Inspiration vs verbal inspiration

[there buster]

No, we did not agree that Luke made mistakes. I asked specifically about Luke, and you declined to respond.

What mistakes do you propose that Luke made?

Quote:

All it means is a bunch of people got together and said "we think these books are good enough that (a) there is no reason to add a lot more to them, and ( you had better have a good reason for contradicting them"

Apparently that's all it means to you. It does not reflect the thinking of those councils. It does reflect a "low" view of scripture and a relatively "high" view of personal judgment.

And about Elder Butler: Mrs. White was making a joke.

[bevin]

Quote:

No, we did not agree that Luke made mistakes. I asked specifically about Luke, and you declined to respond.

Do you claim Luke is infallible?

If not, why are you asking me for an instance of a mistake made by Luke?

Quote:

It does not reflect the thinking of those councils

Sure it does - they knew very well that there were books that almost made it in, and that there were others that only just made it in, and that the distinction was made by personal judgement and politics amongst the members.

/Bevin

[there buster]

Quote:

Do you claim Luke is infallible?

No. You said we agreed he made mistakes. We did not.

Infallible is a state. Mistakes are particular actions or choices. To describe a person or author as fallible says nothing about the accuracy of a particular work.

You continue to make blanket statements absent specific examples. I'm simply asking you to give specifics. What mistakes do you charge Luke with?

And no, your . . .

Quote:

All it means is a bunch of people got together and said "we think these books are good enough that (a) there is no reason to add a lot more to them, and ( you had better have a good reason for contradicting them"

. . .does not reflect the thinking of those councils.

They were declaring these collections as "normative." They contained what was essential to salvation, and were a faithful representation of God's dealings with humanity.

You may not agree with their thinking, but replacing it with "these books are good enough,"and "you had better have a good reason for contradicting them," is a historical travesty.

It sounds like the product of deliberations of a group of postmodern secular scholars after an evening's discussion in a cofee shop. It is alien to the thinking of religious scholars of the first millennium.

[bevin]

Quote:

You continue to make blanket statements absent specific examples. I'm simply asking you to give specifics. What mistakes do you charge Luke with?

Do you think the Book of Luke has mistakes?

If so, why ask me for examples?

If not, why not clearly say so?

Quote:

They were declaring these collections as "normative."

Nope - they were basically trying to settle on some books that they could all accept as a reasonable basis for what could be read in church - they were not looking for perfection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

The Mishnah, compiled by the second century, describes some of the debate over the status of some books of Ketuvim, and in particular whether or not they render the hands "impure". Yadaim 3:5 calls attention to the debate over Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. The Megillat Ta'anit, in a discussion of days when fasting is prohibited but that are not noted in the Bible, mentions the holiday of Purim. Based on these, and a few similar references, Heinrich Graetz concluded in 1871 that there had been a Council of Jamnia (or Yavne in Hebrew) which had decided Jewish canon sometime in the late 1st century (c. 70–90). This became the prevailing scholarly consensus for much of the 20th century. However, from the 1960s onwards, based on the work of J.P. Lewis, S.Z. Leiman, and others, this view increasingly came into question. In particular, later scholars noted that none of the sources actually mentioned books that had been withdrawn from a canon, and questioned the whole premise that the discussions were about canonicity at all, asserting that they were actually dealing with other concerns entirely

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Canon of the New Testament:

The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council .

[there buster]

Notice to readers of this thread:

The fact /bevin can find revisionist theologians to claim anything he desires is neither news nor compelling evidence. Any serious readers might want to try this book:

Lost Christianities

It's quite comprehensive concerning the canon, and how it came about, among many other things.

Quote:

they were basically trying to settle on some books that they could all accept as a reasonable basis for what could be read in church - they were not looking for perfection.

I have run out of time to waste on this parade of straw men. No one has claimed inerrancy for the Bible, no one claimed any committee was "looking for perfection."

Other readers might want to consider whether someone unable to read my sentences accurately is a reliable source concerning errors in the Bible.

I shall be spending my time elsewhere.

[bevin]

Quote:

Quote:

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Canon of the New Testament:

The fact /bevin can find revisionist theologians to claim anything he desires

I am sure the Catholic Encyclopedia article authors would be amused to find themselves categorised as revisionist theologians

Any serious readers might want to try this book:

url for Lost Christianities at Amazon, which includes the following...

