The Inspiration of Scripture

[redleghunter]

This number keeps getting larger exponentially every time the argument is being made. Of course it isn't true either.
We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denominations

Yes, I would be happy if they settled for some number any number, something easy to remember:

 

[redleghunter]

fwiw, I understand the point you are trying to get across. It's simple chronology.
When a writer in a New Testament epistle says, "the scriptures," they are not talking about their own writing or things yet to be written; writings that would later be canonized as the New Testament.

The Apostles spoke with authority and the early church recognized that.

Peter affirms such and wrote:

2 Peter 3: NASB

1This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles.​

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

I first answered the OP with an
but felt I had to add something after reading the many replies

If anyone doesn't believe that the Bible is inspired by God, that it is the Word of God for us; well then you might as well make up your own because it either is or is not.

I believe the Bible is inspired by God through the various books of the Bible written by those men He inspired.
For example, I don't consider Paul's epistles as "Pauline" etc they are from GOD through Paul or whoever else penned them.

None of it is men's words they are from God. I don't want to enter into any debates on this, I am answering the OP with a resounding "Amen".

When I posted my first post after checking out Christian forum s for so long I was hesitant be ayes I don’t want to debate pointlessly and rudely either. What I do wanna get is a understanding on why other believers and non believers think the way they do in order to search my own heart to make sure I feel I’m really on the right track and not just following what the majority have to say about scripture or any other regard. So I like the op because it gives me a opportunity to ask some questions. I’ve started to wonder actually more so because if different people have differing interpretations of scripture that seems to be a major problem. How do you deal with the issue of having to use your own opinion or others opinions to come to an acceptable interpretation of a passage?

 

[Tree of Life]

"I say (I, not the Lord) that..."
- Paul.
Who is speaking God or Paul?

Both. When Paul says: "I, not the Lord", he is not saying that his words are not authoritative here. Rather, he is saying that he's not quoting from the Old Testament.

 

[redleghunter]

Authorship of the Pauline epistles - Wikipedia

Please give us a historical outline of when some started to question the Pauline epistles.

 

[redleghunter]

Of course, but @bekkilyn and I believe that's more complicated than simply saying "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it".

Which the OP is not addressing.

The question is are the words of God infallible. And if so where do we find them. The OP has taken the position that Holy Scriptures is where we find these infallible words of God.

 

[FireDragon76]

Please give us a historical outline of when some started to question the Pauline epistles.

I believe there were even debates in the patristic period- many NT books had their canonicity and apostolicity debated. Lutheran scholastics themselves recognized some of those deutero-Pauline books as antilegomena or disputed apostolicity. They were probably written by a disciple of Paul.

Antilegomena - Wikipedia

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

The opposite of taking liberty with the text is wooden literalism.

I don't think it opinion that when handling the text you put it in the literary and historical context. For example:

Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study. Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.

The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.

Obviously, only exegesis does justice to the text. Eisegesis is a mishandling of the text and often leads to a misinterpretation. Exegesis is concerned with discovering the true meaning of the text, respecting its grammar, syntax, and setting. Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, even at the expense of the meaning of words.

The process of exegesis involves 1) observation: what does the passage say? 2) interpretation: what does the passage mean? 3) correlation: how does the passage relate to the rest of the Bible? and 4) application: how should this passage affect my life?

Eisegesis, on the other hand, involves 1) imagination: what idea do I want to present? 2) exploration: what Scripture passage seems to fit with my idea? and 3) application: what does my idea mean? Notice that, in eisegesis, there is no examination of the words of the text or their relationship to each other, no cross-referencing with related passages, and no real desire to understand the actual meaning. Scripture serves only as a prop to the interpreter’s idea.

To illustrate, let’s use both approaches in the treatment of one passage:

2 Chronicles 27:1-2
“Jotham was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem sixteen years. . . . He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father Uzziah had done, but unlike him he did not enter the temple of the LORD.”

EISEGESIS
First, the interpreter decides on a topic. Today, it’s “The Importance of Church Attendance.” The interpreter reads 2 Chronicles 27:1-2 and sees that King Jotham was a good king, just like his father Uzziah had been, except for one thing: he didn’t go to the temple! This passage seems to fit his idea, so he uses it. The resulting sermon deals with the need for passing on godly values from one generation to the next. Just because King Uzziah went to the temple every week didn’t mean that his son would continue the practice. In the same way, many young people today tragically turn from their parents’ training, and church attendance drops off. The sermon ends with a question: “How many blessings did Jotham fail to receive, simply because he neglected church?”

Certainly, there is nothing wrong with preaching about church attendance or the transmission of values. And a cursory reading of 2 Chronicles 27:1-2 seems to support that passage as an apt illustration. However, the above interpretation is totally wrong. For Jotham not to go to the temple was not wrong; in fact, it was very good, as the proper approach to the passage will show.

