Inspired Scriptures? Especially Evangelical perspective

[~Anastasia~]

I'm not an evangelical and I won't answer as one, and as a theological liberal, my answers will probably differ form others.

That said:


It means that the authors were moved by the Holy Spirit to instruct us and led us into the awareness of God in the OT and of Christ as well as the Holy Spirit in the NT and the best way to live and walk the path God intended for us.




While I think the OT scribes and the Apostles of the NT sat down and prayerfully and with the intention to teach and share or highlight the path with us, I do not feel that personal and cultural mores were not added as part of that path awareness. I think it wasn't divine dictation as it were so much as it was a divine calling to write.



No, the Scriptures are very much not inerrant. As I said, cultural mores and taste plays into a lot of the Scriptures as well and should not be read in the same way to apply as a broad based brush in the light of modern sociological, scientific or theological insight.



At the time of this writing, this applies to the then Jewish Scriptures of the Torah, the Nevi'im and the Ketuvim, or what we'd call the OT. I do not think any of the apostles viewed their letters to the church for instruction to be Scripture but after the age of the Apostles. I believe the Church came to see the letters of the Apostles moved in the same way as the Jewish canon was, and due of course to the old Jewish laws no longer having the same meaning as they did prior to the church's decision the Levitical laws were fufilled by Christ's sacrifice.

Thank you for your answers, LAC.

Since I haven't yet concerned myself too carefully with what constitutes liberal vs. conservative in theology, I wonder which parts of your answers would be considered representative of such.

I might guess your comments regarding inerrancy particularly?

Thank you again for your reply.

 

[Targaryen]

Thank you for your answers, LAC.

Since I haven't yet concerned myself too carefully with what constitutes liberal vs. conservative in theology, I wonder which parts of your answers would be considered representative of such.

I might guess your comments regarding inerrancy particularly?

Thank you again for your reply.

Not really so much in inerrancy that leads to the divide in terms of conservative vs liberal I would say but how that shapes the theology of the particular group.

Conservatives may find the Scriptures errant, but they would tend to hold faster to traditional interpretations of the text. they acknowledge scripture passages that can contradict or are not read in the same way as they were say 100 years or more prior, but yet hold fast to it's literal sense without holding to a full scale literalist viewpoint.

Liberals tend to view the text as a statement which can be malleable to climate and cultural circumstances yet retaining its traditional sense of Spirit-led guidance and education. Passages are reexplored and context and culture of the time of writing and then time of the re-exploration are taken into account.


I hope that helps

 

[~Anastasia~]

Not really so much in inerrancy that leads to the divide in terms of conservative vs liberal I would say but how that shapes the theology of the particular group.

Conservatives may find the Scriptures errant, but they would tend to hold faster to traditional interpretations of the text. they acknowledge scripture passages that can contradict or are not read in the same way as they were say 100 years or more prior, but yet hold fast to it's literal sense without holding to a full scale literalist viewpoint.

Liberals tend to view the text as a statement which can be malleable to climate and cultural circumstances yet retaining its traditional sense of Spirit-led guidance and education. Passages are reexplored and context and culture of the time of writing and then time of the re-exploration are taken into account.


I hope that helps

It does, thank you.

 

[BobRyan]

2 Tim. 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God [God-breathed] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;



1. What does it mean that Scripture is inspired?

2. How did God inspire those who wrote the Scriptures - what did it look like and what process did He use?

3. Since they are inspired, does that also mean the Scriptures must necessarily be inerrant?

4. What are the "Scriptures" mentioned here - OT, NT, both? Why do you think so?



I realize these questions are likely to be hotly debated, but I am particularly interested in the Evangelical understanding of what "inspired" means and just how God inspired the writers of Scripture.

I'd like to get as many points of view as possible, particularly from Evangelicals. And I don't mind discussion - it might even be fruitful - but please try to remember we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and be respectful of one another.

Thanks everyone.

The Bible has 66 books

But 2Tim 3 - Paul writes primarily of the OT text and the NT writers quote "exclusively" from the OT text as compared to the NT.

So while the Bible does include the NT 27 - the reference to "Scripture" in the NT is first and foremost a reference to the OT text in most cases.

===============================================

Why 66?



[FONT=&quot]"The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9)[/FONT]




Jesus rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From the blood of Abel [[FONT=&quot]Gen. 4:8[/FONT]] to the blood of Zechariah [[FONT=&quot]2 Chron. 24:20[/FONT]], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation ([FONT=&quot]Lk[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. 11:51[/FONT]
; cf. [FONT=&quot]Mt. 23:35[/FONT]).”




Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis while Zechariah was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles. In the Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis and the last book was Chronicles. They contained all of the same books as the standard 39 books accepted by Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently. For example, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) were contained in one book. This is why there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Bible today. By Jesus' referring to Abel and Zachariah, He was canvassing the entire Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures which included the same 39 books as Protestants accept today. Therefore, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.



