Inspired Scriptures? Especially Evangelical perspective

[Targaryen]

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.

Ahhh...I like your viewpoint there Mama

 

[~Anastasia~]

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.

Thank you for your reply, MamaK. You bring up some good points. I had wondered especially about the crucifixion, since as far as I can find, it seems only John (from among the writers of Scripture) was there with the women.

Thank you again.

 

[Nanopants]

Well, let's look at perfection for a moment.

Stephen during his stoning saw the heavens open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God, in his words as recorded in Acts 7. This is probably as close of a glimpse of theosis as we may get apart from experiencing it for ourselves, yet in his oration, there appears to be some discrepancy. Moses, similarly, was not a man that was very capable in speech, requiring Aaron to speak for him, yet we're told that the Red Sea was parted when he himself parted his hands, very much like the Son rebuking winds and waves.

I get the impression that theosis and "imperfection" are not mutually exclusive, depending on how we define it. What is perfection? Is it a visible conformity to an ideal of perfection, like the works of master sculptors, or is it something else? Further, is there such a thing as an imperfect word, syllable, letter, or scribble? In reality, all I see is that which is, nothing more, nothing less, and sometimes I even fail at that. Everything that we interact with has some effect on us, just as we have an effect on everything we touch. I see the Word in a similar manner: by what sort of Wisdom can one gather and destroy nations by mere words?

 

[Standing Up]

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?

Re #2. Except for Paul, the other letters were penned by eyewitnesses or their "scribes" (tradition has Mark for Peter).

For Paul, he claims a vision from God and 3 years of instruction therefrom. Then he penned his "eyewitness" account (tradition also has Luke for Paul).

So, inspiration in both cases was from an eyewitness account of personal presence with the Lord. As well, there was a certain amount of persecution (like with Moses in order to "tone down" any self-righteousness. for example Paul goes to Jerusalem, stirs up trouble, and gets kicked out. It's up to Barnabas to find him at Tarsus and say, God is doing what He told you (about the Gentiles)).

So, inspiration, but lots of humility. They didn't invent the stuff they wrote.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-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.

EO do rely on John's version. RC relies on the Synoptic version. Personally I'd say they both (John and the Synoptics) were accurate.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Re #2. Except for Paul, the other letters were penned by eyewitnesses or their "scribes" (tradition has Mark for Peter).

For Paul, he claims a vision from God and 3 years of instruction therefrom. Then he penned his "eyewitness" account (tradition also has Luke for Paul).

So, inspiration in both cases was from an eyewitness account of personal presence with the Lord. As well, there was a certain amount of persecution (like with Moses in order to "tone down" any self-righteousness. for example Paul goes to Jerusalem, stirs up trouble, and gets kicked out. It's up to Barnabas to find him at Tarsus and say, God is doing what He told you (about the Gentiles)).

So, inspiration, but lots of humility. They didn't invent the stuff they wrote.

Thank you, Standing Up.

The point regarding humility is well taken.

I appreciate your answer on this question.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I found an interesting position on some of the questions I have asked here. I was checking out the CMA (Christian Missionary Alliance) church for someone else - I'm not that familiar with that one. On their website I found the following statement:

The Old and New Testaments, inerrant as originally given, were verbally inspired by God and are a complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men. They constitute the divine and only rule of Christian faith and practice.

As a basis, they quote 2 Peter 1:20-21

20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

And 2 Tim. 3:15-16

15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness

What I found interesting is that they include in their statement of faith the belief that all Scripture was verbally inspired. So ... I'm guessing that means literal, aural word-for-word dictation?

 

[Targaryen]

I found an interesting position on some of the questions I have asked here. I was checking out the CMA (Christian Missionary Alliance) church for someone else - I'm not that familiar with that one. On their website I found the following statement:

The Old and New Testaments, inerrant as originally given, were verbally inspired by God and are a complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men. They constitute the divine and only rule of Christian faith and practice.

As a basis, they quote 2 Peter 1:20-21



And 2 Tim. 3:15-16


What I found interesting is that they include in their statement of faith the belief that all Scripture was verbally inspired. So ... I'm guessing that means literal, aural word-for-word dictation?

I've never heard the term verbally inspired before, so I would assume that it means a literal, aural word for word dictation.

 

[NorrinRadd]

I've never heard the term verbally inspired before, so I would assume that it means a literal, aural word for word dictation.

No, that's not the usual meaning.

Here is a decent explanation.

 

[Targaryen]

Hmmm...interesting.

 

[~Anastasia~]

No, that's not the usual meaning.

Here is a decent explanation.

Thanks, NorrinRadd. I have heard of verbal plenary inspiration before, but this site just said "verbally inspired" ... so I wasn't sure if they meant what it sounded as if they meant.

Essentially it is still a word-for-word dictation, just without the aural component?

If that is the case, then at the same time is it expected that God speaks differently from one person to the next, since the style of different writers is different?

Thanks very much for the link. I wasn't making the connection at all, since the words they used are different from what I've heard before.

 

[NorrinRadd]

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?

