesus was here on earth, even His words recorded by eyewitnesses testified to the Old Testament. These same words that were recorded also have the blessing of Jesus for our use today (John 14:26 and 17:20)

Other than this, there is absolutely nothing from the words of Jesus to show us that anything else was God's words or the inspired word of God.

Now, IF I am wrong--please show me--don't just 'tell' me.

[Guest]

According to other New Testament passages, "all Scripture" also

includes the New Testament writings. For example, the apostle Peter refers to the writings of Paul on the same basis as "the other scriptures" (2 Pet 3:15, 16); and Paul in 1 Timothy 5:18 quotes the

record in Luke 10:7, "The laborer is worthy of his reward," and refers to the statement as "scripture."

[Musicman1228]

I think the bigger question, is what is inspiration?

When we 'expire' our breath goes out from us; either temporarily, or permanently. When we breath in we 'inspire'.

What we 'inspire' matters a great deal to our subsequent physical condition. If we 'inspire' pure, clean, mountain air we have a decidedly different reaction than if we 'inspire' heavy smoke or smog.

The question becomes "What was it that the writers of the Bible 'inspired'? The common mistake is to believe that all of the writers of the Bible 'inspired' the same thing. Where is the proof of that in Scripture? Another common error is to believe that Bible writers were 'inspired' by having words or thoughts directly and forcibly implanted into their minds. Whenever this type of 'inspiration' occurs I question the motive of the spirit that uses force to accomplish it's ends.

Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to His own disciples before He ascended to Heaven the second time. This was not on the day of Pentecost, this was before. What method did Jesus use to accomplish this 'inspiration'? It was certainly different than what occurred on the day of Pentecost.

Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit". John 20:21-22.

Jesus BREATHED on them in peace. When He did that "they breathed in His breath, His Spirit". They 'inspired' Him. Jesus did not 'inspire' them. He did not force Himself on them, He did not inject Himself into them, He did not use torture to get them to see the light. He allowed them to breath in what He offered. Jesus always respects our free will, our freedom of choice.

What is 'inspiration'? It is when someone willingly breaths in the Holy Spirit as offered by Jesus Christ. This Spirit comes in peace. When this happens the person who 'inspired' this Spirit then writes or says only what agrees with everything that Jesus has previously said. If there is ANY disagreement with what Jesus Christ said while He was here on earth then you can be sure the spirit that inspired that person was not the true Holy Spirit of God.

[Guest]

He has not left His church forsaken, but has traced in prophetic declarations what would occur, and that which His Spirit inspired the prophets to foretell has been brought about. All His purposes will be fulfilled. His law is linked with His throne, and no power of evil can destroy it. Truth is inspired and guarded by God; and it will triumph over all opposition. {AA 11}

[Woody]

To me, the question is not what is inspired and what is not. The question is: What does it mean when we say that Scripture is inspired?

Excellent question. I think there might be some misunderstandings in this regard.

[Tom Wetmore]

I take it then that you don't believe the Bible is inspired at all. Just a bunch of writing huh? How foolish of those who don't know any better, and believe the whole thing to be the inspired word of God.

I don't thing you understood what I said. I did not say that the Bible isn't inspired at all. What I posted goes quite in the opposite direction. I was not even arguing the point that you seem to assume by the topic question. Read the last line which is my closer literal translation. It says all writing is from God. In your understanding of inspiration, where would that put the Bible?

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Here's a thought. Why don't you try reading some of this thread? You may learn something you didn't know, if you think that's possible.

Here's a thought for you. Don't assume I haven't read it. But learning something I don't know already would require that something new be presented that I had not already read and heard before.

And also examine your own attitude. What you have said and implied by the way you have said it really is not conducive to open and honest discussion. As a moderator, I would suggest you come up with a better approach.

Tom

[Tom Wetmore]

How close to someone would you have to be to "inspire" the breath that they "expire"? How much of the breath you then expire would be that which you inspired from them? What happens to the breath in this process?

[Guest]

Read the last line which is my closer literal translation. It says all writing is from God. In your understanding of inspiration, where would that put the Bible?

[Dr. Rich]

I understand what you are trying to say Richard, but you don't have a clue as to how the NT was put together. Clearly, not ALL writing(s) was/were inspired by God.

[John317]

The Greek word translated as "scripture" or "scriptures" and the Hebrew words translated as "scripture"

means simply "writing" or words written down, anything in writing.

In the context of the Old and the New Testaments, the Greek word, graphe, always means "sacred writings," not merely "writings." For instance, when Jesus says that the "Scriptures (graphe) cannot be broken," He is not speaking of all writing. He refers to the Old Testament Scriptures. The same with Jesus' reference to "the Scriptures" in Luke 24: 45 and numerous other verses. Nowhere is this word used in the NT or in the Old to describe common, or profane writings. The Bible tells us in many places that God speaks us through these writings. They do not contain merely the thoughts and words of men but of God. cf. 2 Sam. 23: 2; Jer. 1: 9; Romans 1: 2; Hebrew 1: 1; Acts 1: 16; and John 17: 17.

