The Inspiration of Scripture

[Tone]

I'm not sure why you're asking me that question as the texts speak for themselves.

You see the texts as speaking against each other...I don't.

*So, you'll have to elaborate...please.

 

[FireDragon76]

And how can we measure whether each and every word in the Bible contains that and only that which God intended it to contain? By using the Bible to measure the Bible?

Not only that, but what about higher criticism? It's evident much of the Bible wasn't written down all at once, we know that from observing literary styles, including with new methods of AI linguistic analysis. The idea that people just wrote coherent theology down all at once in the Torah doesn't seem tenable to me. I myself researched the story of Abraham binding Isaac, for instance, looking into Reformed Jewish sources and most modern scholars believe the story is quite ancient, drawing from multiple traditions, and probably originally even more disturbing than the one we have in today's Bible.

 

[redleghunter]

In the OT we find the Saviors likeness as burnt offerings of Lamb, giving way to Jesus' sacrifice, which is correctly the word of God. Also we have Isaac as a temptation to be sacrificed by Abraham, etc. I don't find false outcomes in that.

Which was realized when?

Also was Solomon a prophet of God, I'm asking because I don't know, and he was stating poetry, not prophecy? So then what is a poet doing speaking the words of God? I thought that was the role of a prophet.

Which was God’s progressive revelation.

Was he speaking prophecy of the end times? Ecclesiastes makes no mention of the eschaton.

Ecclesiastes 1:
1The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. (NASB)

Ecclesiastes 12:

13The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. 14For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.

 

[Natsumi Lam]

So human beings were in some kind of trance and had no will, God just possessed their bodies?

Sounds like spirit or automatic writing. Somehow, I don't think any Church Father actually believed this.

Automatic writing and relay of the Holy Spirit differs. It is the source that differs. You cannot compare God's wisdom, infinite knowledge, etc to that of a finite demon.

 

[devin553344]

You see the texts as speaking against each other...I don't.

*So, you'll have to elaborate...please.

Well one says the earth abides forever, the other says it will burn and be destroyed. I'm not sure what your seeing then.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well one says the earth abides forever, the other says it will burn and be destroyed. I'm not sure what your seeing then.

Because the Bible presents different, contrasting theologies. Harmonizing them means we must weigh evidence carefully and delves into issues of hermeneutics.

 

[devin553344]

Which was realized when?


Which was God’s progressive revelation.

Was he speaking prophecy of the end times? Ecclesiastes makes no mention of the eschaton.

Ecclesiastes 1:
1The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. (NASB)

Ecclesiastes 12:

13The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. 14For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.

Thanks. I read on wikipedia about Solomon and it says he's widely accepted as a prophet of God.

So if I understand what your saying, Solomon just didn't know about the destruction of the earth when he said the earth abides forever?

 

[bekkilyn]

The Holy Scriptures are the pillar and foundation of our faith.

Oh, so not Jesus then. Well I suppose that may be your faith, but Jesus Christ is the pillar and foundation of my faith.

 

[FireDragon76]

Thanks. I read on wikipedia about Solomon and it says he's widely accepted as a prophet of God.

So if I understand what your saying, Solomon just didn't know about the destruction of the earth when he said the earth abides forever?

Part of the issue is that Jews didn't think about prophecy the way we do, like a weather forecast. And Jewish standards of Biblical interpretation were nothing like ours- they rarely understood things in their literal context. The way Jesus quotes the Bible is loose and often allegorical or analogical, for instance; there's more use of freer association between concepts than is typical in our own thought.

I don't believe "the world destroyed by fire" can be understood literally for instance. It's a symbol of renewal, like the phoenix. Somebody was probably drawing from Greek imagery of the ekpyrosis, as found in some Greek philosophies. Rather than the world ending in WWIII, this is talking about God cleansing the earth. Perhaps we could even see this "fire" as the Spirit of God. That would be closer to how a Jew would interpret this.

 

[bekkilyn]

Read them it will become manifest.

I have read them, but nice try at deflection.

 

[redleghunter]

Thanks. I read on wikipedia about Solomon and it says he's widely accepted as a prophet of God.

So if I understand what your saying, Solomon just didn't know about the destruction of the earth when he said the earth abides forever?

I already posted his own words on the subject from Ecclesiastes.

With regards to the earth abides forever what exactly was he teaching? Prophecy or the mundane changing of generations where there is nothing new under the sun?

The soul annihilation gang loves to use Ecclesiastes when Solomon says “the deaf know nothing.” When Solomon spoke of our temporal earthly lives one verse later.

This is why it is important to read these texts in the literary and historical context and not verse mine for meaning.

 

[redleghunter]

Oh, so not Jesus then. Well I suppose that may be your faith, but Jesus Christ is the pillar and foundation of my faith.

Oh I was quoting St Irenaeus.

