How much of Scripture is inspired?

[oldsailor29]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

The Bible writers were using their own words. The thinking, Visions, and dreams etc. behind those words, came from God.

I'd say that the Bible writers were using their own words, thinking, culture and research, collection and use of research material, editing of research material, while the visions, dreams and framework of the message came from God. The different between me and the Fundamentlists is that one is more like someone describing a picture they were shown and the other reading a speech they were given.

I think most SDAs believe all scripture is inspired, but the disagreement is the nature of inspiration, as illustrated by these two posts of Richard and Kevin.

[Kevin H]

Exactly, this thread is no more than the discussion and dissagreements between Canright, Haskell, Wilkerson, Willie White, Ellen White, A. G. Daniels, W. W. Prescott and the religion department of Washington Missionary College in the 19teens. For over a hundred years this discussion has been going on. with the critics joining Canright, the "Historic Adventists" reflecting Wilkerson's thought (with some tweeking from reacting to Questions on Doctrine) and most of the church following Haskell, and some of us following White, Daniels, Prescott. WMC faculty, but updated with archaeological discoveries.

[oldsailor29]

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

I'd say that the Bible writers were using their own words, thinking, culture and research, collection and use of research material, editing of research material, while the visions, dreams and framework of the message came from God. The different between me and the Fundamentlists is that one is more like someone describing a picture they were shown and the other reading a speech they were given.

[/quote']

I think most SDAs believe all scripture is inspired, but the disagreement is the nature of inspiration, as illustrated by these two posts of Richard and Kevin.

However, I think maybe some scripture is not inspired. I think we can disregard the entire book of Ecclesiastes, which tells us how things are without God.

[SivartM]

Why should we disregard Ecclesiastes? It was accepted as scripture in the time of Paul, who said that all scripture is good and inspired by God. I'm just wondering what about Ecclesiastes strikes you as uninspired.

[Kevin H]

Actually Ecclesiastes was not accepted as scripture in the time of Paul. It was the last book to be accepted to the Old Testament to be accepted and that was after the time of Resurection, so Paul did not have Ecclesiastes in mind when he said that all scripture was given by inspiration of God as it was not yet a part of the Bible...

But I will argue that it is inspired, but we have to understand how. There is a poem in the end talking about the book. The poem is written in typical poetry with a chiastic parrellel. The central line of the poem is that all the things the book is discussing was ideas that will bring you into unfavorable judgement with God. It is a book warning of dangerous heresys that it has collected from popular religions and philosophies of it's day, and the book says that it wanted to present these heresys in a way that would sound tempting for a believer to accept. God put it in the Bible as a book of warnings. Sadly we are not familiar with the poetry and thus don't realize that the writer was warning us. (now since it was written in a way that makes it tempting for believers, we will find phrases and passages that sound good that we can quote, but we need to realize that we are quoting out of context. If we are quoting and believing in it's context we are as the book warns us, going to come out unfavorably in the Judgement of God.)

[SivartM]

So... what about "the dead know not anything"? Is our cherished proof text gone forever?

I'd be interested in reading more about this. Maybe you could start a study on Ecclesiastes?

[Guest]

Siv took the words right out of my mouth. What about Ecc 9:5, one of our biggest proof texts on the state of the dead? Ellen White used it.

[Guest]

The central line of the poem is that all the things the book is discussing was ideas that will bring you into unfavorable judgement with God.

It is a book warning of dangerous heresys that it has collected from popular religions and philosophies of it's day, and the book says that it wanted to present these heresys in a way that would sound tempting for a believer to accept.

Where did this idea come from, that the book only deals with that which will bring you into unfavorable judgement with God?

And where in the book does it say that it wants to present heresies in a way that would sound tempting?

[oldsailor29]

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

The central line of the poem is that all the things the book is discussing was ideas that will bring you into unfavorable judgement with God.

It is a book warning of dangerous heresys that it has collected from popular religions and philosophies of it's day, and the book says that it wanted to present these heresys in a way that would sound tempting for a believer to accept.

Where did this idea come from, that the book only deals with that which will bring you into unfavorable judgement with God?

And where in the book does it say that it wants to present heresies in a way that would sound tempting?

Most of that which follows comes from a study presented by an Old Testament Professor in the previous millennium.