The 27 New Testament gospels, epistles, acts, and revelations, it turns out, were only a handful of the letters, arguments, visions, and accounts of Christ's life in wide circulation in the early centuries of the religion. And they were hardly the only ones to claim direct ties to the Apostles.... Presents the major strains of early Christianity and explains how each feuded bitterly with the others. He also discusses how and why the group representing the closest thing to modern-day Christianity ultimately won out."--Scott Bernard Nelson, The Boston Globe

which matches my description of this process...

/Bevin

[Neil D]

I have found this thread interesting. I would hate to see it die at this point when there are several questions that are still unanswered...

For example, Gerry Cabalo states-

Quote:

And there shouldn't be differences in the style of the different authors if all they did was receive dictation of words.

While we understand that there were visions, and visions of parables, and quoted words from celestial beings, how does inspiration affect us? I think we can all agree that inspiration is not a factory process, ie mass produced from single molds.... And yet, when many are inspired by these various inspired sources [EGW, Bible, et al] it does cause some sort of response....all of them different and yet the same..

There were several points that Ed and Bevin each made, that seemed to be very valid and give substance to each argument.

**aside** Guys, we all owe you a big thank you for the discussion. And yeah, we all saw that you guys got a bit testy, but you guys have to admit, on the whole, to your credit, you guys were pretty civil with each other and, most importantly, your arguements really brought to the forfront some of the connundrum of infallibility and inspiration...at least for me...So, Guys, thank you.

Quote:

But just because it doesn't contain a scientific description doesn't mean that it is silent on the question or origins, nor that it's account is invalid. It means simply that it is not a scientific description.

I thought that this arguement was very valid. It reminded me of a saying that I had once in English class -A common man's understanding of truely poetic words... IOWs, most people, if they can render it/understand it, condense the tedious precise wording or the flowering nebulous wording into something they understand...Hence, they are *inspired* to make something understandable. Does the new wording make it any less true? maybe, but the intent is not less true...

I also found this tidbit also interesting from Bevin-

Quote:

Does our understanding have to be broad enough to take into account that his journalistic assembly of information includes collecting incorrect information?

Because while there was some hasseling over Luke collecting incorrect information, I do have some specific information as to whether Luke collected incorrect information.

Acts 7-

12When Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent our fathers on their first visit. 13On their second visit, Joseph told his brothers who he was, and Pharaoh learned about Joseph's family. 14After this, [color:#FF9900]Joseph sent for his father Jacob and his whole family, seventy-five in all. 15Then Jacob went down to Egypt, where he and our fathers died.

Genesis 46

26 All the persons belonging to Jacob, who came to Egypt, his direct descendants, not including the wives of Jacob's sons, were sixty-six persons in all,

27and the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in Egypt were two; [color:#FF6600]all the persons of the house of Jacob, who came to Egypt, were seventy.

Who is in error? Moses or Luke? Do we accept the erroneous information? Or is it erroneous information? There is a descrepancy...but whose? Twould seem that since Luke makes his claim nearly a couple of thousand years later and may not have been an eye witness, the oneous would be his error... Do we throw the baby out with the bath water over the discrepancy of 5 people?

David Koot 'inspires' us with his biblical definition by giving the greek translation of inspiration-

Quote:

Word is 'theopneustos; which literally means, 'God-breathed.'

He goes on to point out that this 'God breathed' wording is -

Quote:

theopneustos, on: to a communication which has been inspired by God - 'inspired by God, divinely inspired.'. . . 'every Scripture divinely inspired and useful for teaching ' or 'all Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching'’

So, 'God inspired' wording is good for teaching...? Is that inspiring or is inspiration limited to just teaching? What about being motivated into doing something with this 'new' information??? Isn't that inspiration? Isn't this narrow definition just abit confining? : David, we need some inspiration here!

Ed brings this phrase from the Great Controversy that, to me, recieved surprizingly little attention-

Quote:

One writer is more strongly impressed with one phase of the subject; he grasps those points that harmonize with his experience or with his power of perception and appreciation; another seizes upon a different phase; and each, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, presents what is most forcibly impressed upon his own mind--a different aspect of the truth in each, but a perfect harmony through all. And the truths thus revealed unite to form a perfect whole, adapted to meet the wants of men in all the circumstances and experiences of life.

