Luke and Acts are not inspired

[Aaron11]

That is what I thought was the common interpretation of "god-breathed", which is the literal meaning of the word inspiration in koine greek.

 

[Philip]

"God-breathed" and "God-worded" are not the same.

As for the meaning of theopneustos, let's not get too literal. Certainly you don't think that every compound word is to be understood it terms of the literal meaning of its component words. After all, a skyscraper does not actually scrape the sky.

 

[Debi]

"God-breathed" and "God-worded" are not the same.

As for the meaning of theopneustos, let's not get too literal. Certainly you don't think that every compound word is to be understood it terms of the literal meaning of its component words. After all, a skyscraper does not actually scrape the sky.

Are you stating that the word was not by inspiration of God, directed and governed by the Holy Spirit and preserved by God?

 

[Philip]

I am stating that Scripture was writen by men under the guidence of the Holy Spirit. The athors actively particpated in the writing. They were not taking dictation.

 

[Debi]

I am stating that Scripture was writen by men under the guidence of the Holy Spirit. The athors actively particpated in the writing. They were not taking dictation.

They actively participated by following the lead of the Holy Spirit. I think God is capable of directing the men as to exactly how and what words he wanted used to give us the knowledge he wanted us to have regarding sin, salvation, eternal life, etc etc etc.

I believe it was written by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit and is/was not open for private interpretation. Which is what scriptures state. The men that translated it was guided by the holy spirit and directed as to which words should be used and where.

Debi

 

[Philo]

They actively participated by following the lead of the Holy Spirit. I think God is capable of directing the men as to exactly how and what words he wanted used to give us the knowledge he wanted us to have regarding sin, salvation, eternal life, etc etc etc.

I believe it was written by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit and is/was not open for private interpretation. Which is what scriptures state. The men that translated it was guided by the holy spirit and directed as to which words should be used and where.

Debi

Which translation do you prefer? Also, are you aware of the term "tautology"?

 

[Debi]

Which translation do you prefer? Also, are you aware of the term "tautology"?

I read the KJV and the Amplified Bible. I also use the Vine's expository and Strongs when I study. I am not familiar with the term, but I looked it up. What is the point you are making regarding the term?


Debi

 

[Philip]

I believe it was written by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit and is/was not open for private interpretation. Which is what scriptures state.

Could you explain what you mean by "direct inspiration"? How would that compare to indirect inspiration?

The men that translated it was guided by the holy spirit and directed as to which words should be used and where.

Is there any Scriptural basis for this claim? Also, were all translators equally guided?

I read the KJV and the Amplified Bible.

Do you consider the amplifications inspired as well?

 

[Debi]

Could you explain what you mean by "direct inspiration"? How would that compare to indirect inspiration?

What I mean is that the Spirit of God spoke to them and instructed the writers what to write and spoke to the translators and guided them to what words should be used where.


Is there any Scriptural basis for this claim? Also, were all translators equally guided?

If you are referring to translators today, none have been guided by God, they are guided by their own sins to prove a doctrine or religion. 2 tim 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20 To say that God's word may be in error because man is fallible and make errors is to say that Man is more power than God and God is incapable to preserve the Written Word for His children. Man cannot thwart the will of God. God has a plan and man can not divert that plan. God is soveriegn, not man.

Do you consider the amplifications inspired as well?

No it is not, I just use it as a reference tool because many of the scriptures has the Greek and Hebrew words translated into the text to give man a better understand of God's word. There are many scriptures that do not line up with the KJV, yet the Amplified is a much better translation as the others because it does give the translation of some words from the Greek and the Hebrew. It is not grear towards any "religious" doctrine. But many problably don't know that because they do not look the words up in the strongs, lexicon or the Vines and apply the words as they our defined to the Kings English. Not all the words in the "Kings English" mean the same as in the Greek or Hebrew.

 

[Philip]

What I mean is that the Spirit of God spoke to them and instructed the writers what to write

Like dictation?

and spoke to the translators and guided them to what words should be used where....If you are referring to translators today, none have been guided by God, they are guided by their own sins to prove a doctrine or religion.

Of which translators are you speaking?

To say that God's word may be in error because man is fallible and make errors is to say that Man is more power than God and God is incapable to preserve the Written Word for His children.

I believe you may be confusing what God can do and what He may or may not have actually done. I have not said God is incapable of anything. I do, however, seem to disagree with your opinion as to how He actually inspired the authors.

It is not grear towards any "religious" doctrine.

That is open to debate.

 

[Aaron11]

Debi said:

"What I mean is that the Spirit of God spoke to them and instructed the writers what to write and spoke to the translators and guided them to what words should be used where."

So Debi, why do you think this? Why do you think that the writers and translators were guided word for word?

 

[Aaron11]

I believe it was written by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit and is/was not open for private interpretation. Which is what scriptures state. The men that translated it was guided by the holy spirit and directed as to which words should be used and where.

Debi

Is this your private interpretation?

 

[Aaron11]

Debi,

I'm sorry for exposing the mistake in your reasoning. Come back.