===========================



The books of the apocrypha were not preserved in the Jewish tradition (as reflected in the Hebrew masoretic text). Though the majority of them were originally composed in Hebrew, they have reached us mostly in Greek form, as found in the Septuagint and preserved by the Christian church. A few are extant only in (secondary) translations from the Greek into other languages, such as Latin, Christian Aramaic, or Ge'ez. In modern times there has been renewed Jewish interest in these books, which has resulted in a few translations into Hebrew. In the 19th century most of the apocrypha was translated by Seckel Isaac Fraenkel in Ketuvim Aharonim ("Late Writings" 1830),[4] and a few books were translated by other authors.[5] The Hebrew-language website Daʿat, which collects texts related to Jewish education, has published an online version of these public domain Hebrew translations in digital form; the texts have been formatted and slightly modernized.[6]
Two major annotated Hebrew translations of the apocrypha were published in the 20th century. Both editions include commentaries by the editors, both are vowelized, and both of them incorporate parts of the original Hebrew for Ben Sira that were found in the Cairo Geniza and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

• Avraham Kahana, ed. and trans., Ha-Sefarim ha-Hitsonim. Tel-Aviv: Hotsaat Meqorot, 1937 (2 vols.), most recently reissued in 2006.[7]
• Eliyah Shemuel Hartom (aka. Elia Samuele Artom), ed. and trans., Ha-Sefarim ha-Hitsonim. Tel-Aviv: Yavneh, 1965-69.

In the early 21st century, the Yad Ben-Zvi Institute in Jerusalem inaugurated a major project of scholarly publication called Bein Miqra la-Mishnah ("Between the Bible and the Mishnah"), whose scope includes new Hebrew translations and in-depth commentaries on apocryphal books. So far Maccabees 1 & 2 have appeared; Maccabees 3 & 4 and Jubilees are in preparation.[8]
=====================
so then where are the Hebrew versions that are prior to the Greek If in fact “they have reached us mostly in Greek form, as found in the Septuagint and preserved by the Christian church”

 

[Tzaousios]

The Bible has 66 books

On whose authority, Philip Schaff's?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Thank you, GCC.

I didn't actually mean to restrict answers to only evangelicals. Though I was most interested in their responses. Perhaps that shouldn't have even been mentioned. But I am glad you answered as you did.

I would have answered almost exactly as you did on most of the questions, as an evangelical too.

Thanks very much for your post. If you wish, you can post your opinions as you hold them now, but of course having stated that you deny most of those beliefs now gives an inclination at least. (meaning - I am not limiting the replies to evangelicals, that was not my intent - though I have learned something of the variety of beliefs from this thread).

Thanks again.

Well, let me go ahead, then, and re-post with my current positions.

1. To say that Scripture is inspired by God means the Scriptures, while written by human beings to human beings, are somehow also the purposeful work of God. They participate in his Logos because they fit the pattern of his purposes, revealing those purposes to the recipients within the particular historical circumstance sin which they were written. Individually, they reveal pieces (sometimes seemingly contradictory pieces) of those purposes; canonically, they unveil the large history and story of God's purposes as worked out on humanity's before by God himself, and that Plan and Purpose come int he flesh as Jesus of Nazareth; and together with the creed and the liturgy, they form the central nexus from which catholic orthodoxy and Christian identity arise.

2. That process of inspiration was almost certainly as diverse as the writers who authored Scripture. Now that source criticism has shown that many of the writings within Scripture- the Torah, Isaiah, the Deuteronomic history, Job, Matthew, Luke- had multiple authors working at different times and in different places, I mostly thinking of inspiration as a largely historical process. Some of the authors may have been aware that they were writing Scripture, but not "Scripture" in the sense of a divine-inspired religious text so much as an authoritative religious text for a unified religious community. Whoever wrote D (the source behind Deuteronomy) probably had this in mind; so did whoever redacted the Torah and the Deuteronomic history into a single narrative (my money's on someone working with Ezra); and so, I think, did the authors of John and Revelation. And in other cases, God's prophetic inspiration is something that happens in history (as with the prophets or Jesus) and the writers of Scripture saw themselves as record-keepers of that inspiration (say, Baruch writing Jeremiah, or Luke writing his gospel). Sometimes we may even get close to divine dictation, since prophetic and poetic authors might be able to enter into some form of religious ecstasy and then write in the divine voice, but who knows?

3. Nope. I think the canonical texts are infallible witnesses to purposes for saving humanity ("doctrine") and human life ("morals"), but are purely historical texts in the sense that they were subject to the historical and scientific knowledge of their day. However, because the creed and the liturgy- and thus Christianity- expressly believe that God's saving purposes for humanity are grounded in the historical truth of Christ's incarnation, death, and resurrection, I think for the purposes of Christianity we can say that no one can deny the historical truth of those events and still be a Christian in good standing. Other than that, though, I'm perfectly comfortable with the myriad ways in which scholars critically investigate the biblical texts. Noe, however, that I don't entirely agree with LAC on one point: I think that inasmuch as the message of Scripture is doctrinal or moral, it doesn't matter if the perspective is culturally conditioned or not. In the case of (for example) homosexuality, the condemnation might well be in there because of the nexus of perceptions and prejudices of the day; but it is in there nonetheless, and because all Scripture is profitable for moral correction, we must believe that it is in there under the guidance of Providence.