It occurs to me that inspiration 'unite(s) to form a perfet whole, adapted to the meet the wants of men in all circumstances and experiences of life.' And a lot of the big thinkers here missed that....[looking this way and that way] [shrugs] Ok, or not...At least it was posted...BUT NOT COMMENTED ON...My question to this statement is "Why?"

I find the following somewhat disturbing....

Quote:

THE FINAL STEP, however, was ratification by a representative counsel of the entire BODY. The gifts of the Spirit were not given to individuals, but individuals exercised those gifts for the BODY. SO it was with the Bible,

The Council of Jamnia, ca. A.D. 200, determined the OT canon. A series of councils of the church, finished by the Synod of Rome(if memory serves) determined the NT canon sometime in the fourth century.

Because in all my arguements with Catholics, this gives substance to thier claim that THEY, not God, are in a position to determine the interpretation of scripture. It was THIER counsel, not the protestant movement, that determine which books of the bible to include in the current cannonized version...My arguements have always been that it was PEOPLE WHO WERE MARTYERED for thier faith that determined which books were RATIFIED as valid scripture.

What say you to this and my other musings?

[Tom Wetmore]

Just tagging on to add a post by Kevin H posted on MSDAOL that I found helpful to understanding this topic:

The problem with this topic is that it is based on the wrong presupositions. Words are not inspired, people are inspired.

We need to see the word "Prophet" and "inspired" as a type of job, like "Professor" or "Doctor." Everything that Lennard Baily writes are the words of a Doctor. We do not ask "Are these words Doctor, or are those words not Doctor, how much of Baily's writings Doctor and how much of his writings not doctor?" "Are these words by Einstein professor, and these other words of Einstein not professor, how much of Einstein's writings professor and how much of his writings not professor?"

Baily and Einstein write on different topics, but all of Baily's writings since he receved his MD, are words written by a doctor, dealing with topics from the perspective from someone who happens to be a doctor. The words themselves are not a doctor. All that Einstein wrote since becoming a professor was written by a professor, written from a perspective as a professor. We do not go through Einstein's writings to see which words are professor and which words are not professor. Now of course we pay closer attention to Dr. Baily's writings about medical issues, especially those dealing with heart transplants. And we'd look closer at Enisteins lectures, but we do not give the colection of words the title of doctor, nor the title of professor. These titles go to the expirence of the person.

Same with inspration. It was the person, such as Ellen White, who was inspired. Everything she wrote comes from the persective of someone who was a prophet, who was an inspired person.

Now even with inspration we should clearify. There are two types of inspration. All truth comes from God, and is there for given from inspiration from God. But God imparts truth in both direct and indirect manners. A medical doctor, who discovers amazing truth in the treatment of an illness, or a linguist who studying ancient texts comes to the clearer understanding of the meaning of a Biblical word is inspired, but indirectly inspired as the Holy Spirit leads them in their study. Luther and Wesley were indirectly inspired. Hiram Edson was indirectly inspired as he walked through the corn field on October 23, 1844

Direct inspiration is where God specifically gives a vision to send a direct message to someone. This direct inspiration is what sepperates say an Ellen White or a Nathan, or a John the Baptist, or an Isaiah from a Luther, Wesley, or an Isaac Newton. God gave truth through both, thus both are inspired but the two different kinds of inspiration.

Now, Mrs. White tells what being inspired does and does not do for her. Some of the major sections that you can go to the White estate and study are where she discusses the ill fated testimony #11, the reform dress, the issue of the daily, and issues surounding inspiration in especially her discussions with Stephen Haskell. Sadly in 1923 the views that Haskell supported won out in the church. A. G. Daniels and W. W. Prescott felt that if the church was to accept the wrong views of how inspiration works that it would be disasterous. We are finding Daniel's and Prescott's prophecy coming true.