That is my view, along with, I believe, most Evangelicals (of which I consider Pentecostals and Charismatics to be subsets). But I freely admit that in *practical* terms today, such inerrancy of the autographs is almost a moot point.

...

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.

...

That doesn't rule out inerrancy of the original mss., which is usually the limit of the term. However, inerrancy is *not* generally applied to copying, and certainly not to translation. Besides that, it is widely recognized that the OT "quotations" in the NT are often rather "free," and are probably from a few different translations of the OT, *none* of which are the ones that form the bases of the OT appearing in most English Bibles.

So in actual practice, strict "inerrancy" loses a lot of its force.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Thanks, NorrinRadd. I have heard of verbal plenary inspiration before, but this site just said "verbally inspired" ... so I wasn't sure if they meant what it sounded as if they meant.

Essentially it is still a word-for-word dictation, just without the aural component?

If that is the case, then at the same time is it expected that God speaks differently from one person to the next, since the style of different writers is different?

Thanks very much for the link. I wasn't making the connection at all, since the words they used are different from what I've heard before.

No, not "dictation." More like a matter of God's perfect knowledge. He knows exactly which of His servants will say what He wants in exactly the way He wants things said.

 

[~Anastasia~]

No, not "dictation." More like a matter of God's perfect knowledge. He knows exactly which of His servants will say what He wants in exactly the way He wants things said.

Thanks again, NorrinRadd. That makes more sense. I appreciate your answer. This will reassure my friend much more than the way I was reading it as well.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Thanks again, NorrinRadd. That makes more sense. I appreciate your answer. This will reassure my friend much more than the way I was reading it as well.

I would add that different persons or groups may understand the term differently. Those that are especially "conservative" may be inclined to more of a "divine dictation" understanding.

I have fond memories of my few years in the CMA back in the early '80s, but it would not surprise me if *some* in that denomination lean to the "divine dictation" notion.

 

[com7fy8]

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?

What I understand, Mama, is that God has given His word, knowing what He means by it. But people can be able to take what He says the wrong way. You yourself have seen how you can say what is right and someone else can take it the wrong way, haven't you?

But this does not mean you are in error!!

But, even though we humans can easily misunderstand God's word, because of how we have all been born in sin, God has got this covered > Isaiah 55:11 says His word "shall accomplish" what He pleases. So, God makes sure His word does all that He knows He means by His word!!! And this is in His love. So, if we want infallible interpretation of God's word > "Let all that you do be done with love." (1 Corinthians 16:14)

You have seen, I would say, how people can see things and understand things because they are not in love.

Also, we have how God's word is like a sword >

"For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)

So, by design God's word is written to bring out how people really are, in their hearts. Ones read the Bible according to how they really are in their hearts!! It's like how a surgeon's scalpel can cut in order to examine a person: there is no error in the scalpel. But the scalpel can expose what is sin-sick in our thoughts and intentions and feelings and emotions.

When ones misunderstand the Bible, in the many ways people do, this can help to expose people. You might be able to see the intentions which are mixed with how each person interprets the Bible.

One thing to note is what ones don't say. Ones can keep repeating only certain ideas of their own groups, but never say much about how to become perfect in God's love > 1 John 4:17-18, Philippians 2:14-16. Others can be so busy with criticizing how people don't agree . . . but not say much about how we become one in Jesus Christ's love, and how Jesus has claimed and guaranteed this in His own prayer for us > John 17:22-26. This prayer of Jesus is included in God's word which is guaranteed to accomplish all that He pleases.

So, it is good to read the word of God and trust God to succeed in us, to have us doing all that He knows His word means

"'So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;
. It shall not return to Me void,
. But it shall accomplish what I please,
. And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.'"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Isaiah 55:11)

So does inspiration denote no chance of error?

There is no chance of error in how God has us interpreting and living His word, with His love meaning > "And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment." (Philippians 1:9) But because so many people take things into their own hands . . . so many ways of understanding can be the result.

However, Mama . . . just because people look different, this does not mean they aren't all humans. You have seen, also, how pigeons can have different feathers, but they stay with each other and under those feathers they are all pigeons. But there are people who are into fighting about beliefs, and endless complaining about outward things being different (John 7:24).

But those feathers, even on the same pigeon's body, are each different, but they all fit together so the pigeon can fly and stay alive even in very hot or cold weather. Like this, the Christians who seem different but are of God's love can fit with each other, though certain outward things may seem very different.

Members of a body are very different, but they fit and work as well as God has designed the human body.

But there are ones who are only about how they are different, and they are fighting and competing and comparing. One thing that gives a wrong person away can be how the person acts like his or her group is the only best and right one, in comparison with other people and groups . . . instead of evaluating themselves in comparison with Jesus

 

[~Anastasia~]

You have seen, I would say, how people can see things and understand things because they are not in love.

At first I thought to ask if this was a typo, and you meant to say that people might not see, or might misunderstand, because they are not in love. But then I read more of your post.

Also, we have how God's word is like a sword >

"For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)

So, by design God's word is written to bring out how people really are, in their hearts. Ones read the Bible according to how they really are in their hearts!! It's like how a surgeon's scalpel can cut in order to examine a person: there is no error in the scalpel. But the scalpel can expose what is sin-sick in our thoughts and intentions and feelings and emotions.