4. I imagine 1 Tim 3:16 refers expressly to the Old Testament. I think there is some possibility that it has in mind earlier Pauline epistles if the Pastoral Epistles are indeed pseudo-Paul, and possibly early forms of the gospels as well. But I think the primary referent is to the canonical Pharisaic form: the Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim that make up our current Old Testament (in a different order). However, because the New Testament testifies to the climax of covenant history, it quickly took pride of place within the canon, just as the creed and the liturgy primarily (but not exclusively) emphasize the final stage of redemptive history centered on Jesus. For Lutherans (and others), there's a distinction we make between homologoumena and antilegomena. Originally this referred to certain vs. disputed books (Gospel of Matthew vs. Revelation, for instance), but for us it tends more to mean "central/primary" vs. "peripheral/secondary." Those books that are central and primary tend to be those that present core theological and moral truths and focus directly on the progress of salvation history: Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah, Luke-Acts, John, Romans, Galatians. The next rung down might be, say, Colossians, Joshua, Jeremiah, Psalms. And then way down at the bottom are books that are not only peripheral, but were disputed and are unclear: Daniel, James, Revelation, Esther. And, I would add, the Deuterocanon; because Lutherans tend to think of Scripture and its canonicity in concentric spheres, those spheres can continue out from the "core" and into the Deuterocanon, the apostolic fathers, the early church fathers, and even the work of each pastor when he rightly proclaims the Word of God as condemning Law and saving Gospel in the homily.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The Bible has 66 books

But 2Tim 3 - Paul writes primarily of the OT text and the NT writers quote "exclusively" from the OT text as compared to the NT.

So while the Bible does include the NT 27 - the reference to "Scripture" in the NT is first and foremost a reference to the OT text in most cases.

===============================================

Why 66?



[FONT=&quot]"The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9)[/FONT]




Jesus rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From the blood of Abel [[FONT=&quot]Gen. 4:8[/FONT]] to the blood of Zechariah [[FONT=&quot]2 Chron. 24:20[/FONT]], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation ([FONT=&quot]Lk[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. 11:51[/FONT]
; cf. [FONT=&quot]Mt. 23:35[/FONT]).”




Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis while Zechariah was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles. In the Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis and the last book was Chronicles. They contained all of the same books as the standard 39 books accepted by Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently. For example, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) were contained in one book. This is why there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Bible today. By Jesus' referring to Abel and Zachariah, He was canvassing the entire Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures which included the same 39 books as Protestants accept today. Therefore, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.



===========================



The books of the apocrypha were not preserved in the Jewish tradition (as reflected in the Hebrew masoretic text). Though the majority of them were originally composed in Hebrew, they have reached us mostly in Greek form, as found in the Septuagint and preserved by the Christian church. A few are extant only in (secondary) translations from the Greek into other languages, such as Latin, Christian Aramaic, or Ge'ez. In modern times there has been renewed Jewish interest in these books, which has resulted in a few translations into Hebrew. In the 19th century most of the apocrypha was translated by Seckel Isaac Fraenkel in Ketuvim Aharonim ("Late Writings" 1830),[4] and a few books were translated by other authors.[5] The Hebrew-language website Daʿat, which collects texts related to Jewish education, has published an online version of these public domain Hebrew translations in digital form; the texts have been formatted and slightly modernized.[6]
Two major annotated Hebrew translations of the apocrypha were published in the 20th century. Both editions include commentaries by the editors, both are vowelized, and both of them incorporate parts of the original Hebrew for Ben Sira that were found in the Cairo Geniza and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

• Avraham Kahana, ed. and trans., Ha-Sefarim ha-Hitsonim. Tel-Aviv: Hotsaat Meqorot, 1937 (2 vols.), most recently reissued in 2006.[7]
• Eliyah Shemuel Hartom (aka. Elia Samuele Artom), ed. and trans., Ha-Sefarim ha-Hitsonim. Tel-Aviv: Yavneh, 1965-69.

In the early 21st century, the Yad Ben-Zvi Institute in Jerusalem inaugurated a major project of scholarly publication called Bein Miqra la-Mishnah ("Between the Bible and the Mishnah"), whose scope includes new Hebrew translations and in-depth commentaries on apocryphal books. So far Maccabees 1 & 2 have appeared; Maccabees 3 & 4 and Jubilees are in preparation.[8]
=====================
so then where are the Hebrew versions that are prior to the Greek If in fact “they have reached us mostly in Greek form, as found in the Septuagint and preserved by the Christian church”

Thank you for the brief answer to my questions relating to OT/NT.

The rest of your post is OT. Please do not debate the canon here any further. Create a new thread if you like. I do not want this derailed, please. I will consider any further canon debate to be OT and report as such. Thank you for your kind cooperation.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

To me, this means that God can use any scripture, at all, for all four things > teaching knowledge with perspective, rebuking and standing against what is not of God's love, correcting a person to become loving like Jesus, and helping the person to live the way God's love has us being and living right.


Each word is what God has given the person to write . . . however He has done this.

God is our Creator, and I find He is very creative; so "how" He deals with each author can be . . . different I think, among other possibilities, that He can >

a. Have a person thinking what He wants the person to write.

b. The Holy Spirit can bring to remembrance what he has already heard and have him write what the Holy Spirit has him remember > consider John 14:26.

c. Talk directly with the person and dictate what the person is to write > dictating with an audible voice or using the tone of voice used by the person in one's own thinking, except the person realizes he is not doing his "thinking", on his own

d. Like how John received the book of Revelation > he was "in the Spirit on the Lord's Day" (Revelation 1:10), and Jesus appeared to him, and all that was involved in writing the book of Revelation. In one place it seems he was writing, right while experiencing the vision of revelation, but he was told not to write some things he heard > Revelation 10:4. So, in this case, there were various dynamics going on, from the beginning of the inspiration to the end. I would say there was observation with written description, dictation at times, and recording things after they happened. And Jesus gave John those letters to the seven churches, included in the process. So, there can be inspired messages within the inspired message

e. If I remember the early scripture prophets right, ones had visions and wrote descriptions of what they saw, and could have discussion, even two-way, with God about their meaning.