[jasd]

QR frame:

>>The context of 2 Timothy 3:16 suggests...<<

The apologetic begins with the assumption of the verity/veracity of 2 Timothy, itself. That is doable – until one studies ‘higher and/or historical criticism’ of Writ. Thereafter,

it may require inordinate amounts of Faith; not the sort of faith that is defined by a generated list such as numbered Fundamentals or Doctrines. Should one find that

it is impossible to exercise Biblical Faith – given the contradictions and the homonymous, pseudonymous, pseudepigraphical, etc... nature of Holy Writ; much of which, though canonized (of both the OT and the NT; and yes, that would include the Gospels) – do not agree. There yet remains, however, “hope” and “agape [love] charity”. Should one find that he or she has problems with the concept of ‘salvation by hope’ – never fear, there remains

“agape [love] charity” – the sort that emerges from one’s belly as “rivers of living water”; that is,

‘compassion’ – ipso..., good works, legal works, as it were – wherein lie our condign merits for the which Gd has promised to reward.

So, keep that good eye, that generous eye, clear – toward the poor, the hungry, the orphaned, the despairing, etc, -- and keep a tot or two in a hip flask – for the dying

[Musicman1228]

jasd,

I believe what you said borders on the profound. Yes, there are difficulties between the writings in the OT and some of the writings in the NT; there is much that does not agree, in spite of those that insist that this disagreement is only in the mind of the reader of Scripture not in the fact of Scripture. Clearly those that espouse this point of view have not thoroughly studied the way in which the original documents for both the OT and NT were legitimized (canonized) and translated. (This for another time.)

I love the fact that you bring us back to the underlying reason and purpose for Scripture and that is to learn to emulate the truth of God, as in 'agape', 'hope', 'charity', 'compassion', 'good works', etc. This is what all Scripture, both questionable and unquestionable, should lead us to. Faith actually gets in the way of the facts as related to these truths.

I especially like your idea of keeping a tot or two in a hip flask for the dying. My only criticism of that is why keep it just for the dying, the living could use a little from time to time as well. Taken in moderation it can certainly put one in a more gentle mood.

[Tom Wetmore]

What Hebrew word(s) in the OT and what Greek word(s) in the NT are used to mean writings other than sacred writings? If graphe only and always unambiguously meant "sacred writings" why do all the Greek lexicons list as its first meaning - "a writing, thing written"?

In ancient Greek literature up to and beyond the time the NT was written, how was the word graphe used? Was it ever used in a secular sense? What type of writings was it used to describe? Was it ever used outside of the NT by itself to describe sacred writings?

[Dr. Rich]

Hey jsad, I'll drink to that!

[Guest]

Against those "who think to make the supposed difficulties of the Scripture plain, in measuring by their finite rule that which is inspired and that which is not inspired," Ellen White warned: "When men, in their finite judgment, find it necessary to go into an examination of scriptures to define that which is inspired and that which is not, they have stepped before Jesus to show Him a better way than He has led us (Selected Messages, 1:17).

She urged us to reject the attempt to discover "degrees of inspiration" in inspired writings--whether the Bible or her own writings--by ascribing some parts to the Spirit's

inspiration and pronouncing others as uninspired: "When men venture to criticize the Word of God, they venture on sacred, holy ground, and had better fear and tremble and hide their wisdom as foolishness. God sets no man to pronounce judgment on His Word, selecting some things as inspired and discrediting others as uninspired. The testimonies have been treated in the same way; but God is not in this" (Selected Messages, 1:23).

[Guest]

Because Scripture is an inspired Book, it is also a true and

dependable book. "The Bible is more than a good or true book, however. Man may write a good

book, a true book, even a wonderful book, but man has never produced a volume that compares

with the Holy Scriptures. The Bible lives! Through its sacred pages God moves and speaks to

human hearts. It is a Book of divine origin destined from the beginning to fill a unique need

among the human family. No other volume has successfully challenged it."15

"It points out to sinners a way of pardon, of peace, and of redemption. It tells us how men

subject to like passions as we are, may yet be men of mighty faith, having fellowship with God,

and prevailing in effectual and fervent prayer. It tells us how men who have sinned against the

Most High may be cleansed from blood-guiltiness, and washed and made whiter than snow. It

tells us how we, redeemed through God's mercy, may stand stainless as angels in the presence of

the eternal King. Are we ready to heed its instructions, and find life and peace in Christ the

Lord?"