When ones misunderstand the Bible, in the many ways people do, this can help to expose people. You might be able to see the intentions which are mixed with how each person interprets the Bible.

I just wanted to say, this is very profound. Perhaps people are baring more of their souls than they realize.

(Though at the same time, this observation ought to include taking a care not to imagine that we can see too deeply into the motives of others and become judgmental as a result.)

 

[com7fy8]

I believe all truth is inspired of God and lies are inspired as well but not of God.

Ah-hah! Now don't get Satan mad

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 think God is able to make sure a person gets His message right. You can use imperfect utensils to make a perfect cake I think I have seen how a lady can use very old things to still cook very well.

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.

I know of one place where ones say Paul makes it clear something was his opinion > 1 Corinthians 7:39-40. Paul does say, "in my judgment", here, but then he says "I think I also have the Spirit of God."

Oh yes, there is also 1 Corinthians 7:12, where he says "I, not the Lord, say". However, possibly the Holy Spirit inspires him to write these, in order to be an example of humility and encouraging them to prayerfully test things which are not clearly spelled out in scripture.

So, yes you did say he was writing like that, out of humility; so couldn't his humble way of writing be inspired ? ? ?

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.

Well, John says he was "in the Spirit on the Lord's Day", when he got the vision of Revelation. So, it is possible that while ones have written inspired scripture, they were blessed and prayerful, "in the Spirit", maybe more than usual.

However, look at what John did, right while he was writing Revelation > he fell down and worshiped an angel! > Revelation 19:9-10, 22:8-9. So, even if he was in a special state of grace for receiving infallible inspiration, still he was not perfect and could sin. And guess what? It looks like the Holy Spirit had him report how he did sin, right while receiving the vision of Revelation.

So, this could be our example, of how the Holy Spirit will have us humble and be an example of honesty of confessing our sins to other Christians . . . so that others may be encouraged our honesty so they are honest about their own sin problems; and others can learn from how God is correcting us so they may also benefit from our correction.

And James 5:16 says, "Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much." (James 5:16)

So, I can see that John knew His Christian brothers and sisters could pray for him to be "healed" of what in his character could still have him sinning, even by worshiping an angel. So, perhaps the Holy Spirit had him confess that so he could get prayer from the churches which would receive his message.

So, Kylissa . . . inspiration of the scripture involved personal relating that was going on between the writers and the people getting the messages. There was not only words but love relating being inspired

 

[com7fy8]

I offered >

So, by design God's word is written to bring out how people really are, in their hearts.

And you, Kylissa, said >

I just wanted to say, this is very profound. Perhaps people are baring more of their souls than they realize.

About how people may not realize how much they are telling people > for a while, I lived outside with the outdoor street-poor as a missionary experiment. I met all kinds of people, not only homeless. And I at times would ask someone, something like, "What in all your life or future, is the most good of all your life?" Ones gave me a variety of answers. Then I realized that each person's answer could be telling me who or what that person's God is!!

Also, how people view scripture can expose them.

For one example > a dictatorial person set in his or her ways can be very into saying the Bible is dictated and there is no more or less to it; and they can mean that you must never change from however they represent the Bible to you.

However, someone humble can take dictating to mean God was personally and caringly giving us His word, from His love for us

So, saying it is "dictated" can mean different things, from different hearts And you say >

(Though at the same time, this observation ought to include taking a care not to imagine that we can see too deeply into the motives of others and become judgmental as a result.)

So, if an organization makes a statement, still you "might" need to get to know each person, so you can know what that person means

Just trying to pin the same tail on the whole donkey can be lazy, then

 

[~Anastasia~]

I offered >And you, Kylissa, said > About how people may not realize how much they are telling people > for a while, I lived outside with the outdoor street-poor as a missionary experiment. I met all kinds of people, not only homeless. And I at times would ask someone, something like, "What in all your life or future, is the most good of all your life?" Ones gave me a variety of answers. Then I realized that each person's answer could be telling me who or what that person's God is!!

Also, how people view scripture can expose them.

For one example > a dictatorial person set in his or her ways can be very into saying the Bible is dictated and there is no more or less to it; and they can mean that you must never change from however they represent the Bible to you.

However, someone humble can take dictating to mean God was personally and caringly giving us His word, from His love for us

So, saying it is "dictated" can mean different things, from different hearts And you say >



So, if an organization makes a statement, still you "might" need to get to know each person, so you can know what that person means

Just trying to pin the same tail on the whole donkey can be lazy, then

People do make their priorities evident in many ways - that is often not hard to see in someone.

As far as reversing your statement and using it to infer motives, I actually had individuals in mind and not Churches, if that is what you mean. In many cases, being taught by one's Church can I suppose build the kind of character in a person that the Church embodies. That as well as people are perhaps drawn to Churches that agree with their own personalities. So in a sense, it is probably along the same lines to apply the statement to organizations as a whole.

But in general, it was individual people I had in mind.

If I'm understanding you correctly? Forgive me if I got your point completely wrong. I had to assume just a bit in order to reply.