Against Heresies Book III.1

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.1 (St. Irenaeus)

 

[redleghunter]

I have read them, but nice try at deflection.

You rightly identified The Divine Logos.

I rightly identified we find His Words in Holy Scriptures.

 

[devin553344]

Part of the issue is that Jews didn't think about prophecy the way we do, like a weather forecast. And Jewish standards of Biblical interpretation were nothing like ours- they rarely understood things in their literal context. The way Jesus quotes the Bible is loose and often allegorical or analogical, for instance; there's more use of freer association between concepts than is typical in our own thought.

I don't believe "the world destroyed by fire" can be understood literally for instance. It's a symbol of renewal, like the phoenix. Somebody was probably drawing from Greek imagery of the ekpyrosis, as found in some Greek philosophies. Rather than the world ending in WWIII, this is talking about God cleansing the earth. Perhaps we could even see this "fire" as the Spirit of God. That would be closer to how a Jew would interpret this.

I tend to take things literal and if they don't add up then I begin to question the story. Jesus is giving parables in the NT and I understand that, even Genesis I generally accept as vision language. Revelation is pretty far from literal, so I guess I could lean toward a vision of prophecy and not to be taken literal. It's just hard for me because of the descriptive text saying "melting" and "burning". OK well I have something to think about, thanks

 

[FireDragon76]

The "New Heavens and New Earth" of Revelation aren't necessarily about the physical destruction of the world, but the replacement of one order with another, just as medievals understood this text. (And the New Jerusalem is the Church, the dead giveaway is the imagery of the number twelve- whereas the Old Jerusalem is Babylon that is destroyed). The theme in this story is that the Church triumphs, despite persecutions endured in the first century. It's not a forecast of the end of the cosmos, but an unveiling of the present. Apcolypsis literally means "unveiling", after all.

In many ways, Jordan Peterson's approach to understanding Christianity is actually closer to being "biblical" than the typical Evangelical who insists the Bible is understood on a literal level. Because the symbolism reveals the real substance of the Bible, but only if we understand it as speaking to the subconscious mind, and not our modern minds that are dominated by completely different structures.

 

[bekkilyn]

Oh I was quoting St Irenaeus.

Against Heresies Book III.1

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.1 (St. Irenaeus)

He's not saying that scripture is the ground and pillar of our faith, but the will of God. Considering that we can learn of the will of God through scripture, he's not making a false statement in the context of which he's writing. Still not a good argument for infallibility of something other than the person of God.

Edit: Actually I'm wrong. Reading the statement even more carefully, it appears that Irenaeus is actually referring to the gospel as the ground and pillar of our faith, and considering that the gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ, the statement makes even more sense.

You rightly identified The Divine Logos.

I rightly identified we find His Words in Holy Scriptures.

The Logos can speak his Word through scripture, but the Logos is still a person, not an infallible book. God alone is infallible.

 

[redleghunter]

He's not saying that scripture is the ground and pillar of our faith, but the will of God.

What was by the will of God in his statement?

The Logos can speak his Word through scripture, but the Logos is still a person, not an infallible book. God alone is infallible.

And how did God reveal His infallible words?

 

[devin553344]

The "New Heavens and New Earth" of Revelation aren't necessarily about the physical destruction of the world, but the replacement of one order with another, just as medievals understood this text. (And the New Jerusalem is the Church, the dead giveaway is the imagery of the number twelve- whereas the Old Jerusalem is Babylon that is destroyed). The theme in this story is that the Church triumphs, despite persecutions endured in the first century. It's not a forecast of the end of the cosmos, but an unveiling of the present. Apcolypsis literally means "unveiling", after all.

In many ways, Jordan Peterson's approach to understanding Christianity is actually closer to being "biblical" than the typical Evangelical who insists the Bible is understood on a literal level. Because the symbolism reveals the real substance of the Bible, but only if we understand it as speaking to the subconscious mind, and not our modern minds that are dominated by completely different structures.

Yes I would tend to agree. Much of the bible would appear untrue if taken literally. For instance Matthew 16:27-28

 

[FireDragon76]

No. I believe in organic inspiration. But the end result of organic inspiration is that the Bible contains every word that God wanted it to contain in order to convey his speech to us.

That still wouldn't mean the Bible is necessarily inerrant or doesn't have human influences that aren't divine, however. Perhaps God intended us to read the Bible critically, for instance, or perhaps using an allegorical method. Perhaps God didn't inspire the psuedo-Pauline epistle's mistrust of women, or Paul's contempt for malakoi and arsenokoitai, for instance, but God counted on us to be able to distinguish this from the main ideas that were critical to his message. Indeed, Paul himself makes it clear some things he says are not from the Lord.

 

[devin553344]

Indeed, Paul himself makes it clear some things he says are not from the Lord.

Will you point me to where it says that, because I kinda believe that, but don't know where to find it? Thanks.