One cannot "rightly divide the word of truth" by

blindly just quoting anything in the Bible! (Obviously, sometimes, to attack a bad idea you have to state what it is, right?)

This is most definitely the case in Ecclesiastes. Here is the opening statement:

The words of the Preacher ["qoheleth," an active participle meaning pretty much, "one calling," in the sense of calling together an assembly, "qahal"], the son of David, king in Jerusalem:

Vanity of vanities, says the preacher,

Vanity of vanities! All is vanity!

What does man gain by all the toil

At which he toils under the sun?

Ecclesiastes 1:1-3

That's a very clear and dramatic opening. The theme of the book is so clearly stated that no one can complain if he continues to read.

As with "into the ages of the ages," such construct chains where the same noun is used twice mean the most absolute that can be imagined.

That is,for instance:

king of king = the absolute ultimate in kingship; the kingship exercised by God as an infinite being over the finite human kings

lord of lords = the absolute ultimate in ownership over all that can be conceived of as existing

ages of the ages = eternity; the absolute ultimate extent to which a human can conceive time as

continuing

vanity of vanities = absolute meaningless; the ultimate in futility or emptiness that can be even

perceived or understood

The verses that follow (verses 4-11) adopt the Hindu concept of cycles: that is, that they are eternal, fixed, and progress is utterly impossible. When he says "there is nothing new under the sun" he means something horrible. He

means that man can never progress, never enjoy creativity.

And this is just the beginning. Further exegesis is available if it is necessary.

[oldsailor29]

Just in case some want read more from the OT prof:

In verses 12-14 he reiterates that everything done under the sun is vain and

striving after wind (or, feeding on wind). The proverb that follows is

certainly counter to both Yahwism and the whole meaning of the Christian

religion:

What is crooked cannot be made straight

And what is lacking cannot be numbered.

Ecclesiastes 1:15

His attack on wisdom is very explicit. He tells us that there is no real

distinction between "wisdom and madness and folly"! Indeed, even indulging

in wisdom is the wrong course:

For in much wisdom is much vexation

And he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.

Ecclesiastes 1:18

[Kevin H]

Siv took the words right out of my mouth. What about Ecc 9:5, one of our biggest proof texts on the state of the dead? Ellen White used it.

First the "Proof Text" While Mrs. White does quote the text many, many times, in the mid 1980s with one of the early computer programs (a big lazer disk at the White Estate at Andrews) I looked up every reference that that program had to Mrs. White's use of Ecc. 9:5, and I have done some similar studies since. Now I am not saying that there was a place that was not on that program which may not fit what I found on that program, but NOT ONCE have I seen Mrs. White using this text as a PROOF text. She goes to other texts to build her case, and uses the words of Ecc. 9:5 as a summery of what she builds from the proof texts. She uses those words as a summery, but out of all the many times she quotes this text I have never seen her use it once as as where she goes there to prove her point. We have only made it a proof text in fairly recent decades, in the days after Mrs. White and the pioneers. As I said, maybe you can point out to me some place where she used it as an actual proof text, but since I have not found it used that way in most if not all of her many uses of the text, I am very impressed that she avoided the rut that we have by turning to this text for our proof text. She was wise enought to avoid using it as the proof text, at least most, if not all, of the time.

Now for the text itself: it is a review of what we now know was used by different Greek and Babylonian philsophies who believed that this life is all there is and that once you died that was it. The belief that there was no after life what so ever. This text is NOT teaching what we believe about the state of the dead. Taking the words out of their context are a good discription as to how we understand the Bible, but again we have to do what Mrs. White wisely did, use other texts to build her case and if we wish to use this text to use the words out of context because they make a good summery statement.

[Kevin H]

I'd have to look where I have notes to point out all the details of that important poem at the end of the book that the author explains why he wrote that book, but the poem points away from the ideas in the book to the truth in contrast to the heresies that the author compliled from the pagan religions around him and the central line of the poem, the tip of the Chiasiam is "But know thou that for all these things (the ideas presented in this book) God will bring thee into judgment.

The reason why it took so long for Ecc to become part of the Bible was fear that it would be read incorrectly, but where because of that poem at the end the rabbies understood the poem at the end and knew that the author was writing a book of warnings, a book of what not to believe, a book of ideas that will bring us into judgment, in a way we would not want to face judgment, if we were to believe them. Remember, Ecc. was not a part of the Bible until around the time Revelation was being written, and thus Ecclesiastes not in Paul's and Jesus' Bible.

