What does it mean for scripture to be "inspired"?

[crawfish]

I've put forth, in earlier posts, how I believe the "inspiration" of Biblical writing to have occurred. I believe that a human conduit, though his or her faith, becomes a special "conduit" to God - seeing right and wrong clearly, and being pushed spiritually to address those feelings through the written medium. The writings take the form that the writer chooses - their style, their culture, their level of knowledge - and the resulting text tells the truth of God through the perspective of that author. Though perspective and culture changes through the years, the spiritual meaning of the texts remains consistent. I also believe that the author does not know, at the time, that what they are writing is inspired...the inspiration becomes obvious as the text passes through generations, eventually being codified into the form we know.

To explain another possible perspective: in the TV show "Heroes", there is a character named Isaac who can paint the future. When he does so, his eyes go blank, he moves up to the easel and creates a painting. When he's done, his eyes return to normal and he walks up to the painting, obviously seeing it "himself" for the first time. The art is created totally by some mysterious force, and the writer is a conduit of the power that creates the art, and his talent or perspective has nothing to do with the art that is created.

Is the latter how the YEC/OEC crowd sees the writing of the bible? Is it God's word directly through an uncomprehending proxy? Or, does the writer's skill and perspective have something to do with the output text?

Is there any scripture that supports one view or another, or perhaps one I didn't mention?

 

[Rut]

I've put forth, in earlier posts, how I believe the "inspiration" of Biblical writing to have occurred. I believe that a human conduit, though his or her faith, becomes a special "conduit" to God - seeing right and wrong clearly, and being pushed spiritually to address those feelings through the written medium. The writings take the form that the writer chooses - their style, their culture, their level of knowledge - and the resulting text tells the truth of God through the perspective of that author. Though perspective and culture changes through the years, the spiritual meaning of the texts remains consistent. I also believe that the author does not know, at the time, that what they are writing is inspired...the inspiration becomes obvious as the text passes through generations, eventually being codified into the form we know.

To explain another possible perspective: in the TV show "Heroes", there is a character named Isaac who can paint the future. When he does so, his eyes go blank, he moves up to the easel and creates a painting. When he's done, his eyes return to normal and he walks up to the painting, obviously seeing it "himself" for the first time. The art is created totally by some mysterious force, and the writer is a conduit of the power that creates the art, and his talent or perspective has nothing to do with the art that is created.

Is the latter how the YEC/OEC crowd sees the writing of the bible? Is it God's word directly through an uncomprehending proxy? Or, does the writer's skill and perspective have something to do with the output text?

Is there any scripture that supports one view or another, or perhaps one I didn't mention?

I think both yes and no when it`s about culture and knowledge.If you thinking on the gospel.The gospel wrote nearly same thing but for example Luke wrote little more about healthcare because he was a doctor for example 10:25 - 37 see special verse 34.
If you see on the Laws that Moses get from God that have nothing to do what knowledge Moses had.I thinking then special about the healthcare laws.

I think they know that they was inspired Daniel 12:4 - 5.Moses know he was inspired Exodus chapter 3 - 4

 

[Everlasting]

I am also going to agree... But inspiration is culminated by you personal experiences, knowledge, understanding, and how God is moving through your life at the time. When spiritual ups and downs come into play, we may find that God's presence in our lives is stronger. I think our devotion, and faith in Him makes all the difference in the world, when He is inspiring us.

 

[laptoppop]

Actually, there are many times when it becomes obvious that the writings were much more than anything the writer could have known. One classic example involves scriptures that were written about events that had not taken place, like the hundreds of prophecies concerning the Messiah that were fulfilled in Jesus.

The word from Timothy translated inspired literally means "God breathed"

That is not to say that God used the writers as puppets. Each has their own style, etc. But God made sure that every jot and tittle said what He wanted said.

 

[gluadys]

Actually, there are many times when it becomes obvious that the writings were much more than anything the writer could have known. One classic example involves scriptures that were written about events that had not taken place, like the hundreds of prophecies concerning the Messiah that were fulfilled in Jesus.

But how much of that is really foretelling and how much of it is retrospective interpretation? It is always easy once something has happened, to go back to a supposed prophetic source and find an appropriate "prophecy". And if certain things had not happened in Jesus' life (e.g. the flight into Egypt and his later return) the OT scriptures listed as prophesying the event would simply not have been considered prophecies of the Messiah. They still function perfectly in their original setting without the additional significance of Messianic prophecy.

 

[shernren]

I personally believe that the Bible is not so much authored as authorized by God. Many "authorship notes" found in the Bible itself attribute those parts of the Bible to the human authors who wrote them rather than to God speaking through someone, while when God is directly speaking through someone, that claim is always explicitly outlined - which means that we cannot willy-nilly assume the same everywhere else.

The Bible is clear that Jesus is God's authoritative revelation to mankind. The Bible is a corpus of writings written by humans in anticipation of, and then in response to, that revelation. It is the natural literary expression of men and women who encounter God and live to write the tale. It is God-breathed in that it is written by those on whom God has breathed. (Even 2 Timothy 3 treats the Scriptures first as something passed down by tradition - "knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings" - before treating it as God-breathed.)

