The Nature of Inspiration

[David Koot]

On another thread, the issue has arisen as to the nature of the Bible's inspiration. Two positions have been taken:

1) That inspiration requires accuracy in the Biblical account of ancient history and science;

2) That inspiration does not require such accuracy.

A related issue is whether or not the Bible is, in fact accurate in those two areas.

Any thoughts?

[bevin]

This comes out of the "pursuit of truth" discussion where we concluded that the limitations of the individual were what stopped them from getting to "objective truth".

Since this just leaves subjective opinions of the form

"I believe the Bible is basically accurate because everywhere the experts tell me it doesn't match the results of experiments in the real world I don't understand the evidence and I don't trust the 'experts' because they are not God-guided"

This stops you from being able to measure the Bible against the real world, leaving only measuring the Bible against itself.

There the standard position is "the original words in the original language, if rightly understood, were compatible and any contradictions were brought in by either the copyists or because we are not rightly understanding the words"

This position is about as unassailably circular as they come.

And utterly worthless for testing the Bible against the real world.

/Bevin

[Taylor]

I haven't read much in this thread, but when you take the Bible as being the basis of truth (and I realize that some don't do this) then all other truth must be tested by the Bible, not the other way around.

[David Koot]

"I believe the Bible is basically accurate because everywhere the experts tell me it doesn't match the results of experiments in the real world I don't understand the evidence and I don't trust the 'experts' because they are not God-guided"

[David Koot]

I haven't read much in this thread, but when you take the Bible as being the basis of truth (and I realize that some don't do this) then all other truth must be tested by the Bible, not the other way around.

However, the issue here is an evidentiary one: authenticating a document or a witness. Once a document has been authenticated, then its contents may be considered as evidence. Until it has been authenticated, it is considered unreliable.

[David Koot]

I should add that for OT studies, the gold standard is 'Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.' An important study tool to use with BHS is the Koehler-Baumgartner Hebrew and Aramic Lexicon. The BHS hardcover may be purchased at a reasonable price. Koehler-Baumgartner is pricey, however. Although, one may now purchase the digital version for around $150. Hardcover print edition is currently $600. or more. BUT, it is an extremely important and accurate study tool. DON'T settle for the 'pop' lexicons one may purchase at a Bible bookstore for $30.00 or so. Might as well stick with Strong's, in that case.

Dave

[bevin]

Quote:

As for the 'experts,' if an experiment is valid, the philosphical orientation of those conducting it should be quite immaterial. Anyone, anywhere in the world, should be able to duplicate it, if it is valid.

We already agreed on the Pursuit of Truth thread that in reality the experiments require too many resources for you or I to do them...

and you are clearly rejecting the opinions of the majority of the experts for no reason apart from those opinions not matching your understanding of the Bible...

/Bevin

[Taylor]

This is not in defense or against anyone. But my 2 cents are if the "experts" don't agree with "my opinion" then I would probably be wise to listen to their opinion in order to broaden my horizons and learn. However if "the experts" don't agree with the Bible, that is their right to do, but it doesn't make them right.

[John317]

This comes out of the "pursuit of truth" discussion where we concluded that the limitations of the individual were what stopped them from getting to "objective truth".

Since this just leaves subjective opinions of the form

"I believe the Bible is basically accurate because everywhere the experts tell me it doesn't match the results of experiments in the real world I don't understand the evidence and I don't trust the 'experts' because they are not God-guided"

This stops you from being able to measure the Bible against the real world, leaving only measuring the Bible against itself.

There the standard position is "the original words in the original language, if rightly understood, were compatible and any contradictions were brought in by either the copyists or because we are not rightly understanding the words"

This position is about as unassailably circular as they come.

And utterly worthless for testing the Bible against the real world.

/Bevin

How long should a person "test" before they become believers? Should I spend all my life testing and never come to faith in Christ and in His Word? What a waste that would be. I tested for over 30 years. I came, finally, to accept the Protestant Bible as trustworthy and as a guide to Christ and to salvation. People can test until the day they die-- without faith in God. That leads nowhere but the grave-- eternally.

[David Koot]

you are clearly rejecting the opinions of the majority of the experts for no reason apart from those opinions not matching your understanding of the Bible...

/Bevin

That has not been my experience. Expert opinion is something to be taken seriously, while also recognizing that even experts may have their own biases, and may pay homage to the 'conventional wisdom,' at the expense of accuracy and truth. Such has happened too often throughout history. Of course, any 'expert' worth his salt will provide copious footnotes for other students to study and compare results. I have done so, in a number of fields of inquiry. In the process, I have been left asking, 'Where's the beef?' I have found that in so many cases, the underpinnings of the 'evidence' are in reality assumptions and axioms. And, in too many cases, observational evidence which has the potential of contradicting a hypothesis or finding, is NOT EVEN MENTIONED. The appearance is one of, for example, the science establishment getting its ducks lined up, and ignoring the evidence to the contrary. THat has happened before, and not only in the science establishment.

Of course, more times than one could readily count, the 'majority' has been dead wrong. We owe much to the faithful few throughout history, from Noah onward, who have stood alone in pursuit or defense of the truth, when everyone else told them they were wrong.

Dave

[David Koot]

Extraordinary. Ron Lambert pointed something out on another thread, which I just now read. It does seem quite clear. That is, GOD HIMSELF wrote with His own finger, that in six days He created the heavens and the earth, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day. There is, indeed, no middle ground.

[bevin]

Ahh, no...

Ex 8 and Deut 5 both list what "God SAID" not "God wrote".

Ex 32 does not say what was written on the Stones

Furthermore Deut 5:12-16, the Sabbath Day, does not mention creation at all

and the whole book was assembled during the Babylonian captivity with an agenda - and no-one even then had seen the stones for a very long time indeed...

