The Inspiration of Scripture

[redleghunter]

in order to "prove" a definition of infallibility that didn't exist until modern times,

Cyril of Jerusalem

"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17) ​

I have a lot more if you would like.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

The Apostles are in the company of the Incarnate Word for 3 years, but what they relate isn't the Word of God. Not really seeing the chain of logic here.

They were in the company but they are not Jesus. They are not perfect as we’ve seen through scripture. And it’s nkt even that big a deal that they weren’t. They were human and humans make mistakes which means they are not infallible.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

Being perfect (generally speaking) according to the Bible is not a salvation issue. Loving God, and loving your neighbor are the basics as a part of eternal life.

I was hoping that you would answer the part about it being being possible you could be in error. Is it possible? Or if anyone disagrees with you should they just adopt your thinking since you are right

 

[redleghunter]

However, the problem here is that you are misusing these scripture verses to try to pretend that very obvious contradictions in the bible do not exist in order to "prove" a definition of infallibility

You are mixing two different issues. One (1) is infallibility of inspired Scriptures and the other is trying to (2) prove to an atheist there are no contradictions in Scriptures. If an atheist or skeptic is not convinced of (1) they truly do not care there are contradictions and won't even consider the apologetics presented.

That is why every discussion on God and the Bible with skeptics always must be on the historicity of the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Problem is I had a thread with Christians on the bodily resurrection of Christ and there were some who were uncertain. So there is a lot of work to be done in house to worry about a skeptic who finds one name missing from a genealogy of a Temple singer in the book of Ezra.

Now how did we arrive at this confusion of two very different issues. Your comments. You threw in one of your comments that we can question the infallibility of Holy Scriptures because they 'contain blatant contradictions.' Once you wedded the two, things became real interesting around here. Especially since you have not offered any evidence for these supposed contradictions.

If you are passionate to address Biblical contradictions I invite you to start another thread in Controversial Christian Theology forum. All I ask out of common courtesy is to not use atheist websites to make your point.

 

[redleghunter]

The letter to Galatians WENT TO GALATIA... it was not copied 50 times in the first century and handed out as a scroll to all the churches and messianic synagogues AT THAT TIME.

Actually that is the witness of the early church fathers as they quoted Galatians and were nowhere near Galatia.

 

[redleghunter]

Inspiration does NOT MEAN God wrote it. It means He inspired (filled them with an ability to convey the essence of His thoughts) but that doesn't mean He took control of their bodies and hands and wrote the words Himself.

Yes Ken, no one is supporting the above straw man. It was presented by another poster as a straw man. Not your own it was just repeated several times by two others.

 

[redleghunter]

Who was created first? Adam or the animals?

Both were created on the 6th day.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I was hoping that you would answer the part about it being being possible you could be in error. Is it possible? Or if anyone disagrees with you should they just adopt your thinking since you are right

Are you one of those kinds of people who thinks you could be wrong about everything in life?
That we cannot trust anything?
There are things that I know are the truth, and they cannot be unlearned.
An object falling to the ground via gravity is a truth that I can trust, just as I can trust the Bible when it comes to basic truths that it teaches. I would have to be wrong about gravity in regards to my senses are lying to me, if in fact the same is true in regards to being wrong on certain plain truths in the Bible.

Oh, and I forgot to add one more on my list of understanding God's Word.

Real world examples. Parables. Can your belief be illustrated to make a real world example or parable like Jesus created? Folks who have wrong doctrine cannot make a parable out of their wrong belief.

 

[redleghunter]

First, I am not sharing this to say there are contradictions. There are no verses that have been sent to me yet (over 2 decades) that I couldn't find an answer for. Including, by the way, these two:

Acts 9:7 And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one.

Acts 22:9 And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me.

The problem with our modern perception of "inspiration" is that we tend to lean toward the idea that inspiration means perfection. It doesn't, it means that God filled the authors with an ability to convey the essence of His thoughts. He didn't take them over and inhabit their bodies like something we'd see in an episode of Star Trek. He simply filled them with the ability to share the insights God desired them to share. So I don't have a problem with the above 2 verses that very plainly are at odds. They don't hurt my faith... they don't challenge my belief that God inspired Paul to write. How do you explain the two verses?

Blessings.
Ken

Luke is telling the story in Acts 9. Paul is giving his eyewitness account in Acts 22.

