The Inspiration of Scripture

[eleos1954]

The Bible is inspired by God. What does this mean?

Simply put - "What the Bible says, God says."

Some say that the Bible is inspired, but they are not comfortable saying that the Bible is the very words of God. They have some looser, stranger view of inspiration.

What the Bible says, God says. Can we give this a hearty "Amen"?

Kind of interesting:

1 Timothy 3:16 KJV
King James Bible
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

inspiration - some translations use God-breathed - below is the Greek on it

Etymology of theopneustos

As we look at how theopneustos was derived, we find it consists of three parts:

1. theo: from theos, the Greek word for “God”.
2. pneus: from pneo, the Greek verb meaning “breathe” or “blow”. This is also the root word for pneuma, the Greek word for “wind” and (more commonly in the NT) “spirit”.
3. tos: this suffix in ancient Greek, especially with theos (“God”) almost always, if not always, indicates a passive form — it is describing something which is being done by God.

If we are going to define theopneustos etymologically (by its derivation), we would say something like “breathed by God” or “God-breathed”. This is comparable, for example, to another theo-x-tos compound word, in I Thessalonians 4:9, where theodidaktos means “taught by God”.

 

[redleghunter]

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

Is it not interesting Paul makes the distinction? For that passage he clearly states he did not receive direct instruction on some of the life issues facing the church. Yet his advice is still apostolic.

 

[Calvin_1985]

Great point of view. Enjoyed reading

Thank you.

 

[FireDragon76]

Great point of view. Enjoyed reading

Except I don't see any mention of Christ, just alot of overwrought rhetoric about the Bible. "Ye search the Scriptures in vain", indeed.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

Except I don't see much mention of Christ, just alot of overwrought rhetoric about the Bible as your one stop shop to fix all of life's problems.

Sorry got confused lol

 

[redleghunter]

First don't want to hijack the thread as this is an interesting conversation for another thread.

I believe there were even debates in the patristic period- many NT books had their canonicity and apostolicity debated.

Not for any of the Pauline Epistles. Only antilegomena book I know of that some attributed to Paul was Hebrews. All of the Pauline Epistles which bear his name the early fathers were not in dispute.

Lutheran scholastics themselves recognized some of those deutero-Pauline books as antilegomena or disputed apostolicity. They were probably written by a disciple of Paul.

the antilegomena books are:

The book of Hebrews was considered antilegomena because it is technically anonymous. Other New Testament books either clearly state their author or can be traced directly to an apostle. The book of Hebrews does neither, although it matches all of the other criteria for the biblical canon.

The book of James has always been subject to controversy, mostly because of its complex discussion of the relationship between saving faith and good works. For this reason, some in the early church hesitated to accept it, and it was classified as one of the antilegomena.

Second Peter is easily the most heavily disputed book of the antilegomena. More than anything else, the differences in style between 1 Peter and 2 Peter led to debates over whether or not it was legitimate. Over time, mounting evidence won over the skeptics, and 2 Peter was acknowledged to be canonical.

The letters of 2 John and 3 John do not identify their authors as clearly as other New Testament texts. In particular, they use the term elder rather than apostle, which led to some doubt concerning authorship. This wording was not uncommon for the apostles, however, and the short letters of John’s were never doubted to the same extent as 2 Peter.

Jude is an interesting member of the antilegomena. Jude was questioned for making explicit references to non-inspired works. Parts of the book of Jude allude to stories told in the non-canonical The Assumption of Moses and the Book of Enoch. However, because Jude does not endorse those writings as Scripture (Jude merely uses them as examples to support his points), this controversy was eventually settled.

Revelation has the distinction of being the most persistently questioned of the antilegomena. Though it was never questioned to the same degree as 2 Peter, critics continued to express doubts about it long after other books of the antilegomena had been widely accepted. Revelation’s biggest stumbling block was that its symbolism was open to such wide interpretation. A few early sects attempted to use the book to justify bizarre doctrines, which made Revelation guilty by association in the eyes of some early church members.

What is the antilegomena?

 

[FireDragon76]

First don't want to hijack the thread as this is an interesting conversation for another thread.

Not for any of the Pauline Epistles. Only antilegomena book I know of that some attributed to Paul was Hebrews. All of the Pauline Epistles which bear his name the early fathers were not in dispute.


the antilegomena books are:

The book of Hebrews was considered antilegomena because it is technically anonymous. Other New Testament books either clearly state their author or can be traced directly to an apostle. The book of Hebrews does neither, although it matches all of the other criteria for the biblical canon.

The book of James has always been subject to controversy, mostly because of its complex discussion of the relationship between saving faith and good works. For this reason, some in the early church hesitated to accept it, and it was classified as one of the antilegomena.

Second Peter is easily the most heavily disputed book of the antilegomena. More than anything else, the differences in style between 1 Peter and 2 Peter led to debates over whether or not it was legitimate. Over time, mounting evidence won over the skeptics, and 2 Peter was acknowledged to be canonical.