/Bevin

[Taylor]

The ten commandments were written with God's own finger on tablets of stone and the Sabbath mentions that he reason for the Sabbath is "that in 6 days the Lord made heaven and earth....". Seems like we can change anything God has said if we read enough from authors who don't believe in the veracity of God's Word. But calling truth by another name doesn't change the fact that it is still truth, at least that is how I see it. For me God is the answere above and beyond historians, science, or any "genious of man", because the "genious of man" is so puny by comparison to the wisdome, forknowledge, and plans of God. Human knowledge and God's knowledge are just not comparable.

[David Koot]

Ahh, no...

Ex 8 and Deut 5 both list what "God SAID" not "God wrote".

Ex 32 does not say what was written on the Stones

[bevin]

Quote:

See Ex. 31:18; Dt. 9:10

Nice try, but no cigar.

Neither Ex 31:18 nor Dt 9:10 says that the stones were inscribed with all the words.

Quote:

The Dt. 5 account is Moses' abbreviated recitation of the Ten C's.

Nonsense. The Dt 5 and the Ex 20 versions are practically identical except for this wholesale replacement of the rationale for the Sabbath - indeed the Dt 5 "abbreviated recitation" is LONGER than the Ex 20 version that you claim he is abbreviating!

Quote:

was unquestioned during the 1,200 years of the Jews' subsequent history in OT times.

Oh - which words were on the stones - the unquestioned Ex 20 ones, or the unquestioned Dt 5 ones?

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Furthermore Deut 5:12-16, the Sabbath Day, does not mention creation at all

We discussed this before. Exodus or Deut.

I pointed out then, that the Dead Seas Scrolls read differently and they are the oldest manuscript of the Old Testament in existence.

Quote:

You shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day to hollow it. For in six days the LORD made heaven, earth, the sea, and all that is in them and rested on the seventh day; so the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hollowed it.

(Deuteronomy 5:15)

The reason modern Bibles do not read like that is most likely because of an omission made by scribes. The Ten Commandments in Exodus mention the exodus in verse two and in Deuteronomy in verse 15. It is highly likely that the the scribes copying the Dead Seas Scrolls copied Deuteronomy correctly because that would make both accounts of the Ten Commands the same.

[Taylor]

Well regardless of which version says what or where it doesn't change that Gen 1:1 says "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". God is clearly established as the creator. "The heavens were made by the word of the LORD and all the stars by the breath of his mouth," Psalm 33:6, neither does it change that the Sabbath was made as a day of rest during creation, Genesis 2:3, nor that the 10 commandments has the Sabbath which says that the reason is "for in 6 days the Lord God created the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that in them is", nor that Jesus kept the Sabbath, nor that the disciples kept it, nor that we will keep it in the new earth.

[Taylor]

The Sabbath, an all powerful God of creation, and all other doctrines of the Bible are not to hamper us but are for an incredible blessing in our lives. Why would anyone want to do away with that blessing I will never understand. I have some friends who are educated (he has his masters or doctorate in engineering and the wife a masters in eduction)who used to belong to a different church than the SDA church. They kept Sunday like an SDA would keep Sabbath. Then they heard the truth as contained in God's word about the 7th day Sabbath and they began to keep it. I was a teenager at the time and curious so I asekd them "so since you kept Sunday "holy" is it any different in keeping "Sabbath" holy"? They smiled and said "vastly! It is the day with God's blessing on it. We truely feel more rested and it has proven to be a wonderful blessing in our lives. We wouldn't trade it for the world. God truely did bless it and sanctify it." Granted their testimony is not scripture but I think it has some interesting bearing. God gave it as a special time to spend with us, different than all the rest.

[David Koot]

Neither Ex 31:18 nor Dt 9:10 says that the stones were inscribed with all the words.

[David Koot]

Okay, let's cut to the chase. In Exodus 20, GOD HIMSELF spoke. This is not Moses speaking, this is God. God said, "In six days the Lord made heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day . . ." This statement is clear, it is unequivocal, there is no middle ground. God's statement as it stands, is unmistakeable. This is a good example of how one handles the issue of inspiration of Scripture. There is no confusion here as to the meaning of the words. The words are clear. Nor is there confusion as to the understanding of the One speaking. It is God speaking, and He knows what happened, and He tells us here what He did. And, God knows what happened, and what He did, far better than any historians or scientists may conjecture.

So, the bottom line is . . . Are we willing to accept what God, the Creator, the Omniscient One, the Almighty, says about what occurred, and what He did, or not?

Dave

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

let's cut to the chase. In Exodus 20, GOD HIMSELF spoke. This is not Moses speaking, this is God.

Point taken. However, with the discovery of the Dead Seas Scrolls, we now have good reason to believe that Moses also included the creation account when he repeated the Commandments too. So I don't see it as God's version verses Moses' version.

[David Koot]

That is good about the DEad Sea Scrolls--Moses recounting what God said. However, getting back to the actual event . . . Here is a clear and unequivocal statement by God Himself, the Creator. This is a make or break situation, IMO. Either a person accepts what God said--not man, but God--or not.

[David Koot]

Upon further reflection, I recall the First Angel's Message: Fear God, and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment is come: and worship Him that made heaven and earth, the sea and the fountains of waters. I tie this in with God's own statement in Ex. 20:11, that in six days He made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.

The call seems clear: Worship God. Acknowledge His sovereignty, His Creatorship. That may be a huge test of faith for some. Finite man CANNOT know for certain what happened in the distant past. God DOES know. Our acceptance of what He says, of His Word is a test of our faith and an acknowledgement of His omnipotent power.

The choice is clear-cut.

Dave