Whose voice was heard in Acts 9? Was it Paul's or that of Jesus? We know in Acts 22, Paul identifies the Voice not heard as the Lord's. Therefore, we know for certain the voice heard in Acts 9 was not the Voice of Christ but Paul responding to Christ.

 

[GodsGrace101]

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"?

No.

 

[Mountainmike]

Wrong.

Tradition is the English word used to translate the Greek " paradosis"
Which means the entirety of the faith handed down.

Because that is how faith was passed the New Testament: which is why Paul says " stay true to tradition we taught you"

It was a long time before there was a new testament , which was chosen because it aligned with tradition, and another millenium and a half before average joe could own one or read it.

Read iraneus , who describes the importance of it and succession bishop authority to the first church.

So not " catholic traditions" which is your misunderstanding but " paradosis" the entire church faith handed down. Jesus said " teach this" , so paradosis is what they taught.

"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant"

Even the Catholic traditions are written down today. So was there a record in the Bible about some other book titled the "Catechism" in Scripture? No. In fact, the majority of the time the word "traditions" appear in the Bible, it was used in a negative sense and Jesus at times said that the Jewish people violated God's Word by their man made tradition.

 

[bekkilyn]

Cyril of Jerusalem

"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17) ​

I have a lot more if you would like.

Just like Wesley, he's talking about the necessity and sufficiency of scripture alone for the purpose of Salvation. Not about God using someone as an automated medium so that every single statement is written by the very person of God himself and is thus perfect and infallible without any error or contradiction.

 

[bekkilyn]

They were in the company but they are not Jesus. They are not perfect as we’ve seen through scripture. And it’s nkt even that big a deal that they weren’t. They were human and humans make mistakes which means they are not infallible.

And thinking about it, if the apostles themselves were infallible (or any human being other than Jesus), it would mean that we wouldn't really have had any need for Jesus as Christ since we would have been either infallible ourselves from the very beginning, or capable of becoming infallible through our own efforts.

 

[bekkilyn]

You are mixing two different issues. One (1) is infallibility of inspired Scriptures and the other is trying to (2) prove to an atheist there are no contradictions in Scriptures. If an atheist or skeptic is not convinced of (1) they truly do not care there are contradictions and won't even consider the apologetics presented.

That is why every discussion on God and the Bible with skeptics always must be on the historicity of the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Problem is I had a thread with Christians on the bodily resurrection of Christ and there were some who were uncertain. So there is a lot of work to be done in house to worry about a skeptic who finds one name missing from a genealogy of a Temple singer in the book of Ezra.

Now how did we arrive at this confusion of two very different issues. Your comments. You threw in one of your comments that we can question the infallibility of Holy Scriptures because they 'contain blatant contradictions.' Once you wedded the two, things became real interesting around here. Especially since you have not offered any evidence for these supposed contradictions.

If you are passionate to address Biblical contradictions I invite you to start another thread in Controversial Christian Theology forum. All I ask out of common courtesy is to not use atheist websites to make your point.

Scripture itself is the evidence for the contradictions as anyone can go into scripture and see them for themselves vs. pretending they don't exist. It doesn't matter whether the list is on an atheist or Christian or any other type of site because the same list is going to exist regardless of where it is posted. I don't need to argue them because they are there and they aren't of any issue whatsoever to my faith because my faith is in the person of Jesus Christ and not dependant on whether or not a book is perfect and without error. (Which is the way "infallible" is typically defined by current day thinking, i.e. "what the bible says, God says".)

Personally, I believe in the bodily resurrection of both Jesus and of believers upon his second coming, so I have no interest in arguing that point either.

 

[bekkilyn]

Both were created on the 6th day.

That's not answering the question. Which one came first, Adam or the animals? Genesis 1 states the order and Genesis 2 also states the order, and they are astoundingly different. I wonder which one is correct?

Good thing for me that Jesus Christ is my foundation and not dependent on the accuracy of the created order of Adam and animals, but if you *were* witnessing to an atheist, particularly an atheist of reasonable intelligence, and tried to pretend that there was no difference when anyone can easily see that there is, then they are unlikely to take you very seriously about the gospel either.

 

[FireDragon76]

That's not answering the question. Which one came first, Adam or the animals? Genesis 1 states the order and Genesis 2 also states the order, and they are astoundingly different. I wonder which one is correct?