[Guest]

At a time when it is fashionable for Christians to "question some

parts of revelation, and pick flaws in the apparent inconsistencies of this statement and that

statement," it behooves us to follow Ellen White's example in trusting the Word: "I take the Bible

just as it is, as the Inspired Word. I believe its utterances in an entire Bible. Men arise who think

they find something to criticize in God's Word.

They lay it bare before others as evidence of

superior wisdom. These men are, many of them, smart men, learned men, they have eloquence

and talent, the whole lifework [of whom] is to unsettle minds in regard to the inspiration of the

Scriptures.

They influence many to see as they do. And the same work is passed on from one to

another, just as Satan designed it should be, until we may see the full meaning of the words of

Christ, 'When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?' (Luke 18:8)" (Selected Messages, 1:17).

One perceptive church member correctly stated: "God does not give us the option of

choosing which parts of His Word to accept or reject any more than He gives us the option to

partially accept or reject Him.

Salvation requires full acceptance of Him and thus His Word; and

acceptance of Him in turn requires full surrender to Him. Nothing more is required and nothing

less is acceptable to God. For it is by His Word that we know Him; and it is through this Word

that He leads us. God and His Word are inseparable."

As Bible-believing Christians, shall we continue trusting the Word? Or shall we be found doubting the Word?

[Guest]

The Three Major Theological Factions

Liberals: Bible Rejecters. Theological liberals deny the full trustworthiness of the Bible.

Seeking to accommodate Bible truth to modern culture or science, they deny the validity of

miracles and the supernatural, adopting the methods of higher criticism as the way to restore the

truthfulness of the Bible. In terms of numbers, the liberals are relatively few, but they hold

prominent positions in various theological institutions and sometimes in the churches.

Their impact stems largely from their published articles, books, and commentaries on the

Bible. These works are regarded as the standard criteria for scholarship, and those who do not

accord with them are treated as academic misfits. Because their publications tend to be reference

works, when new believers or untrained students are exposed to them their faith in the Bible and

its teachings is shaken.

Conservatives: Bible Believers.

Theological conservatives, as their name implies, seek

to conserve or preserve the traditional view of Scripture against the newer views. This does not

mean that they accept tradition uncritically or that they refuse to be open to new ideas. Rather,

they aim to preserve the view of Scripture set forth in the inspired Word and which has been the

consensus of Christendom from its very beginning until modern times. Bible-believing

conservatives accept the full reliability and trustworthiness of the Bible in matters of salvation as

well as on any other subject the Bible touches upon. Their view of the Scriptures is described in

the previous chapter. Conservative scholars also reject even a moderate use of the higher critical

methodologies. As a conservative denomination, Seventh-day Adventists historically have affirmed their

faith in the inspiration, unity, authenticity, and authority of the Bible as the Word of God in its

totality. The very first of our Fundamental Beliefs reads: "The Holy Scriptures, Old and New

Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God

who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to

man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of

His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of

doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history."6 The conservative implications of

this fundamental belief are reflected in the 1986 "Methods of Bible Study Report" voted by

church leaders in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (see Appendix C).

Generally, a large majority of church members tend to be conservative Bible-believing

Christians. Recognizing the power of Christ in their own lives, they submit to the authority of

their Savior and His written Word. In their search to know Christ and His Word better, these

Christian believers sometimes find themselves confused and shaken by the discordant notes of

liberals and moderates in the church.

Moderates or Accommodationists: Bible-Doubters.

Theological moderates give the

appearance of being conservatives, and yet they hold onto a liberal agenda. Because they

accommodate conservative beliefs to liberal thought, moderates can very well be described as

"accommodationists." Unlike liberals, moderates accept some or even all of the Bible's miracles

and supernatural events, but they maintain that the Bible is not fully reliable in everything it says

since it contains some minor "mistakes," "discrepancies," "inconsistences," "inaccuracies" or

even "errors."

By "errors" they do not simply refer to the ones that apparently crept into the text during

the process of copying the manuscripts (e.g., occasional discrepancies due to copyist glosses,

slips, misspellings, etc.) and which can be ascertained and corrected by comparing the various

available manuscripts.7 When moderates/accommodationists speak of errors or discrepancies,

they are referring to mistakes that are purported to have originated with the Bible writers

themselves. These alleged errors include statements in the Bible that deal with chronology,

numbers, genealogy, history, geography, and science, which the scholars insist are inaccurate.

Moderates, however, argue that these "inaccuracies" are few and largely trivial factual

mistakes. They also add that in the areas of religion and ethics, and especially in the central

teachings regarding God, Christ, and salvation, the Bible is most dependable. Those in this group

generally believe that it is possible to make a moderate use of the critical methodologies.8

Although the moderates do not come out as strongly as the radical liberals, yet in subtle

ways they present modified and popular versions of liberalism to unsuspecting believers.