The main thing I see is that the person is able to communicate and share personally with God. And God has him or her share something from a special time with God. So, love inspires

Whatever God inspires is inerrant. But how we understand and live His message needs to be what He means! This is an adventure

This is "why" . . . I think . . . Paul starts certain letters with something like "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" > because grace is God's action personal of His love in us changing us to become how His word means for us to be, and this grace also has His own personal guiding to do what He means. So, God's word is meant to have His grace and peace escorting us. God's grace and peace in us demonstrates all that God means, by actually having us do all He knows His word means. So . . . then . . . His grace with His leading is without error!!!

What He actually does with us in His love is the only reliable way, really, to interpret scripture.

They mean any writing that Jesus or Paul or Peter or any other New Testament writer quotes from. And they mean all the New Testament . . . even if certain ones had not been written, yet, when Paul wrote that > God meant also any future writings that He would grant us, later.

And, by the way, Paul clearly does say "you are an epistle of Christ", in 2 Corinthians 3:2-3. So, the Holy Spirit has written in our hearts; whatsoever the Holy Spirit writes in us is Canon Scripture, I would say "And this writing can be deeper than the words > the love of God is the ink effecting us to become exactly how Jesus is and so we are loving the way Jesus has loved us. No words alone can have us doing all Jesus means when He says "'This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.'" (John 15:12)

No words alone can have us loving the way Jesus has loved us > we need the ink, not only what we can think And Jesus in us is the Word who is the living meaning and fulfillment of all His message

Why do I think so? It is past my ability to know why

My understanding of evangelical, in simple terms, is they say the Bible is God's word, without any error, including in science. So, if anything contradicts God's word, that "anything" is wrong and God's word is right.

I would offer a clarification > God's word is not in error in what God means, but how we understand it can be in error. So . . . again . . . we need grace in us to have us being and doing all that God means . . . how His love has us becoming and what His leading personal in each of us has us doing.

And we have demonstration, of the Holy Spirit > 1 Thessalonians 1:5-10 > so we have all which His words mean And His word, Paul says here in 1 Thessalonians 1:5-10, came with example. And Jesus said to love and demonstrated how to love. So, we need the demonstration of examples > 1 Timothy 3:1-10, 1 Peter 5:3, 1 Thessalonians 2:5-12, 1 Corinthians 11:1, Ephesians 5:1-2. In Ephesians 5:1, it says to imitate God. I experience that this means how our Father in us shows us how He is and how He loves, and then He has us becoming and loving this way, more and more as we grow in Jesus. So, we have God's own example in us so we have the really right meaning of His word.

So if God inspires a man to write in a way that can be interpreted so ambiguously that many different interpretations can be derived from it, is this not an error in the one being inspired?
So does inspiration denote no chance of error?

 

[Mama Kidogo]

2 Tim. 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God [God-breathed] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;



1. What does it mean that Scripture is inspired?

2. How did God inspire those who wrote the Scriptures - what did it look like and what process did He use?

3. Since they are inspired, does that also mean the Scriptures must necessarily be inerrant?

4. What are the "Scriptures" mentioned here - OT, NT, both? Why do you think so?



I realize these questions are likely to be hotly debated, but I am particularly interested in the Evangelical understanding of what "inspired" means and just how God inspired the writers of Scripture.

I'd like to get as many points of view as possible, particularly from Evangelicals. And I don't mind discussion - it might even be fruitful - but please try to remember we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and be respectful of one another.

Thanks everyone.

Are you planning to round up these worms in this can you opened.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Well, let me go ahead, then, and re-post with my current positions.

1. To say that Scripture is inspired by God means the Scriptures, while written by human beings to human beings, are somehow also the purposeful work of God. They participate in his Logos because they fit the pattern of his purposes, revealing those purposes to the recipients within the particular historical circumstance sin which they were written. Individually, they reveal pieces (sometimes seemingly contradictory pieces) of those purposes; canonically, they unveil the large history and story of God's purposes as worked out on humanity's before by God himself, and that Plan and Purpose come int he flesh as Jesus of Nazareth; and together with the creed and the liturgy, they form the central nexus from which catholic orthodoxy and Christian identity arise.

2. That process of inspiration was almost certainly as diverse as the writers who authored Scripture. Now that source criticism has shown that many of the writings within Scripture- the Torah, Isaiah, the Deuteronomic history, Job, Matthew, Luke- had multiple authors working at different times and in different places, I mostly thinking of inspiration as a largely historical process. Some of the authors may have been aware that they were writing Scripture, but not "Scripture" in the sense of a divine-inspired religious text so much as an authoritative religious text for a unified religious community. Whoever wrote D (the source behind Deuteronomy) probably had this in mind; so did whoever redacted the Torah and the Deuteronomic history into a single narrative (my money's on someone working with Ezra); and so, I think, did the authors of John and Revelation. And in other cases, God's prophetic inspiration is something that happens in history (as with the prophets or Jesus) and the writers of Scripture saw themselves as record-keepers of that inspiration (say, Baruch writing Jeremiah, or Luke writing his gospel). Sometimes we may even get close to divine dictation, since prophetic and poetic authors might be able to enter into some form of religious ecstasy and then write in the divine voice, but who knows?

