How much of Scripture is inspired?

[John317]

He wrote what the church believes, not necessarily what he himself believes personally.

[John317]

"Lessons from the Reformation" by A.T. Jones.

I've heard a lot of good things about that book and look forward to reading it.

[Guest]

Me too. I haven't started it yet. I think it was sky who told me about it. He said it was hard to find.

[John317]

This, from wikipedia--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28_Fundamentals

Quote:

Fritz Guy was the secretary of the original committee which produced the 27 Fundamentals. They were discussed and adopted at the 1980 General Conference Session. Ron Graybill wrote the preamble.

This gives some interesting background to the writing of the 28 Fundamentals:

http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2009/06/07/new_statement_fundamental_beliefs

[Woody]

This, from wikipedia--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28_Fundamentals

Quote:

Fritz Guy was the secretary of the original committee which produced the 27 Fundamentals. They were discussed and adopted at the 1980 General Conference Session. Ron Graybill wrote the preamble.

This gives some interesting background to the writing of the 28 Fundamentals:

http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2009/06/07/new_statement_fundamental_beliefs

After reading this ... I do have to declare that it wasn't cool to delete all of Ralph Larson's comments. Hardly fair. He did say them.

[Woody]

And can someone please explain to me how this was done?

Quote:

"Robert Spangler, the newly elected secretary of the Ministerial Association, advocated strengthening the paragraph on the Gift of Prophecy by substituting "and" for "which" in the sentence that said "her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction and correction." Though the delegates voted not to make the change, the Adventist Review, in its final printed version, made the change."

[phkrause]

Neither did I Richard, that is very interesting.

pk

[Mark Aurelius]

Sorry to jump in so late, but there is a point about the nature of inspiration that is relevant. The famous word in 2 Timothy 3:16 ("all Scripture is given by inspiration of God") in Greek is theopneustos and is generally translated 'God-breathed' implying verbal inspiration i.e. uttered by God. But the verb in that greek word is also the word used for the wind blowing the sails, i.e. impetus rather than precise wording.

If you look at passages like 1 Cor 1:14ff:

“I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.)”

and the opening of Luke 1:

“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”

the authors are commenting on their own efforts to produce their works. God did not "breathe" those words, but He rather inspired the direction the authors took.

This means that we need to read each passage to assess its level of inspiration, and read it for its intended meaning. In some cases, like apocalyptic visions, the author may not have understood the meaning, but that is clear from the text.

[Woody]

Quote:

The famous word in 2 Timothy 3:16 ("all Scripture is given by inspiration of God") in Greek is theopneustos θεοπνευστος

This is Greek to me. Can you put it in English?

[Guest]

That's true, in that God did not tell them what words to write, but the ideas and the visions are what came from God.

[wayfinder]

Richard, "band of merry marauders"?

[Guest]

[Guest]

Sorry about that wayfinder. I forgot about you.

[wayfinder]

Thats alright Richard, you are one of my best friends and always will be.

[Guest]

Same here.

[Musicman1228]

The great thing about family is that you aren't afraid to argue and occasionally fight, because you know they will always love you anyway. That is the way I feel about you, Richard and Michael, and all the rest of my family on the forum.

[Guest]

Don't go gettin all warm and fuzzy on me now.

[Musicman1228]

I may not agree with you, but I do appreciate and like you.

[Guest]

Yeah yeah, I don't hate you either.

[Twilight]

Sorry to jump in so late, but there is a point about the nature of inspiration that is relevant. The famous word in 2 Timothy 3:16 ("all Scripture is given by inspiration of God") in Greek is theopneustos and is generally translated 'God-breathed' implying verbal inspiration i.e. uttered by God. But the verb in that greek word is also the word used for the wind blowing the sails, i.e. impetus rather than precise wording.

If you look at passages like 1 Cor 1:14ff:

“I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.)”

and the opening of Luke 1:

“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”

the authors are commenting on their own efforts to produce their works. God did not "breathe" those words, but He rather inspired the direction the authors took.

This means that we need to read each passage to assess its level of inspiration, and read it for its intended meaning. In some cases, like apocalyptic visions, the author may not have understood the meaning, but that is clear from the text.

Or does it mean, inspired by the Holy Spirit?

God breathed to me, links to the giving of the breath of life and the giving of the "spirit".

So if it is God breathed, then it seems that it is a function of the Holy Spirit being expressed.

Mark :-)

[Guest]

New Views.