Moderates tend to occupy high positions in the church where their neo-liberal influence is felt in

the classrooms, in the pulpits, and in administrative decision-making positions. Therefore, when

many church members speak of "liberals," they are actually referring to these

"accommodationists" in their churches.

[John317]

What Hebrew word(s) in the OT and what Greek word(s) in the NT are used to mean writings other than sacred writings? If graphe only and always unambiguously meant "sacred writings" why do all the Greek lexicons list as its first meaning as "a writing, thing written"?

"Writing, a piece of writing," is the literal meaning. But when we go to the New Testament, the word "graphe" is used exclusively with a sacred meaning, "of Holy Scripture." (See page 165 of A Greek-English Lexicon, Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich.)

The above work also gives examples of its use outside the Bible where it signifies "a written word of a divine sort."

Other Greek words that signify "a piece of writing" are gramma and grapheion, but these aren't used in the Bible to refer to sacred Scripture.

Study closely every occurrence of graphe in both the New Testament and the Old (LXX).

In Daniel 10: 21, it is usually translated as "Scripture" or "book," but it could also be translated as "a writing." It's a translation of the Hebrew word, kethab, literally, "a writing." Here it's referring to God's plans as having been written in a book. (Compare Ps. 139: 16)

Quote:

In ancient Greek literature up to and beyond the time the NT was written, how was the word graphe used?Was it ever used in a secualr sense? What type of writings was it used to describe?

If you can, check out a great reference work titled, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated From the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources, Moulton and Milligan, Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing Co. On page 132, it shows that outside the Bible, the word graphe was used to mean "document," "list," "contract," "register," "a writing, " "a text," "a letter."

In 1 Maccabees 14: 27, it is translated as "letter."

Quote:

Was it ever used outside of the NT by itself to describe sacred writings?

Yes. For instance, see the Epistle of Aristeas 155, 168. (Ibid, p. 132)

[Tom Wetmore]

"Writing, a piece of writing," is the literal meaning. But when we go to the New Testament, the word "graphe" is used exclusively with a sacred meaning, "of Holy Scripture."

The point is that the literal meaning was the meaning of that word at the time it was written. We have given it the secondary meaning by inference from the context and our traditional interpretation of the text. And part of that context is the understanding that most, if not all writings available to the original audience for that text were what were understood to be sacred writings, but not necessarily as we now understand those words. Secular writings, as we would understand them today, were rare in Jewish culture.

Quote:

Other Greek words that signify "a piece of writing" are gramma and grapheion, but these aren't used in the Bible to refer to sacred Scripture.

And those are forms of the same root word.

Quote:

Study closely every occurrence of graphe in both the New Testament and the Old (LXX).

And it is the verb form of graphe that is used to described the writing of the the sign by Pilate that was nailed to the cross.

Quote:

In Daniel 10: 21, it is usually translated as "Scripture" or "book," but it could also be translated as "a writing." It's a translation of the Hebrew word, kethab, literally, "a writing." Here it's referring to God's plans as having been written in a book.

Reinforces the point...

All writing known and preserved at that time was God given or inspired. But what does it mean to be inspired?

[Neil D]

All writing known and preserved at that time was God given or inspired. But what does it mean to be inspired?

If I may cut to the chase, there is "good" inspiration and there is "bad" inspiration...Examples of good inspirations would include but not limited to Richard's idealization of sacred scripture and his continued traditional intrepretation.

Bad inspiration is the written policys of Hitler elimination of the Jews during WWII.

Good inspiration is where you get inspired to learn greek so that you can understand the bible better. Bad inspiration would be where you would twist those meanings to convert someone into a worse person.

Just my thoughts....

[phkrause]

Some interesting thoughts Neil. I like them.

pk

[Tom Wetmore]

A few additional questions:

What is meant by the phrase "sacred writings"? What made a writing sacred?

What was considered to be sacred writings at the time Paul wrote to Timothy?

Did Paul consider his own writings sacred in the same sense?

Did any NT (or OT) writer feel their writing was inspired?

At the time they wrote it how would they have known it was inspired?

If anyone here was inspired to write something, how would they know? How would we know what we were reading was inspired?

What is the process of inspiration? What takes place? Is it a single occurrence, a series of events? seemingly random events, clues, thoughts, ideas? Would inspiration take the same form each and every time for every inspired writer? If God inspired a poor semi-literate shepherd (Amos) how would the product of that inspiration differ from the product of the inspiration of a well educated upper class Jew like Paul? What role would culture, personality, intelligence, education, occupation, life experience, etc. of the one inspired play in the end product of inspiration?

Tom