3. Nope. I think the canonical texts are infallible witnesses to purposes for saving humanity ("doctrine") and human life ("morals"), but are purely historical texts in the sense that they were subject to the historical and scientific knowledge of their day. However, because the creed and the liturgy- and thus Christianity- expressly believe that God's saving purposes for humanity are grounded in the historical truth of Christ's incarnation, death, and resurrection, I think for the purposes of Christianity we can say that no one can deny the historical truth of those events and still be a Christian in good standing. Other than that, though, I'm perfectly comfortable with the myriad ways in which scholars critically investigate the biblical texts. Noe, however, that I don't entirely agree with LAC on one point: I think that inasmuch as the message of Scripture is doctrinal or moral, it doesn't matter if the perspective is culturally conditioned or not. In the case of (for example) homosexuality, the condemnation might well be in there because of the nexus of perceptions and prejudices of the day; but it is in there nonetheless, and because all Scripture is profitable for moral correction, we must believe that it is in there under the guidance of Providence.

4. I imagine 1 Tim 3:16 refers expressly to the Old Testament. I think there is some possibility that it has in mind earlier Pauline epistles if the Pastoral Epistles are indeed pseudo-Paul, and possibly early forms of the gospels as well. But I think the primary referent is to the canonical Pharisaic form: the Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim that make up our current Old Testament (in a different order). However, because the New Testament testifies to the climax of covenant history, it quickly took pride of place within the canon, just as the creed and the liturgy primarily (but not exclusively) emphasize the final stage of redemptive history centered on Jesus. For Lutherans (and others), there's a distinction we make between homologoumena and antilegomena. Originally this referred to certain vs. disputed books (Gospel of Matthew vs. Revelation, for instance), but for us it tends more to mean "central/primary" vs. "peripheral/secondary." Those books that are central and primary tend to be those that present core theological and moral truths and focus directly on the progress of salvation history: Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah, Luke-Acts, John, Romans, Galatians. The next rung down might be, say, Colossians, Joshua, Jeremiah, Psalms. And then way down at the bottom are books that are not only peripheral, but were disputed and are unclear: Daniel, James, Revelation, Esther. And, I would add, the Deuterocanon; because Lutherans tend to think of Scripture and its canonicity in concentric spheres, those spheres can continue out from the "core" and into the Deuterocanon, the apostolic fathers, the early church fathers, and even the work of each pastor when he rightly proclaims the Word of God as condemning Law and saving Gospel in the homily.

Thank you very much for your reply, GCC.

I am particularly interested in the concentric way Lutherans view Biblical texts. I know the Orthodox Church has something of a hierarchical consideration as well. I am going to have to make a note to compare these.

Thanks again.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

2 Tim. 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God [God-breathed] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;



1. What does it mean that Scripture is inspired?

2. How did God inspire those who wrote the Scriptures - what did it look like and what process did He use?

3. Since they are inspired, does that also mean the Scriptures must necessarily be inerrant?

4. What are the "Scriptures" mentioned here - OT, NT, both? Why do you think so?



I realize these questions are likely to be hotly debated, but I am particularly interested in the Evangelical understanding of what "inspired" means and just how God inspired the writers of Scripture.

If I may say..

Growing up in the Evangelical world and having friends/family a part of that culture, I thought I should share some thoughts on the matter on how I used to see things and how that has progressed over the years. As it concerns scripture, more in-depth treatment was shared in the thread entitled If we didn't have the Bible... and A Few Facts Why the Talmud (oral law) is a hoax and Reconciling the two accounts..- but as shared there and elsewhere, I'm not for the mindset that the New Testament as it is in most Protestant Cannons is "the Word"--for God's words/mind cannot be fully contained within a book. I believe that it is of the Lord/inspired...but I also believe that much of the NT is incomplete in many cannons. Some of it is due to what is still missing. The letter of Paul is one of the greatest examples, as Paul left Ephesus for Troas (Acts 20:1; 2 Cor 2:12-13; 7:5-7; 9:1-5; 12:14; 13:1) and expected to meet Titus there, who should have been on his way back from Corinth, having delivered a letter to the church there, which is known as the "severe letter" or the "tearful letter," his third letter to the Corinthians, which no longer exists (2 Cor 2:13; 12:17-18).


Other books have been left out of certain cannons due to politics alone, seeing how other books referenced in certain books are not apart of the common cannons used today. Its the reason why I have multiple bibles, including an Apocrypha Bible containing Deuterocannonical books since I do appreciate learning about other writings. Some have a lot of issue with that and I'm reminded of how often I'd see many Fundamentalists telling others that all there was to know about life was found within the 66 books of the Bible they held in their hands---and for me, though I agree with the concept that the Word can truly transform/the Lord will work through it, I was always bothered by others thinking of one book as the "Bible." In example, early Christians used the Septuagint which contained deuterocanonical books as well as apocrypha which were later excluded from the Jewish and Christian canons. There were books used by ancient Jews and mentioned in their Scriptures which are no longer extant. Moreover, the NT makes allusions to various Scriptures that did not make the final cut. For instance the Letter of Jude quotes the Book of Enoch as Scripture and that book is still included in the Ethiopian Orthodox canon.