For example, the author of Inspiration: Hard Questions, Honest Answers suggests that in divine accommodation God adapts Himself to the opinions of "surrounding

culture"--even opinions that are false.6 Because he believes that "revelation is adapted to the conditions of fallen humanity, [and thus] it partakes of the imperfections of that humanity," the author of Inspiration considers the Scriptures to have "a generous sprinkling of human 'imperfections' in the text," so that he finds "the quality" of the Bible's contents and mechanics sometimes falling to a mere C- passing level on his grading scale.

For this scholar, the fact that the Bible is both divine and human suggests that while the divine portions of Scripture are infallible or trustworthy, the human aspects are not always

reliable. He apparently did not consider that just as we cannot discern precisely where in Christ the divine part starts and the human ends, so also, in the case of Scripture, we cannot

separate the "eternal" divine aspect of Scripture from the human aspect.8 In the opinion of this Old Testament professor, the various "strange" laws in the Old Testament (such as capital

punishment, the command to destroy the Canaanites) were culturally conditioned, in the sense that God simply treated Israel according to the cultural norms of justice of their times.

Another who espouses what he styles "a structural view of inspiration" has written: "Personally, I believe there are demonstrable errors of fact in inspired writings." He explains

that the "distortions" he claims to have found in Scripture arise from the fact that "perhaps the prophet did not fully understand the message, perhaps because the prophet's prejudices or ignorance distorted the message."10 Did, for example, the ignorance and prejudices of Moses and Paul lead them to denounce homosexuality as morally wrong? If they had lived in our

enlightened age, would they still have condemned homosexuality or fornication?

The "culturally conditioned" view also surfaces in the heated debates on dress and adornment, women's ordination, and the inspiration and relevance of Ellen White's writings.

A few examples will illustrate.

[Guest]

Dress and Adornment.

Is the Seventh-day Adventist teaching on dress and adornment

culturally conditioned to nineteenth-century America? Extricating the Adventist practice from

its biblical foundations, a professor of history argues that Adventists inherited the "plain dress" tradition from colonial American culture. He explains that although the Puritans and

Quakers established this tradition in America, Adventists, under the dominant role of Ellen White, borrowed their practice from Methodism.

Putting a feminist spin on this issue, one New Testament professor maintains that the rules governing female dress are yet another example of male oppression of women. In her opinion,

the Old Testament "never prohibited adornment itself." As far as the New Testament is concerned, even though the practice was proscribed, only "lavish" adornment was disallowed

because of the conditions at that time. She asserts: "Such conditions do not exist in American culture today. . . .

Furthermore, ours is a democratic society that inculcated the equality of women and men; we must be careful not to teach inequality by prohibiting adornment for women while we permit it for men." The implication of this argument is that contemporary culture is the norm for Christian lifestyle. A person who accepts this view of bodily adornment will logically have to accept as morally appropriate the current practice even in Western societies of men piercing their ears

and noses in order to be "equal" with women.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:Richard Holbrook

Amen!! Who said that? Was it Paul?

>>Now if we were inclined to read all of Pauls writings on the subject of the treatment of women,<<

"Paul, Paul, why persecutest thou me?"

>>Now that does seem to be in accord with Christs teachings.<<

Especially, that He leaves us the example of a woman being His first evangelist upon the beginning of His earthly ministry and a woman being the first to evangelize upon His resurrection.

[jasd]

The Bible--Sole or Primary Authority?

Effect of the Liberal Approach

Use of Alcohol

Morality of Homosexuality

[...] [/semingly, cadit quaestio]

Re the pull-quotes: Still long on polemics and still short on specific textual criticism...

And, per the matter of the Morality of Homosexuality, I am not an apologist for its practice; however, what, again, of the matter of the Morality of Adultery? It is foolish, specious, and hypocritical (not to mention sectual) – to address the matter of the Morality of Homosexuality without addressing in like manner – such as that of the Morality of Adultery, for instance. Interestingly, or no,

OT lists the eunuch as third in the OT pantheon (Princes, priests, eunuchs) – aside Gd and the Holy angels, of course...

[jasd]

>>I would beg to differ with this. Daniel did NOT understand the prophecy he was given and had to ask about it. Chapter 12 shows us that no one would understand it until the last generation. Therefore who ever wrote this book is presenting ideas and opinions that do not agree with many SDA members.<<

In verity! ...or, for that matter, the .Org.