Also, a couple of years ago we had the Sabbath School quartely on Ecc. There are some amazing Ellen White quotes that the quarterly quotes then ignores, just as we tend to do. The Mrs. White quotes are on the right track, and as in the above post, her frequent use of Ecc. 9:5 but tendency not to use it as her proof text speaks volumes, and shows how far we lag behind her and how we would rather follow tradition than follow her counsels.

[Guest]

The central line of the poem is that all the things the book is discussing was ideas that will bring you into unfavorable judgement with God.

It is a book warning of dangerous heresys that it has collected from popular religions and philosophies of it's day, and the book says that it wanted to present these heresys in a way that would sound tempting for a believer to accept.

Ecc 12:1 Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them;

I saw a man use this text while giving a sermon to a bunch of young people at the GYC last night. But you're telling me that your higher education has taught you that this is a paganistic heresy, that will bring me into unfavorable judgement with God?

You don't know how bad I wish I had heeded this text when I was younger.

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

The central line of the poem is that all the things the book is discussing was ideas that will bring you into unfavorable judgement with God.

It is a book warning of dangerous heresys that it has collected from popular religions and philosophies of it's day, and the book says that it wanted to present these heresys in a way that would sound tempting for a believer to accept.

Ecc 12:1 Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them;

I saw a man use this text while giving a sermon to a bunch of young people at the GYC last night. But you're telling me that your higher education has taught you that this is a paganistic heresy, that will bring me into unfavorable judgement with God?

You don't know how bad I wish I had heeded this text when I was younger.

Richard, may I point out to you that you are now quoting from the end of the book in the section where the author is telling why he wrote the book and a phrase in contrast to the ideas that he is telling us that he is warning against. The poem is Ecc. 11:3 to 12:2. Ecc 12:1 happens to be a verse in this important poem where the author is stating the truth in contradiction to all the heresy he has been trying to warn us against. This is part of the poem that condems the rest of the book. The author is teaching that if you don't remember now they Creator in the days of thy youth, you might be drawn into the heresys he is warning against, ideas that you cannot change, that things can not change, sacrificial sacrifice can't do anything for you, the crooked cannot be made straight, that truth is unknowlable to man, knowlege and wisdoms is no better than foley, it does not matter if you are good or bad your'e just going to die and that's it and any accomplishment in life is just a vanity of vanities. The author is waring that all these ideas are going to fall to God's jugdement, so remember the creator in the days of your youth and not fall to these heresys that will result in making you a bitter old man and have no pleasure in the truths of the Bible.

[Guest]

Quote:

It is a book warning of dangerous heresys that it has collected from popular religions and philosophies of it's day, and the book says that it wanted to present these heresys in a way that would sound tempting for a believer to accept.

The poem is Ecc. 11:3 to 12:2. Ecc 12:1 happens to be a verse in this important poem where the author is stating the truth in contradiction to all the heresy he has been trying to warn us against.

Ok, how about this one? It is well outside the part you say is explaining the dangerous heresy.

Ecc 5:2 Be not rash with your mouth, and let not your heart be hasty to utter anything before God: for God is in heaven, and you upon earth: therefore let your words be few.

Is this paganistic heresy? Because it looks like very good advise to me. I don't see anything dangerous, heretical, paganistic, or philosophically popular about it.

Oh wait. You might say I took it out of context. Lets look at it in it's context:

Ecc 5:1 Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear, than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they consider not that they do evil.

2 Be not rash with your mouth, and let not your heart be hasty to utter anything before God: for God is in heaven, and you upon earth: therefore let your words be few.

3 For a dream comes through much business; and a fool's voice is known by a multitude of words.

4 When you vow a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he has no pleasure in fools: pay that which you have vowed.

5 Better is it that you should not vow, than that you should vow and not pay.

Maybe it's just me, but I still don't think that looks like dangerous heresy. What about this one?

Ecc 9:13-17 This wisdom have I seen also under the sun, and it seemed great unto me: There was a little city, and few men within it; and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it: Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man. Then said I, Wisdom is better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard. The words of wise men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that rules among fools.

Then there is always this:

Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing,.....

We know from other texts, that this is a fact. Which leads me away from believing everything you have said about this book. Maybe if I had gone to seminary, I could understand.