Additionally, early church fathers drew up lists of what they considered authentic Scripture. For example Origen accepted The Shephard of Hermas as being worthy of inclusion. The Book of Revelation was very controversial and did not make the official list of many. Marcion was the first to suggest a canon which excluded most of the books of the present Bible. The original Syriac canon did not include the catholic epistles or Revelation. And centuries later Luther proposed excluding Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. The idea of fundamentalists that there was early agreement as to what constituted the Bible as we know it today is simply a myth and although a concensus was slowly built we still have different canons today among various church bodies


Though I forgot the reference for it, there was actually a discussion occurring elsewhere on the issue of translation that may interest you. It was focused upon Acts 6-7 and the accusations of others saying that Stephen was wrong for quoting the details he did about the death of Abraham in his speech.....as others were discussing how it was not the case that there was one version of the scriptures even in the times of Christ. From the Maesoretic text to the Aramic and the Samaritan Penteteuch and others, the culture of the time was one where many were not truly certain of which version of the scriptures was the most accurate--and thus, many were utilized. For more info, one can go here

Michael Heiser has also had some very solid (IMHO) thoughts to offer when it comes to the debate on inspiration/inerrancy and realizing what it took many times to develop the translations of scriptures that we have today. For more, one can go here or here and investigate some of what he noted on how there never has truly been an "original" text that has been preserved in all generations....even though the Lord has still worked greatly through it. Also, one can go online/investigate a site under the name of "Is the Bible Inerrant? by Mark M. Mattison" ( )





Another thing that came to mind on the subject came from something I read awhile back - as seen in What is “Liberal” Theology? :

..liberal theology affirms the rightness of one’s own culture as a basis of critiquing the Bible. Therefore, at the heart of liberalism is critique of the Christian tradition and Scripture. This, however, does not make the Reformation “liberal.” For it to be liberal, it has to be modern and post-Enlightenment and partaking in radical commitments to liberalism and individual freedom. Olson knows Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria adjusted Christian tradition to the philosophy of their day, but that doesn’t make it “liberal” since that term is connected to modernity.
Liberal theology accommodates to modernity; it does not necessarily capitulate nor does it necessarily accommodate in all ways and in all directions.​

Whenever we read the scriptures, there is an aspect present where we are reading on the basis of ensuring that what's read ends up harmonizing with the cultural issues of our day - meaning that even those things described in the text which are prescriptive can have a differing shape than what a previous generation felt. But there was still a common ethos - there was simply a reshaping on the ways in which adaptation occurred.

Gregory Boyd has also spoken on the issue when it comes to spiritual warfare and seeing the ways that understanding the context of the text can keep us from cons when it comes to arguing for warfare - realizing the €œThird Way” in Seeing God’s Beauty in the Depth of Scripture’s Violent Portraits of God


Being careful in our readings of scripture is also a big deal - seeing that we can all fall into making things normative that Scripture was not intending biblioidolatry (more discussed in Biblioidolatry | Viral Jesus and Wednesdays With Barth (Book I.1 pages 148-246) - Think Theology ). N.T Wright also noted the same reality in his review entitled How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? by N.T. Wright.


N.T. Wright on the Authority of the Bible 7 - YouTube

N.T. Wright on How Our Worldview Impacts Our Reading of Scripture - YouTube


The Bible: Gospel, Guide, or Garbage? NT Wright and Sean Kelly at Harvard University - YouTube

For reference on where others have noted the same:

• Is the book of Acts descriptive or prescriptive? | spreading the fame

• Of Models, Modes, and Modifications, determining prescriptive vs. descriptive aspects of biblical texts. - Missional Outreach Network for the Missional Church

• Distinguishing between Prescriptive, Descriptive ...A Little Lesson in Hermeneutics
  (1st Corinthians 11, 14 & 1st Timothy 2, 3)

• My View of Scripture (at this point) | internetmonk.com

• When America Believed In the Bible Alone | internetmonk.com

• Learning from First Century Dynamism and Early Church Strategy: A model for today - Leadership Advance Online, School of Business & Leadership, Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia

Additionally, there was an excellent book on the issue which really hit home on the issue - entitled "The Bible Made Impossible: Moving from Biblicism to a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture"

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

2 Tim. 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God [God-breathed] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;



1. What does it mean that Scripture is inspired?

2. How did God inspire those who wrote the Scriptures - what did it look like and what process did He use?

3. Since they are inspired, does that also mean the Scriptures must necessarily be inerrant?

When reaidng through the text of scripture as a whole, it seems difficult to say that it is truly inerrant since there are many examples of others quoting scriptures where there has been room given to others to say they were not fully accurate.

In example, Acts 7:4 is a text that many have had issue with and have said is inaccurate. In Stephen's speech, it is in reference to Genesis 11:31-32...and in Genesis 11:31-32, by way of completing this short intro to Terah's family, the narrative records his death at the age of 205. If Abram was born when Terah was 70---as seen in Genesis 11:26--and if Abram was 75 yrs old when he departed for Canaan (as seen in Genesis 12:4), then Terah died 60yrs after Abram's depature (70+75+60=205), In Acts 7:4, however, Stephen says that after Abram left Haran after the death of Terah. A simple way to resolve the chronological difficulty is to suppose that Stephan was following an alternative text (represented today in the Samaritan Pentateuch), which says that Terah died at the age of 145 rather than 205. The Samaritan text of the Pentateuch does say 145, so we are not dealing with a deus ex machina. Moreover, there are scholars, Avraham Spero and Jakob Jervell among them, who believe that Stephen himself was a Samaritan. This would also help to explain in Acts 7:16, which says that Abraham was buried in Sh'khem, since this too follows SAMARITAN Tradition. It explains a possible anti-Temple tendency in Acts 7:47-50 (Compare to John 4:40-22 with the Samaritan woman/Jesus) and gives logic to placing the story of the spread of the Gospel to Shomoron in the immediately following passage (Acts 8:4-26). At worst, if under pressure Stephen erred, his errors would be what are known in Judaism as ta'uyot b'tom-lev, honest mistakes.