What Mrs. White got in vision was like snapshots of major theams, then she would have the job of putting them into words. Have someone discribe to you a photo that you have never seen, then look at the photo for the very first time. The discription in your head probably looks a lot different from the actual picture, but you would still be able to recognize the picture as the one that was discribed. So with Mrs. White. Listen to what she is tellins us, and even though things may not come exactly like the picture we form in our minds eye, we will still know which way to follow.

Inspiration gives Mrs. White a frame work, and were focused on different theams. The first set of visions were only to tell the Millerites not to give up their expirence, that God was indeed leading them and their expirence. These messages were given by a pork eating Sunday keeper who thought that the dead went right to heaven when they died (despite her mother having other thoughts on the state of the dead) yet these were messages given by a true prophet of God.

The visions then changed theams to either encourage those studying the Bible of them either being on the right track and to continue studying, or that they are on the wrong track and needed to re-examine the texts, and visions for the formation of the Seventh-day Adventist church. She also wrote on the Bible where she placed the tower of Bable before the flood.

Next the theam of her visions was for health and education.

Finally she came to her crowning work, the issues of the Great Controversy.

Everything else she wrote she writes from the perspective of applying what she learned in these visionary theams, and she tells us to look at her framework and the big picture, but not necessarly the minor details. She said that her writings are not to be used in answering questions of exegesis, such as "What is the meaning of the Daily in Daniel" nor in details of history. She says that if we were to find where she dissagrees with the Bible to follow the Bible.

Sadly after 1923 the view of the church is "Mrs. White was not infailable, it's just that she never made a mistake." and we take her advice that if we find where she dissagrees with the Bible to follow the Bible, and we have turned it around into a dare "I dare you to find a place where she dissagrees with the Bible, and if you do, then she is not inspired and throw the whole thing out."

That dare is not fair. Mrs. White was letting us know that the visions have given her a framework, then she fills in the details from the perspective of the message she saw. I mentioned that in one of her early writings she placed the tower of Bable before the flood. The chronology of the tower of Bable and the flood does not affect her message and the principles she is presenting. So we keep the principles and instead of saying "The tower of Bable preceded the flood, because Mrs. White said so" we do what Mrs. White did, inseeing that the chronology was wrong we follow the Bible chronology.

A couple of other examples: In the casting out of the demons and the pigs run into the sea, Mrs. White makes a comment about the Jews who were raising pigs. However, where the event happened was not in a Jewish area but a pagan area. They were not Jews keeping the pigs. Mrs. White's principle of health reform does not change, but her exegesis of the text, seeing Jews as raising the pigs is incorrect.

In the Desire of Ages she talks about Joseph and Mary going through the leanth of the streets looking for a place to stay and how there was no room in the inn.

The word that Luke uses for "Inn" translators knew was not the word for an "Inn" as in the story of the good Samaritan. But they did not know how to translate the word, but since Joseph and Mary were traveling, and this was a place to stay, they may as well translate it as "Inn." However, other ancient writings have come to light with this word in it and now we know how the word is to be translated. It is the room in a family home for out of town relatives to stay.

There was no inn. There was no innkeeper. There was no going through the streets looking for a place to stay. They went directly to Joseph's house. Joseph's house had no room. Now we don't know why they did not have room. It could be that his family did not welcome him, or it could be that he was welcomed, but that with all the other relatives in town, that there was no privacy, and little Sarah kept asking "So did Mary have her baby yet?" and little Moshea keep tugging on Uncle Joseph's cloke saying "Uncle Joseph, I'm thursty will you get me a drink of water" and they may have gone to the stable for some privacy.

But Mrs. Whites visions on the life of Jesus was not interested in this detail. her readers would have been confused if she discussed the family situation when they read in their Bible that there was no room in the inn. The principle was that there was no room. The frame work of her philosophy still stands. But this is a place where she dissagrees with the Bible, and I follow the Bible and know that it was Joseph's family that did not have room. But this does not go against her message of God leading the Millerites, the development of the church, principles of health and education and the issues of the Great Controversy. I can still turn to the true prophet, Ellen White to learn about working to evangelize large cities and to look at the issues of the Great Controversy.

I hope this helps.

[Neil D]

It does, Tom....

And by the way, ....Thanks....

Now,....any else want to add to this?

[Kevin H]

Thanks Tom for bringing my post over here. I hope some will comment on it.