The letters of 2 John and 3 John do not identify their authors as clearly as other New Testament texts. In particular, they use the term elder rather than apostle, which led to some doubt concerning authorship. This wording was not uncommon for the apostles, however, and the short letters of John’s were never doubted to the same extent as 2 Peter.

Jude is an interesting member of the antilegomena. Jude was questioned for making explicit references to non-inspired works. Parts of the book of Jude allude to stories told in the non-canonical The Assumption of Moses and the Book of Enoch. However, because Jude does not endorse those writings as Scripture (Jude merely uses them as examples to support his points), this controversy was eventually settled.

Revelation has the distinction of being the most persistently questioned of the antilegomena. Though it was never questioned to the same degree as 2 Peter, critics continued to express doubts about it long after other books of the antilegomena had been widely accepted. Revelation’s biggest stumbling block was that its symbolism was open to such wide interpretation. A few early sects attempted to use the book to justify bizarre doctrines, which made Revelation guilty by association in the eyes of some early church members.

What is the antilegomena?

Those distinctions are still relevant in Lutheranism. We're not interested in what the majority of conservative evangelical scholars think, but what can be known with relative certainty. We aren't OK with a proclamation of what amounts to a "maybe".

 

[Calvin_1985]

Except I don't see any mention of Christ, just alot of overwrought rhetoric about the Bible as your one stop shop to fix all of life's problems.

My goodness dude. I don't have to mention the name of Christ because Jesus is the Word manifest flesh and the entire Bible is predicated upon him.

It's really funny how people will find any issue they can with anything said by another.

Btw, Christ, The Word and the written word does fix all of Life's problems and that Is one of God's Promises.

 

[Ken Rank]

Then I don't think we are disagreeing all that much. I'm not arguing that a particularly "Greek" way of thinking is correct, in fact (and seems to underpin alot of @Tree of Life 's assumptions). But at the same time, I don't believe its correct to insist that a bronze or iron age perspective on the Scriptures is the controlling hermeneutical grid of interpretation, either.

Then I don't think we are disagreeing all that much. I'm not arguing that a particularly "Greek" way of thinking is correct, in fact (and seems to underpin alot of @Tree of Life 's assumptions). But at the same time, I don't believe its correct to insist that a bronze or iron age perspective on the Scriptures is the controlling hermeneutical grid of interpretation, either.

I am not saying go think like a cave man. But here is the deal.... God inspired the authors but the authors retained their individuality. For example... 4 gospels, almost the same story 4 times... but written in different styles on all 4 counts. Why? Because inspiration doesn't mean we cease being who we are, it means God inspires us to say (or write) what we say. We are still ourselves.

So.... assuming you are not African American.... can you read and FULLY appreciate The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas or any other book that deals with slavery if you only look at the book through 21st century free and white eyes? We can appreciate it, but we can't feel the depth because that isn't our history as an ethnicity. It would take some doing, talking the grandchildren of slaves, or older children of slaves to make it real enough that when we go back and read that book from 150 years ago... it has more impact on us. So likewise, all I am saying is... if the authors of the NT were (mostly) first century Judean Jews... then to take in all the nuances that existed within their first century Judean writing style... we need to at least become familiar with those things in order to catch them.

Let me share an example of what I mean...if I asked you what it means to be an adopted son or daughter of God, what would you say? That we were spiritual orphans and that God took us in and made us part of His family? Well, he did that, and that preaches well... but that isn't what adoption meant to anyone in the ancient near east culture we are talking about. Adoption was being brought into a family specifically to do the work of that family. We have accumulated examples of fathers adopting sons, grandfathers adopting grandsons... not into the family, the son and grandson are already in the family. No... being an adopted son of God simply means you have been brought into the family of God to do the work of God.

That is a little nugget of information that adds context to some scripture. But we don't have that context if we only define words in the bible based on how Webster's define the English today.

Blessings.
Ken

 

[FireDragon76]

I am not saying go think like a cave man. But here is the deal.... God inspired the authors but the authors retained their individuality. For example... 4 gospels, almost the same story 4 times... but written in different styles on all 4 counts. Why? Because inspiration doesn't mean we cease being who we are, it means God inspires us to say (or write) what we say. We are still ourselves.

So.... assuming you are not African American.... can you read and FULLY appreciate The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas or any other book that deals with slavery if you only look at the book through 21st century free and white eyes? We can appreciate it, but we can't feel the depth because that isn't our history as an ethnicity. It would take some doing, talking the grandchildren of slaves, or older children of slaves to make it real enough that when we go back and read that book from 150 years ago... it has more impact on us. So likewise, all I am saying is... if the authors of the NT were (mostly) first century Judean Jews... then to take in all the nuances that existed within their first century Judean writing style... we need to at least become familiar with those things in order to catch them.