From here comes the issue of what also occurred amongst those who felt that the correct translation of the scriptures was to be found in other books outside of the Seputagint---specifically the Samaritan translation. For places one can go online to find further info, one can research the following under their respective titles:

• ^ Overview of the Differences Between the Jewish and Samaritan Versions of the Pentateuch
  " ( )

• "Good question......did the Messianic Jewish Believers use the OT deceitfully or ignorantly in the New Testament? <<Christian ThinkTank" ( )

There was a solid article online discussing the issue you bring up...and I think you'd enjoy it. It can be found, if going online/searching, under the name of "On the Samaritan Pentateuch « Daniel O. McClellan" ( ). The other one to consider looking up can be found under the name/title of "Pentateuch, The Samaritan (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia) :: Bible Tools" ( )



It truly is interesting seeing how the Samaritan version is much closer to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the LXX than to the current Masoretic. The oldest Samaritan physical document is the Nablus Roll, which is probably about 200 BCE, but uses a script the Jews used between around 550 to 700BCE, apparantly because the Samaritans chose to keep the older script and the Judean Jews didn't. It is evidence other than the script that tends to pin it to a few centuries before the common era. It seems that the Samaritan version spilt with the Jewish version, at approximately 700BCE. That goes in line with matching the genetics, the history of the Assyrian invasion, and the story the Samaritans

One significant difference between the two is that the Samaritan version has Mt. Gerizim as the center of the religion. Another key difference is that the God of the Samaritans is less anthropomorphic, more abstract, and having as hortage of other supernatural beings. As one kat said (from one of the articles referenced earlier entitled "The Samaritan Pentateuch"):
.

"Some of the philosophical differences are a little less central. For example, the Samaritan version shows much less anthropomorphism than the Masoretic version. Exodus 15:3 in the Masoretic version reads “The LORD is a warrior,” or more literally the Hebrew says “the LORD is a man of war,” whereas the Samaritan version does not call God a “man,” but says that God is “a hero of war” or “mighty in war.” Perhaps this is also the reason behind the difference of reading in Genesis 48:16, which reads in the Masoretic version &#1492;&#1502;&#1500;&#1488;&#1498; &#1492;&#1490;&#1488;&#1500; &#1488;&#1514;&#1497; (“the angel who redeemed me”), while the Samaritan version has &#1492;&#1502;&#1500;&#1498; instead (“the king who redeemed me”), thus putting the focus on God and not an angel."
​

​

Additionally, as said best in one of the sources referenced from "Bible Tools":

That there are many cases where the Samaritan variations from the Massoretic Text are identical with those of the Septuagint is indubitable. It has, however, not been observed by those Jewish scholars that the cases in which the Samaritan alone or the Septuagint alone (one or the other) agrees with the Massoretic Text against the other, are equally numerous. Besides, there are not a few cases in which all three differ. It ought to be observed that the cases in which the Septuagint differs from the Massoretic Text are much more numerous than those in which the Samaritan differs from it. One has only to compare the Samaritan, Septuagint and Massoretic Text of any half a dozen consecutive chapters in the Pentateuch to prove this. Thus neither is dependent on the others. Further, there is the unwarranted assumption that the Massoretic Text represents the primitive text of the Law.

​

__________________



And as it concerns other parts of Acts 7, it is evident that Stephen also followed the account which is given by the Septuagint at certain parts. In Genesis 46:27, that version reads, "But the sons of Joseph who were with him in Egypt were nine souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob which came with Jacob into Egypt were seventy-five souls." This number is made out by adding these nine souls to the 66 mentioned in Genesis 46:26. The difference between the Septuagint and Moses is, that the former mentions five descendants of Joseph who are not recorded by the latter. The "names" of the sons of Ephraim and Manasseh are recorded in 1 Chronicles 7:14-21. Their names were Ashriel, Machir, Zelophehad, Peresh, sons of Manasseh; and Shuthelah, son of Ephraim. Why the Septuagint inserted these, it may not be easy to see. But such was evidently the fact; and the fact accords accurately with the historic record, though Moses did not insert their names. The solution of difficulties in regard to chronology is always difficult; and what might be entirely apparent to a Jew in the time of Stephen, may be wholly inexplicable to us.

Much of the confusion on the accounts seems to be easily understood when realizing that the Jews of Stephen's day were multi-lingual, using differing accounts of scripture (as there were debates on which ones were the most accurate)---and his using a differing version of scripture would not have shocked the people he was speaking to. More was discussed elsewhere here in #51 and #53

But again, if the early Church had a mindset of Scripture being inerrant, then Stephen would not have qualified to speak on the subjects he did based on the scriptures he was using.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Are you planning to round up these worms in this can you opened.

For the most part, the worms are marching along quite nicely.

I wanted to get a kind of cross-section of information/opinions first, but I find them to be largely aligned with one another. At least more than I had anticipated.

Believe me, it wouldn't read quite the same if I posted the answers I would have given you 20 or so years ago.


I am interested in the larger questions, but I needed to get a grasp of opinions on the basics first. I usually make my plans of how to proceed based on the answers I get, and right now, they are more narrowly defined than I'd expected, so I'm not quite sure what kind of round-up we're going to have.