Good thing for me that Jesus Christ is my foundation and not dependent on the accuracy of the created order of Adam and animals, but if you *were* witnessing to an atheist, particularly an atheist of reasonable intelligence, and tried to pretend that there was no difference when anyone can easily see that there is, then they are unlikely to take you very seriously about the gospel either.

We actually read Genesis 1 during Lent one week at the Wednesdays Vespers service (we were moving through a study of the Easter Vigil's readings, and part of that is the creation account), and pastor preached a sermon on it as well. It was so much more moving than when I was steeped in fundamentalism as a teenager and I had to try to figure out how to reconcile that with scientific evidence. I could just accept the story as it was, as a beautiful story from when people had a simpler understading of the world, rich in spiritual meaning, but not a science lesson.

 

[bekkilyn]

We actually read Genesis 1 during Lent one week at the Wednesdays Vespers service (we were moving through a study of the Easter Vigil's readings, and part of that is the creation account), and pastor preached a sermon on it as well. It was so much more moving than when I was steeped in fundamentalism as a teenager and I had to try to figure out how to reconcile that with scientific evidence. I could just accept the story as it was, as a beautiful story from when people had a simpler understading of the world, rich in spiritual meaning, but not a science lesson.

Genesis 1 is probably one of my most favorite chapters in scripture.

 

[Tutorman]

Do you consider statements in Scripture which say "thus saith the Lord", "This is the Word of God", "I preach to you the Word of God" as truly the words of God being communicated?

I consider that God inspired them but the authors wrote them in ways they understood and "Thus says the Lord" was put there for special emphasis. Now that does not mean that they are not important at all. In fact I believe many parts that some of you evangelicals only call symbols. If you some of evangelicals believed that the whole Bible is the exact words of God than you all would have to change some of your beliefs. The fact that some of you evangelicals do not and regard some parts as symbolic tells me that you do not believe that the Bible is the exact word of God.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

Are you one of those kinds of people who thinks you could be wrong about everything in life?
That we cannot trust anything?
There are things that I know are the truth, and they cannot be unlearned.
An object falling to the ground via gravity is a truth that I can trust, just as I can trust the Bible when it comes to basic truths that it teaches. I would have to be wrong about gravity in regards to my senses are lying to me, if in fact the same is true in regards to being wrong on certain plain truths in the Bible.

Oh, and I forgot to add one more on my list of understanding God's Word.

Real world examples. Parables. Can your belief be illustrated to make a real world example or parable like Jesus created? Folks who have wrong doctrine cannot make a parable out of their wrong belief.

I wouldn’t I walk around saying I don’t know anything even though I know there is very few things that I am 100% certain of. I have my beliefs of things that I am not 100% certain of but I make sure I don’t walk around acting as if I’m the one who has it all figured out, especially where things that have to do with God are concerned. I am not in any position to clear up the areas that aren’t so clear when it comes to the Lord and what he meant or didn’t mean. The people who are acting like they are 100% certain that’s cool. I’m sure I can learn from them the same as I can learn from others who thin similar to me. I just think it’s pretty dope when people don’t run away from standing tall in the things that they believe. If a person puts a great deal of trust in human authors than that’s cool too. But don’t deny the fact that they are actually putting a lot of faith in humans as well as God. We can ignore the human element of people.

 

[setst777]

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"?

Yes or No to the question is too simplistic.

Regarding all the Gospel Doctrine, and all other related doctrines, are clearly authored by God through His inspired writers. And the inspired writings are harmonious throughout regarding all these doctrines.

However, regarding times, details of events, places, and persons involved, the inspired writers wrote from the their understanding and vantage point based on the knowledge each had, or gathered, of such peripheral details. Regarding the Four Gospels, only Matthew and John were actually witnesses of most of these events described.

So the peripheral details are not precise, and there is discrepancy between inspired accounts on those peripherals. This discrepancy is most clearly seen in the four Gospel accounts when comparing them. And, while some discrepancy can be explained away, other discrepancies have no such recourse.

The peripheral discrepancies are not an issue and is to be expected among persons describing any situation, and how they choose to describe it. Detailed knowledge of events and how, when or where they occurred definitely varies between the inspired authors.

I will not take up space here to describe all the peripheral discrepancies, but for those interested, do a search on the internet.

Blessings.