Let me share an example of what I mean...if I asked you what it means to be an adopted son or daughter of God, what would you say? That we were spiritual orphans and that God took us in and made us part of His family? Well, he did that, and that preaches well... but that isn't what adoption meant to anyone in the ancient near east culture we are talking about. Adoption was being brought into a family specifically to do the work of that family. We have accumulated examples of fathers adopting sons, grandfathers adopting grandsons... not into the family, the son and grandson are already in the family. No... being an adopted son of God simply means you have been brought into the family of God to do the work of God.

That is a little nugget of information that adds context to some scripture. But we don't have that context if we only define words in the bible based on how Webster's define the English today.

Blessings.
Ken

Short of a time machine, there is simply no way to have experiential knowledge of 1st century Jewish life.

 

[FireDragon76]

My goodness dude. I don't have to mention the name of Christ because Jesus is the Word manifest flesh and the entire Bible is predicated upon him.

It's really funny how people will find any issue they can with anything said by another.

Btw, Christ, The Word and the written word does fix all of Life's problems and that Is one of God's Promises.

It matters. Rome built an entire system on something other than Christ. I assume Reformed Christians can do the same if they elevate the Bible above him in importance.

 

[redleghunter]

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?

Excellent questions. What you may be hitting on is "is what we need to know for salvation clear as a bell in Holy Scriptures but there are other things no so clear?"

This is called the perspicuity of Scripture:

In theology, we speak of the perspicuity of Scripture. The word perspicuity, simply put, means “clarity.” Oddly enough, the word perspicuity is one of the more unclear words we could use to speak of clarity. What’s more, when we say we believe in the perspicuity of Scripture, people sometimes get the wrong impression that we are implying that everything in Scripture is entirely clear and easy to understand. But that’s not the case. We know this both from experience and because the Word of God itself tells us that not everything in it is easy to understand. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1.7) explains what we believe when we speak of the perspicuity of Scripture: “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all. Yet, those things that are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or another, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” In other words, not everything in Scripture is easy to understand, but what we must understand in order to be saved is clear. The hard sayings of Jesus aren’t found only in the Gospels, but throughout Scripture, since Jesus is the ultimate author of Scripture as the eternal Word of God.

The Perspicuity of Scripture by Burk Parsons​

 

[Ken Rank]

Short of a time machine, there is simply no way to have experiential knowledge of 1st century Jewish life.

I disagree... we have been teaching it for 20 years. There are plenty of ways to gain insights.... it just requires some time and a willingness to study. And that is part of the problem... our culture doesn't afford us enough time for such things. We're too busy.

 

[A Realist]

4 gospels, almost the same story 4 times...

You would think that if it was all "God-breathed", the 4 gospels would contain exactly the same story (plus or minus some other details added by the individual author).

 

[FireDragon76]

I disagree... we have been teaching it for 20 years. There are plenty of ways to gain insights.... it just requires some time and a willingness to study. And that is part of the problem... our culture doesn't afford us enough time for such things. We're too busy.

How do you get direct knowledge of 1st century Jewish life short of a time machine?

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

Short of a time machine, there is simply no way to have experiential knowledge of 1st century Jewish life.

And this is why I would have to consider the possibility that our interpretations could absolutely be wrong of what we think God meant by certain scripture

 

[Ken Rank]

You would think that if it was all "God-breathed", the 4 gospels would contain exactly the same story (plus or minus some other details added by the individual author).

No... you are looking for perfection in copies that have been translated from other languages. In the original letters, we have inspiration.. but still not perfection as you are looking for it. People will see things as they see them, and recount them as they remember. The differences don't mean a lack of inspiration, the differences mean you have to do what God told you to do, "Study to show yourself approved." We have to weigh things out, make connections, it isn't going to be handed to us. He that seeks will find... he that stands backing waiting for handouts will go hungry.

 

[A Realist]

How do you get direct knowledge of 1st century Jewish life short of a time machine?

I think he missed the key word....experiential....

 

[Calvin_1985]

It matters. Rome built an entire system on something other than Christ. I assume Reformed Christians can do the same if they elevate the Bible above him in importance.

I didn't elevate anything above anything. I simply said what the Bible is in a short comment. I didn't include anything regarding Christ name because He is the reason we even Believe the Bible as Fathers word to begin with. Gods Ways that the Bible shows from Beginning to end is Jesus Christ. I shouldn't have to mention Him by name at all because He is all throughout scripture anyways and He is the one that wrote the whole thing anyway. Everyone Here already knows that the Bible is about Jesus, but it is also about anything and everything pertaining to life. You don't have to be an Israelite or a first century Jew to understand it because the word of God is the same from beginning to end and it is the Word manifest in Human flesh that delivers the truth of the word now just as He did with Moses, the Prophets, The Apostles, and Paul. You don't have to be a first century Jew to understand the scripture because ALL who are in Christ Jesus are freely given the opportunity to come to the Tree of Life and be taught of By the Spirit of Yahweh what every single word of the Bible means and points to.

 

[A Realist]

In the original letters, we have inspiration..

I can agree with that....inspiration as historically defined, but not as defined by the OP.