 

[Debi]

Is this your private interpretation?[/QUOTE

No. It is the Written Word.. " It is not open for private interpertation" from anyone.

What does "it is not open to private interpertation mean to you?" anyone can say the scripture means what they want it to mean?

 

[Debi]

Debi,

I'm sorry for exposing the mistake in your reasoning. Come back.

Exposing my mistake?!! lol. Aaron!! And what mistake was that?


Debi

 

[Aaron11]

Is this your private interpretation?[/QUOTE

No. It is the Written Word.. " It is not open for private interpertation" from anyone.

What does "it is not open to private interpertation mean to you?" anyone can say the scripture means what they want it to mean?

Here is the deal Debi. You say that the word says that it is not open to private interpretation. I have read the bible and continue to read the bible and have never understood it to say anything of the sort. Your interpretation of the scriptures is that there is no allowance for interpretation. Kind of ironic wouldn't you say?

If you still aren't getting it, here it is more obviously. You are interpreting the scriptures and saying that your interpretation is the right one and anyone else's interpretations are "private interpretations". What you are missing, is that everyone's interpretations, are interpretations.

 

[Debi]

You say that the word says that it is not open to private interpretation. I have read the bible and continue to read the bible and have never understood it to say anything of the sort.

2 Peter 1:20 knowing this first, that NO PROPHECY OF THE SCRIPTURES IS OF ANY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION..
V.21 for the prophecy came not in oldtime by the will of man; but holy men of God spake us they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

I assume you do defined the words within the scripture according to the language it was written ( like using a Strongs or Vine's Expository)? Private does means "one's own interpertation" correct?. The only interpertation that I have concluded is one that is defined by the words in the scriptures. It is like reading the Little Red Riding Hood, if you understand the meaning of each word as it is given, the story will always have the same foundation and conclusion. Now, I am not sure, but I have not heard of anyone reading "The Little Red Riding Hood and state that the Wolf triumph over the little girl?" Do you understand now?

If you still aren't getting it, here it is more obviously. You are interpreting the scriptures and saying that your interpretation is the right one and anyone else's interpretations are "private interpretations". What you are missing, is that everyone's interpretations, are interpretations. Aaron, what you are missing is that it is not my interpretation. It is the defining of the words that gives the understanding to the scriputures and the text.

Aaron, Do you really believe God is giving more "revelation" knowledge from his word? Do you really believe that God's intention is to have man so confused as to what The Written Word states that it would development as many "religions" and "interpertations" of the Written Word.? BTW, I am not the only one that believes what is written.

Now, I am not being nasty but do you study the word? because just reading it does leave one to misinterpet the meaning of the scriptures.

I don't see how if you study the words, using study tools that are given as a foundation for our understanding the words, usage and history how you can be lead to a different interpetation of scripture. Once again, I am not trying to be mean or anything like that, I am simply asking a question. It was my habit for many years just read the word until God showed me that I need to study the word. There is a large difference.

 

[Philip]

Aaron, Do you really believe God is giving more "revelation" knowledge from his word? Do you really believe that God's intention is to have man so confused as to what The Written Word states that it would development as many "religions" and "interpertations" of the Written Word.?

Scripture itself says their is more to God's revelation than what is written. For example, see my sig.

I don't see how if you study the words, using study tools that are given as a foundation for our understanding the words, usage and history how you can be lead to a different interpetation of scripture.

Look around. There are countless denominations, each with its own interpretation, each claiming to be correct, each contradicting the other.

 

[Debi]

Scripture itself says their is more to God's revelation than what is written. For example, see my sig.



Look around. There are countless denominations, each with its own interpretation, each claiming to be correct, each contradicting the other.

Which proves my point. People want to believe that "mystically and magically" God is revealing His word. It has been revealed. You sig states we should hold firm to the traditions of the gospel that we have been taught by Paul. Not the further revelation of Gods word will come to us.

 

[Debi]

Which proves my point. People want to believe that "mystically and magically" God is revealing His word. Many are not relying on the tools given to us to study the word of God and get the understanding God is presenting to us. Many are claiming to be "special messengers of God". I think you would agree that Paul was a "special Messenger" and we are warned in the word of false prophets and teachers. Hosea 4: 6 states " My people are destoryed for lack of knowledge." All has been revealed in the Written Word except for the details of the second coming and a few other things. He has keep them secret just as He keep the church a mystery, unrevealed, to the OT prophets. Even for those that will be here during the time the anti christ is in full power, He has told them what to expect.

You sig is in accordance with the scripture What Paul tells us about following false gospels.

( Standfast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, ( by Paul) whether by word ( his speaking) or by epistle ( letters written to the church) ..................... No further revelation given there. It does not state anything about further revelation of God's written word.

You did not answer, Did God intent to have countless denmonations and doctrines to be taught? Would he allow so many of "His people to be mislead." The Word of God does say to "study to show thyself approved, a workman unto God."


The Epistle was written to the Church of Thessoliana and they were teaching the same gospel message as Paul, not a different doctrine and not not getting further revelation from that doctrine.