I am not trying to provoke you Kevin, but I do believe that if we desire to do God's will, and pray for wisdom and understanding, he will give it.

Joh 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Jas 1:5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all men liberally, and reproaches not; and it shall be given him.

Joh 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:

[Kevin H]

I'll see what I can do, will have to look back over lecture notes; however remember in the Book of Job God says that his friends did not say what was right while Job did, yet you can find phrases among his friends that we like, and phrases that Job uses that we don't like. And like with Mrs. White's use of Ecc 9:5, it is using the language of the text but her wisdom to use it only as some nice sounding language she can use for a summery statement after developing her arguments and the doctrine from the other texts, and not using the text in the actually development of the doctrine. (For us we are lazy, we take the text and build the doctrine on the text and use the other texts as secondary support. Mrs. White on the other hand, at least tended -- and I have not found her doing otherwise -- to develope the doctrine elsewhere and likes the words of the text as a nice summery)

The issue is in the combination of how the phrases fit together into a message which appears to question Biblical truths and picture God as not willing to share knowlege of truth with us, and thus an attack on the Psalms and Proverbs which has wisdom literature which is to teach the youth how to act wisely, and that the ideas in much of the book are talking about the foly of wasting their time learning the wisdom literature, that youth should just have fun and not waste their time studying, that there is no true knowlege out there because if there is God has not shared it with us, that substitutionary sacrifice is useless since we only live now then die and death is the complete end; and in the finding the same language in these pagan philosophies that actually do question Biblical truth, so it appears that the author is quoting these; and the structure of a poem on the end that is pointing young people to continue their studies of wisdom to look to God and not the ideas that will make us not find pleasure in the worship of God and the center of that poem being that these ideas are going to come under Judgment. From these 3 pieces of evidence: How as a whole there is a questioning of the truths presented in other parts of the Bible; finding that the book uses the actual language of pagan philosophies that did question these Biblical truths; and the poem from Ecc 11:3-12:2 which appears to be the author warning about and condeming the ideas he collected for that book, are 3 pieces of evidence that the caution of how we use Ecclesiastes is built on.

We can find phrases that we can do like what Mrs. White did, use the words out of context because it can fit what we are saying; the issue is that this is a book that we want to be very careful with, or even, as Mrs. White did, but we don't with Ecc. 9:5, avoid using the book for the development of doctrine.

It is interesting how the Sabbath School quarterly on Ecclesiastes gave a lot of wise statements from Mrs. White about this book (and I wish that the rest of the quarterly would have followed the counsel in those quotes)

[Guest]

Usefulness of Different Versions.

Just as the Holy Spirit guided in the copying and re-copying of the ancient texts, one can also expect the Spirit to speak through the different translations--whether King James Version, New International Version, Revised Standard Version, New World Translation, Living Bible, Clear Word, etc.

Every translation is an imperfect human attempt to communicate, in contemporary language, God's message which the prophets and apostles first communicated in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Each Bible translation has its own strengths and weaknesses. One can overcome most of the translation distortions simply by using different Bible versions in

studying the Scriptures. In the next chapter we shall offer suggestions on how to select appropriate Bible versions.

Those who are distressed by the proliferation of Bible versions will benefit from an insightful statement found in the preface of some of the earliest editions of the King James Version:

"We do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession . . . containeth the word of God, nay is the word of

God: As the King's speech, which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense,

everywhere . . . [there is] no cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it."

[Guest]

Translations are Also Scripture.

In fact, when the New Testament writers quoted from the Old Testament, they seem to have used Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Septuagint, abbreviated LXX). If translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, however imperfect the translation may have been, are treated by the New Testament writers as "Scripture" (graphe), contemporary Bible students can also treat whatever versions of the Bible they have--whether English, Swahili, Chinese, Russian, Yoruba, French, Spanish, etc.--as God's inspired message to them.

Bible students need not be overly concerned about distortions of the Word at the hands of copyists or translators. Ellen White speaks to this issue when she wrote: "Some look to us gravely and say, 'Don't you think there might have been some mistake in the copyist or in the translators?'

This is all probable, and the mind that is so narrow that it will hesitate and stumble over this possibility or probability would be just as ready to stumble over the mysteries of the Inspired Word, because their feeble minds cannot see through the purposes of God. Yes, they would just as easily stumble over plain facts that the common mind will accept, and discern the Divine, and to which God's utterance is plain and beautiful, full of marrow and fatness.