EXEGESIS
First, the interpreter reads the passage and, to fully understand the context, he reads the histories of both Uzziah and Jotham (2 Chronicles 26-27; 2 Kings 15:1-6, 32-38). In his observation, he discovers that King Uzziah was a good king who nevertheless disobeyed the Lord when he went to the temple and offered incense on the altar—something only a priest had the right to do (2 Chronicles 26:16-20). Uzziah’s pride and his contamination of the temple resulted in his having “leprosy until the day he died” (2 Chronicles 26:21).

Needing to know why Uzziah spent the rest of his life in isolation, the interpreter studies Leviticus 13:46 and does some research on leprosy. Then he compares the use of illness as a punishment in other passages, such as 2 Kings 5:27; 2 Chronicles 16:12; and 21:12-15.

By this time, the exegete understands something important: when the passage says Jotham “did not enter the temple of the LORD,” it means he did not repeat his father’s mistake. Uzziah had proudly usurped the priest’s office; Jotham was more obedient.

The resulting sermon might deal with the Lord’s discipline of His children, with the blessing of total obedience, or with our need to learn from the mistakes of the past rather than repeat them.
What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?
​

That’s was really really good. Thanks for taking the time to try and help me understand. Is it at all possible that when you take everything into account that a person could still be wrong about the conclusion they come too? If we could be 100% certain wouldn’t need to have been there to see it ourself? Without being there don’t we have to be aware of the idea it’s possible we could be messing some things up and not be wrong? Jesus says, you believe because you have seen, blessed are those who haven’t seen but still believe. So because we don’t get see Jesus in the same way Thomas did, is the only real honest way of thinking one where you put your stake in the ground knowing that it’s possible you could be wrong?

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

Could you answer my question?

It would probably have authority as to each individual seeks out truth and understanding on their own. Kinda what send to already be happening to be honest. But I think it’s very important to not that if you aren’t using the correct definition and made up your own do you not see how that’s a problem? It may not be a problem for you personally but it’s definitely a problem for the interpretation of scripture I would think. Is it really that difficult for us as believers to admit that we are wrong about something or may be wrong?

 

[Strong in Him]

that is taking it out of context.

No, Paul was writing to the Corinthian church about marriage, 1 Corinthians 7. Sometimes he said his words were from God, 1 Corinthians 7:10. Sometimes he specifically says that his words are his, not the Lord's 1 Corinthians 7:12. In verse 7 he says "I wish" - not "the Lord commands".

If ALL words are God's, then why did Paul differentiate between the words that were his and the words that were from the Lord? Why not just say "this is what God says about marriage", or "what I received from God, I pass on to you"?

Anything that Jesus said or Paul wrote should NEVER be taken as being in violation of the OT scripture.

The only OT Scriptural command about marriage was that Jews should marry Jews, so as to keep the faith pure.
Marriage is not a commandment, so when Paul says "I wish all would remain unmarried", he is not violating, or contradicting, anything.

 

[DamianWarS]

I'm sure the Ethiopian and Luke said that, not God.

What do you think is the difference between the word of God and the words of God?

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

Nope. As I stated, your self-created definition carries no weight, so any response I give you would be an exercise in futility on my part.

You just can't hold an intelligent conversation with folks who make stuff up to try and prove a point.

Once we start making stuff up couldn't anybody do the same?

 

[Dave-W]

The only OT Scriptural command about marriage was that Jews should marry Jews, so as to keep the faith pure.

Proverbs 18:22
He who finds a wife finds a good thing And obtains favor from the Lord.

IOW, with no wife you lose a measure of favor from the Lord.

 

[Ken Rank]

Just stop, it's over now.

In know, that is what I said.

 

[FireDragon76]

Proverbs 18:22
He who finds a wife finds a good thing And obtains favor from the Lord.

IOW, with no wife you lose a measure of favor from the Lord.

All that shows is that the Bible contains different worldviews and narratives within its pages. Christians have traditionally not regarded someone who is single as cursed, and for good reason. It has nothing to do with our status in Christ.

 

[Dave-W]

All that shows is that the Bible contains different theologies and worldviews within its pages.

Actually, it does NOT have different theologies or worldviews. It is a single unified thought from beginning to end.

 

[Jon Osterman]

Maybe this has already been asked in this thread (if so I apologise) but for the poll, what are you regarding as "The Bible"? The King James version?

 

[FireDragon76]

Actually, it does NOT have different theologies or worldviews. It is a single unified thought from beginning to end.

Single people are not cursed by God, and you implying they are is a damaging message.

 

[Tree of Life]

Maybe this has already been asked in this thread (if so I apologise) but for the poll, what are you regarding as "The Bible"? The King James version?

The KJV is just a translation of the Bible.

 

[Jon Osterman]

The KJV is just a translation of the Bible.

That doesn't answer the question.