Rational Basis for Doctrine of Biblical Inspiration

[sentipente]

Some time ago I made the charge that many have a flawed view of inpiration. After some thought I decided to launch a thread to explore the basis for our current teaching on biblical inspiration. I find that many are wont to respond to a problematic revelation in the Bible with the rejoinder, "Well, I believe the Bible is inpired." What is the basis for this belief. Would we have that belief today if that one text in the New Testament had not been written or if that fragment of the copies of the ancient manuscipts had not been found?

 

[SpeakNow]

You can believe that the bible is flawed, yet tell people they cause bad things to happen in this world due to their understanding of it?

Where do you think ppl get theology from exactly?

And if your posts are any indication of being a happy Christian, I don't think anyone is buying that you've found a better way to know God.

If my theology was to bully ppl around, I guess I'd say the bible wasn't inspired too.

 

[mva1985]

Some time ago I made the charge that many have a flawed view of inpiration. After some thought I decided to launch a thread to explore the basis for our current teaching on biblical inspiration. I find that many are wont to respond to a problematic revelation in the Bible with the rejoinder, "Well, I believe the Bible is inpired." What is the basis for this belief. Would we have that belief today if that one text in the New Testament had not been written or if that fragment of the copies of the ancient manuscipts had not been found?

Great questions.

For me personally the fulfilled prophecies in Daniel help me to believe in the inspiration of the Bible. Secondly, we know that Christ believed in the Old Testament and quoted from it and read from it. So that helps me also.

One other thing when reading through the Proverbs and seeing the practical application that they can have in ones life - if we choose to apply them that is. I hope that is what you are looking for.

 

[sentipente]

SpeakNow, it is much better when one keeps her emotions in check. For starters, it increases the probability of correctly representing what a poster has said. Let us not taint this thread with untruths.

 

[sentipente]

Great questions.

For me personally the fulfilled prophecies in Daniel help me to believe in the inspiration of the Bible.

Would you have come up with the idea of inspiration if that one text was not in the New Testament?

 

[mva1985]

Would you have come up with the idea of inspiration if that one text was not in the New Testament?

I will have to give this more thought. Hopefully, some others will chime in on this.

 

[SpeakNow]

You told a fellow Christian in another thread that bad things are happening to him because he might need to rethink his theology.

You cannot attack ppl like that and then expect others to buy into your "better way" theology.

You have to think the inspiration in scripture is flawed. It's an unfortunate step in your line of reasoning. It's flawed, so I don't have to follow it.

I'm glad I don't live like that.

 

[sentipente]

SpeakNow, it is a good idea to stick to the truth. I never blamed the individual's misfortune on his theology. What inspires you to share this brand of untruths?

 

[JonMiller]

I liked the story of Jesus, and wanted to believe in Him. I don't think it is rational to believe in Jesus without the belief that the Bible is inspired.

If I didn't want to believe in Jesus, I wouldn't have believed that the Bible was inspired.

JM

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

This is probably the most important concept in Christianity. What does the verse saying that all scripture is inspired really mean. We know that inspiration can take many forms and the text even indicates the many ways that the inspiration of scripture can act. In other words you can get inspiration from a story that has no mention of God at all, even if a story is fictional such as a story in a parable.

What we often forget is that the Old Testament is the literature of the Jewish People. Much as we have American Literature etc. Reference to literature are part of the history and culture of every society. So it does not mean that the reference to your culture's literature indicates that something is indicative of being a literal historical account.

So we have to consider those other ways of looking at inspiration rather then the assumption that all those writings as specifically thoughts given by God to whoever wrote the material. Also remember we don't know who actually wrote most of the things recorded in the Bible.

the two things people have gotten most angry with me about are when I said that the Bible is not the Word of God and that the Bible is not all about Jesus. Both of those are such traditional views but don't acknowledge reality. The Bible may contain words of God but it also contains the thoughts of plenty of men and records stories of the actions of lots of different people, thus it is not the Word of God nor does it all talk about Jesus, as the rape of some woman is not about Jesus it is just a story in the literature of the people. So how we deal with the Bible is of critical importance and how we react to trite traditions is also critically important.

 

[sentipente]

I liked the story of Jesus, and wanted to believe in Him. I don't think it is rational to believe in Jesus without the belief that the Bible is inspired.

If I didn't want to believe in Jesus, I wouldn't have believed that the Bible was inspired.

JM

But where would you have gotten the very idea of inspiration from if it had not been in that text?

 

[StormyOne]

This is probably the most important concept in Christianity. What does the verse saying that all scripture is inspired really mean. We know that inspiration can take many forms and the text even indicates the many ways that the inspiration of scripture can act. In other words you can get inspiration from a story that has no mention of God at all, even if a story is fictional such as a story in a parable.