All the mistakes will not cause trouble to one soul, or cause any feet to stumble, that would not manufacture difficulties from the plainest revealed truth" (Selected Messages, 1:16, emphasis supplied).

Bible students must be more concerned about the distortions of the Word that result when they themselves grossly misinterpret the inspired Word.

[Guest]

Contemporary Interpreters Produce "the Liberated Word":

Gross Distortions of the Word

The minor distortions of the Word by copyists and translators can be corrected and controlled by comparing their work with available manuscripts and other versions of the Bible.

However, with interpreters (or exegetes) there is a greater likelihood of a gross abuse of the Word. This is because interpreters (church members, teachers, or preachers) may have

no controls to regulate their interpretations.

The grossest distortions of the Word occur at the level of interpretation. This is because interpreters tend to approach the Word with their own agenda, seeking to "liberate the Word."

Such distortions happen at the two major levels of interpretation: (i) at the popular churchly level, and (ii) at the scholarly academic level.

[Guest]

Popular Distortion: Relevance as Interpretation

One common kind of biblical distortion takes place at the popular level, when Bible students (church members and pastors) confuse interpretation with relevance or meaningfulness. Here, instead of first ascertaining what a text originally meant and then, using valid principles, applying the meaning to contemporary needs, Bible students seek to read into the text what they believe the text means to them.

Thus, they impose upon the scriptural passage their own meanings or opinions, transforming biblical exposition into a proof-text imposition. In other words, exegesis (reading out of the text meaning that is already there) becomes eisegesis (reading into the text meaning that is not there). This error is very subtle.

To illustrate how Scripture is distorted when believers attempt to apply the Bible to their lives without regard to what the Scripture really means, we shall look at two familiar areas of church life where such distortion often takes place.

[oldsailor29]

Popular Distortion: Relevance as Interpretation

One common kind of biblical distortion takes place at the popular level, when Bible students (church members and pastors) confuse interpretation with relevance or meaningfulness. Here, instead of first ascertaining what a text originally meant and then, using valid principles, applying the meaning to contemporary needs, Bible students seek to read into the text what they believe the text means to them.

Thus, they impose upon the scriptural passage their own meanings or opinions, transforming biblical exposition into a proof-text imposition. In other words, exegesis (reading out of the text meaning that is already there) becomes eisegesis (reading into the text meaning that is not there). This error is very subtle.

To illustrate how Scripture is distorted when believers attempt to apply the Bible to their lives without regard to what the Scripture really means, we shall look at two familiar areas of church life where such distortion often takes place.

Richard, I thought you were against the study of finding out what the text meant to the originator and his audience.

[Guest]

I don't believe I ever said that.

[oldsailor29]

Richard, I thought you were against the study of finding out what the text meant to the originator and his audience.

[Guest]

Distortion by Bible Students.

At a typical Bible study, whether Sabbath School class or

small group meeting at the home, someone reads a short verse or passage. The leader then asks: "What does this passage mean to you?" to which several respond with whatever thoughts come to their minds.

Very few, if any, have had the time to study the passage ahead

of time. Since the leader seeks to encourage everyone, he affirms each one by expressing delight in their spiritual insights. What may not be readily obvious to many is that Bible study has been transformed to a pooling of the ignorance and opinions of people about the Bible!

The problem with this popular approach to Scripture is that it identifies relevance as interpretation. Notice that the leader really asked the wrong question. The Bible passage read was first directed to a particular individual or groups of individuals at a certain time and place, by a certain inspired writer or speaker, for a specific purpose. Instead of asking "What does the passage mean to you?" is it not first important to ask: "What does the text mean?"

Popular distortions of Scripture can be ridiculous. Recently, I read the following account:

"I watched in horror a couple of years ago as a guest on a charismatic television network explained the 'biblical basis' of his ministry of 'possibility thinking.' 'My ministry is based

entirely on my life verse, Matthew 19:26, With God all things are possible. God gave me that verse because I was born in 1926.'

"Obviously intrigued by that method of obtaining a 'life verse,' the talk show host grabbed a Bible and began thumbing through excitedly. 'I was born in 1934,' he said. 'My life verse

would be Matthew 19:34. What does it say?' Then he discovered that Matthew 19 has only thirty verses. Undeterred, he flipped to Luke 19 and read verse 34: And they said, the Lord hath need of him (KJV).