But I would like to address the larger issues, yes.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

For the most part, the worms are marching along quite nicely.

I wanted to get a kind of cross-section of information/opinions first, but I find them to be largely aligned with one another. At least more than I had anticipated.

Believe me, it wouldn't read quite the same if I posted the answers I would have given you 20 or so years ago.


I am interested in the larger questions, but I needed to get a grasp of opinions on the basics first. I usually make my plans of how to proceed based on the answers I get, and right now, they are more narrowly defined than I'd expected, so I'm not quite sure what kind of round-up we're going to have.

But I would like to address the larger issues, yes.

I also would have never voiced anything near what i would now 20 years ago. The thoughts entered my mind but to actually say them seemed almost like blasphemy back then.

I'm thinking the translation into different tongues pretty much took away any chance of a complete inerrant text. Especially when translating Greek into English as both are extremely complex tongues.

This is a good thread. I was just joking about the can of worms. But when we look at the history, we find not all the fragments read the same and some have verses and more that others do not. And then we have this English punctuation thing that really can become confusing.

 

[~Anastasia~]

And just for the sake of convenience, since we are a few pages into it and not everyone reads the OP ... here's the original questions.

2 Tim. 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God [God-breathed] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;



1. What does it mean that Scripture is inspired?

2. How did God inspire those who wrote the Scriptures - what did it look like and what process did He use?

3. Since they are inspired, does that also mean the Scriptures must necessarily be inerrant?

4. What are the "Scriptures" mentioned here - OT, NT, both? Why do you think so?

 

[Mama Kidogo]

And just for the sake of convenience, since we are a few pages into it and not everyone reads the OP ... here's the original questions.

2 Tim. 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God [God-breathed] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;



1. What does it mean that Scripture is inspired?

2. How did God inspire those who wrote the Scriptures - what did it look like and what process did He use?

3. Since they are inspired, does that also mean the Scriptures must necessarily be inerrant?

4. What are the "Scriptures" mentioned here - OT, NT, both? Why do you think so?

#2 should be interesting if anyone actually answers it.

#1 the basic idea came from God.
#2 No. I'm not biting at that one.
#3 Not with a non-divine human being in the mix.
#4 Paul is speaking of scripture that existed as scripture when he penned it. But that does not mean the NT is not inspired. Just saying Paul's own words were most likely not seen as scripture by Paul himself. I'm quite sure he saw his own words as truth but scripture? Not if he was a humble as it seems.

I know you are seeking the evangelical perspective but you didn't exclude the rest of us either.
I notice the evangelical answers are very consistent one with another for the most part. That doesn't happen often here.

 

[Targaryen]

#2 should be interesting if anyone actually answers it.

#1 the basic idea came from God.
#2 No. I'm not biting at that one.
#3 Not with a non-divine human being in the mix.
#4 Paul is speaking of scripture that existed as scripture when he penned it. But that does not mean the NT is not inspired. Just saying Paul's own words were most likely not seen as scripture by Paul himself. I'm quite sure he saw his own words as truth but scripture? Not if he was a humble as it seems.

I know you are seeking the evangelical perspective but you didn't exclude the rest of us either.
I notice the evangelical answers are very consistent one with another for the most part. That doesn't happen often here.

She didn't exclude us Mama so you're safe

Too bad you aren't biting at question #2 though Would be interesting to see your viewpoint

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thank you for your reply, MamaK.

Very few are addressing question #2. A few have. I'd say the answers are fairly conservative (not in any technical sense).

And no, no one was excluded from answering. I had meant to encourage evangelicals, because I mostly wanted to hear their perspective, but I never intended anyone to be excluded from answering.

There is indeed a refreshing level of agreement. Not perfect agreement, but certainly very workable.

Thanks for your post.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

She didn't exclude us Mama so you're safe

Too bad you aren't biting at question #2 though Would be interesting to see your viewpoint

I'd do better explaining what I don't think it is.
I believe all truth is inspired of God and lies are inspired as well but not of God.
I do not equate inspiration with God or another entity controlling a person to perfection or error. Even when one is being used of God he/she does not lose their humanity and aptness to failure. That is except in the state of theosis or perfection.
I also note that more than once in scripture that a penman states it's their personal thought (advice or opinion) and not given like a commandment of God.
So basically, I'm saying it's not like when writing they had a halo over their head or God's very hand on the quill or eraser.
I find it interesting that the very ones who say it's infallible are the same one's who say it's impossible for the pope to be so. So those various penmen can be but the pope cannot? Now I agree that the pope is subject to blunders like any human being. Including those penning Scripture. I need go no further than the gospels to see someone wasn't accurate with Christ's words. They differ in each. So which one got it right? I don't think it really matters as the basic truth is the same.
Let's look at the Crucifixion. the words of Christ are different in those gospels. knowing christ said the holy spirit would bring all things back to memory, I'd rely on john's version as the proper words actually used as there is no indication that the other Gospel penman were even there to remember it. More likely than not their accounts were second hand explaining the slight differences.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Thank you for your reply, MamaK.

Very few are addressing question #2. A few have. I'd say the answers are fairly conservative (not in any technical sense).

And no, no one was excluded from answering. I had meant to encourage evangelicals, because I mostly wanted to hear their perspective, but I never intended anyone to be excluded from answering.

There is indeed a refreshing level of agreement. Not perfect agreement, but certainly very workable.

Thanks for your post.

So I'm not alone in finding that a refreshing change of pace.