What we often forget is that the Old Testament is the literature of the Jewish People. Much as we have American Literature etc. Reference to literature are part of the history and culture of every society. So it does not mean that the reference to your culture's literature indicates that something is indicative of being a literal historical account.

So we have to consider those other ways of looking at inspiration rather then the assumption that all those writings as specifically thoughts given by God to whoever wrote the material. Also remember we don't know who actually wrote most of the things recorded in the Bible.

the two things people have gotten most angry with me about are when I said that the Bible is not the Word of God and that the Bible is not all about Jesus. Both of those are such traditional views but don't acknowledge reality. The Bible may contain words of God but it also contains the thoughts of plenty of men and records stories of the actions of lots of different people, thus it is not the Word of God nor does it all talk about Jesus, as the rape of some woman is not about Jesus it is just a story in the literature of the people. So how we deal with the Bible is of critical importance and how we react to trite traditions is also critically important.

when people get angry at the suggestion that the bible is not "the word of God" or that He did not write it, they more often than not are in the category of those who worship the bible and bestow on it characteristics that only God has... they are engaged in bibliolatry, and they cannot see that they are...

 

[mva1985]

Bibliolatry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bibliolatry is the worship of the Bible or any other text regarded as inerrant scripture. The word is a conflation or portmanteau of the words "bible" and "idolatry," and though it may also refer to an extreme devotion to books in general, it is more often used as a derogatory reference to extremely authoritarian interpretation of a holy book.


There may be no one who actually claims to worship the Bible itself, but those who believe in biblical inerrancy and biblical literalism are often considered to be bibliolaters by those who take a less authoritarian view of scripture. Many Christians believe that God is revealed only through the Bible and that everything about the Bible reveals God. Some contend that this is essentially worship of the Bible, and that God is also revealed through the study of nature, reason (Logos), traditional practice and individual experience (see the Wesleyan Quadrilateral), all of which must be taken into account when deciding how to truly follow God and how to properly interpret any scripture.


Often used as a smear word to label one's theological opponents as too extreme or close-minded, the word frequently appears in exchanges between different Christian sects or different wings of a Christian sect or church. In his book Whose Bible Is It? A History of the Scriptures Through the Ages (ISBN 0-670-03385-5), Jaroslav Pelikan writes of Unitatis Redintegratio 21, "the Second Vatican Council of the Roman Catholic church of 1962-1965 could speak with a mixture of genuine admiration and ever-so-gentle reproof about a 'love and reverence, almost a cult, for Holy Scripture' among the 'separated Protestant brethren'." Southern Baptist Dr. William Merrell published an irate denial of the charge of bibliolatry by the Baptist Faith and Message Committee in 2000.[1]

 

[StormyOne]

attributing to the bible characteristics that only belong to God is called......

 

[djconklin]

SpeakNow, it is much better when one keeps her emotions in check. For starters, it increases the probability of correctly representing what a poster has said. Let us not taint this thread with untruths.

She didn't; she asked very good questions. It is you who assumed that she didn't have her emotions in check--therefore it is you that doesn't. And in suggesting that it was her, and not you who told the untruth, or in the vernacular, let us not beat around the bush, we're all adults: lied.

 

[djconklin]

Would we have that belief today if that one text in the New Testament had not been written or if that fragment of the copies of the ancient manuscipts had not been found?

The concept of inspiration has nothing whatsoever to do with preservation or transmission of the texts. It appears that you are confused as to what is inspiration--which hardly makes it likely that you are able to judge who has a flawed view or not.

 

[sentipente]

The concept of inspiration has nothing whatsoever to do with preservation or transmission of the texts. It appears that you are confused as to what is inspiration--which hardly makes it likely that you are able to judge who has a flawed view or not.

Are you saying that a doctrine of inspiration would have been developed without Paul's remark about Scripture being given by inspiration of God? Please demonstrate that. There is no need to introduce extraneous material in this thread. This engine knows where it is headed.

 

[sentipente]

She didn't; she asked very good questions.

That is certainly the case by the standards with which you are familiar. I won't argue that with you.

 

[mva1985]

That is certainly the case by the standards with which you are familiar. I won't argue that with you.

I started reading Jeremiah yesterday and was thinking. God touched his lips and gave him the words to speak. I know that there are more examples we could find of this sort of thing in the Bible. So the inspiration of the Bible is not just taken from one verse in the New Testament.

 

[sentipente]

I started reading Jeremiah yesterday and was thinking. God touched his lips and gave him the words to speak. I know that there are more examples we could find of this sort of thing in the Bible. So the inspiration of the Bible is not just taken from one verse in the New Testament.

Where does Jeremiah say "inspired?" Remember what the question is. I am not denying the divine source of the Bible. I am looking at the contemporary doctrine on inspiration.