"Thrilled, he exclaimed, 'Oh, the Lord has need of me! The Lord has need of me! What a wonderful life verse! I've never had a life verse before, but now the Lord has given me one! Thank you, Jesus! Hallelujah!' The studio audience began to applaud.

"At that moment, however, the talk show host's wife, who had also turned to Luke 19, said, 'Wait a minute! You can't use this. This verse is talking about a donkey!'"

Such distortions are not limited to charismatics. The story aptly illustrates the willy-nilly way some church members approach Scripture. Seeking for something that seems applicable

to whatever trial or need they are facing, some Bible students use Scripture in this manner.

While God can speak through donkeys and even stones, studying the Bible in this way is not how to ascertain "a word from the Lord."

[Kevin H]

Distortion by Bible Students.

At a typical Bible study, whether Sabbath School class or

small group meeting at the home, someone reads a short verse or passage. The leader then asks: "What does this passage mean to you?" to which several respond with whatever thoughts come to their minds.

Very few, if any, have had the time to study the passage ahead

of time. Since the leader seeks to encourage everyone, he affirms each one by expressing delight in their spiritual insights. What may not be readily obvious to many is that Bible study has been transformed to a pooling of the ignorance and opinions of people about the Bible!

The problem with this popular approach to Scripture is that it identifies relevance as interpretation. Notice that the leader really asked the wrong question. The Bible passage read was first directed to a particular individual or groups of individuals at a certain time and place, by a certain inspired writer or speaker, for a specific purpose. Instead of asking "What does the passage mean to you?" is it not first important to ask: "What does the text mean?"

Popular distortions of Scripture can be ridiculous. Recently, I read the following account:

"I watched in horror a couple of years ago as a guest on a charismatic television network explained the 'biblical basis' of his ministry of 'possibility thinking.' 'My ministry is based

entirely on my life verse, Matthew 19:26, With God all things are possible. God gave me that verse because I was born in 1926.'

"Obviously intrigued by that method of obtaining a 'life verse,' the talk show host grabbed a Bible and began thumbing through excitedly. 'I was born in 1934,' he said. 'My life verse

would be Matthew 19:34. What does it say?' Then he discovered that Matthew 19 has only thirty verses. Undeterred, he flipped to Luke 19 and read verse 34: And they said, the Lord hath need of him (KJV).

"Thrilled, he exclaimed, 'Oh, the Lord has need of me! The Lord has need of me! What a wonderful life verse! I've never had a life verse before, but now the Lord has given me one! Thank you, Jesus! Hallelujah!' The studio audience began to applaud.

"At that moment, however, the talk show host's wife, who had also turned to Luke 19, said, 'Wait a minute! You can't use this. This verse is talking about a donkey!'"

Such distortions are not limited to charismatics. The story aptly illustrates the willy-nilly way some church members approach Scripture. Seeking for something that seems applicable

to whatever trial or need they are facing, some Bible students use Scripture in this manner.

While God can speak through donkeys and even stones, studying the Bible in this way is not how to ascertain "a word from the Lord."

Richard, I'm sorry, but I cannot believe that you wrote this passage, it is so unlike you. I have seen our discriptions in approaching the Bible as you saying "We have to support how people have traditionally understood the text" and that truth is diserned by the words of scripture and my imagination. At best you can use some lower criticizism (looking at the literary structure of the text as it stands) but even that you seem nervous about. This is an amazing post. I'm use to you saying "Tradition interpeted this text as..." and hitting us over the head with tradition and refusing Bible study that does not support tradition.

What we run into are people who want to support tradition, and liberals who want to do away with scripture so they don't have to follow tradition. But when conservatives, using conservative Bible believeing methods, come and notice that there is evidence in the Bible, ancient practices, literary structures, mistranslations of words that do not fit tradition, too many conservatives freek out. Too many are interested in religion, not in the Bible and what the Bible actually says. Others are interested in the Bible only to the extent that it supports tradition. And others are more interested in being right than learning, and some of those who want to be right want to use their understanding to control others. I've said many times here that I wish I could have some time to sit down in a relaxed manner over a cup of herb tea with Dr. Pippin to talk about some of these things because I know that he has a background to be able to hear what I'm saying and understand.

Richard, thank you for that post.