Does that detract from its authority? Not at all. Authorship is not equal to authority. Bill Gates may never have written an autobiography, but if he authorizes me to write a biography of his, my words then have his authority. But they still remain my words. In the same way, the Bible is humanly written in human words (indeed, would we be able to read it otherwise?), yet divinely authorized by God to be a corpus of literature that surrounds His central revelation in Jesus and which makes people wise to accept that revelation.

But frankly I don't see why the issue of authorship has anything to do with the issue of interpretation. Suppose for effect that I believe in the total and complete verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, that God wrote every single word in them, and that for effect He rains down little black KJVs onto the roads once in a while just to make it absolutely clear that not a word in it was ever inspired by any human thought. So what? God can completely and thoroughly inspire a historical account, or He can completely and thoroughly inspire an allegory, or He can completely and thoroughly inspire the world's greatest collection of jokes - God can write anything, can't He?

 

[laptoppop]

But how much of that is really foretelling and how much of it is retrospective interpretation? It is always easy once something has happened, to go back to a supposed prophetic source and find an appropriate "prophecy". And if certain things had not happened in Jesus' life (e.g. the flight into Egypt and his later return) the OT scriptures listed as prophesying the event would simply not have been considered prophecies of the Messiah. They still function perfectly in their original setting without the additional significance of Messianic prophecy.

So -- are you saying that there are no future-telling prophecies about Jesus in the Old Testament? One principle of Christian Biblical interpretation is to use the New Testament to interpret the Old. Do you deny the scriptures listed in the New Testament as prophecies?

I know it is damaging, if not fatal, to some interpretational viewpoints to admit that the writers of Scripture wrote things beyond their own understanding -- but it is plain. To make SURE we knew that the OT was complete way before the time of Jesus - we have the Septuagint translation. You can't translate what has not been written. Every tiny thing -- every jot and tittle - are important because God wanted them there.

 

[laptoppop]

But frankly I don't see why the issue of authorship has anything to do with the issue of interpretation. Suppose for effect that I believe in the total and complete verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, that God wrote every single word in them, and that for effect He rains down little black KJVs onto the roads once in a while just to make it absolutely clear that not a word in it was ever inspired by any human thought. So what? God can completely and thoroughly inspire a historical account, or He can completely and thoroughly inspire an allegory, or He can completely and thoroughly inspire the world's greatest collection of jokes - God can write anything, can't He?

Two points -- by far the vast majority of people who believe in the traditional view hold that the original manuscripts were the perfect versions -- there is no problem with recognizing copyist errors, etc. Specifically the KJV only crowd is a very small minority.

The second point is that it affects much. If the Scriptures are limited to the worldview and understanding of the authors, then they are no better than other literature. If, however, God took a direct hand in the production of the Scriptures, then they are true - for He does not lie. And while the primary purpose of God's revelation is spiritual and relational, they are accurate when they talk on other matters.

 

[shernren]

Two points -- by far the vast majority of people who believe in the traditional view hold that the original manuscripts were the perfect versions -- there is no problem with recognizing copyist errors, etc. Specifically the KJV only crowd is a very small minority.

I know. The bit about them all being KJVs was just for humor.

I've always wondered, though, how conservative scholars admit the existence of copyist errors, and at the same time make doctrinal points from grammatical constructions in Scripture. After all, it only takes one copyist error to change the tense of a word. A famous proof-text of the Trinity is John 1:1, where the Greek construction denotes a unique tension between Jesus as God and Jesus as one who is with God, condemning the errors of both the Arians and the Nestorians. But a grammatical construction depends on word orders and word orders are easily affected by copyist errors. How do you know that the word order of John 1:1 is actually in the originals, and not a result of copyist errors?

The second point is that it affects much. If the Scriptures are limited to the worldview and understanding of the authors, then they are no better than other literature. If, however, God took a direct hand in the production of the Scriptures, then they are true - for He does not lie. And while the primary purpose of God's revelation is spiritual and relational, they are accurate when they talk on other matters.

If God wanted to write a parable instead of a historical account to describe Himself, would that then make the parable any less inspired than the historical account? After all, God can directly write a manuscript that is limited to the worldview and understanding of the audience - for the good reason that they would never understand it otherwise!

 

[laptoppop]

I know. The bit about them all being KJVs was just for humor.

Sorry, not funny.

I've always wondered, though, how conservative scholars admit the existence of copyist errors, and at the same time make doctrinal points from grammatical constructions in Scripture. After all, it only takes one copyist error to change the tense of a word. A famous proof-text of the Trinity is John 1:1, where the Greek construction denotes a unique tension between Jesus as God and Jesus as one who is with God, condemning the errors of both the Arians and the Nestorians. But a grammatical construction depends on word orders and word orders are easily affected by copyist errors. How do you know that the word order of John 1:1 is actually in the originals, and not a result of copyist errors?

There is an entire science that deals with various manuscripts and in trying to get as close to possible to the originals. It is a matter of great effort.

If God wanted to write a parable instead of a historical account to describe Himself, would that then make the parable any less inspired than the historical account? After all, God can directly write a manuscript that is limited to the worldview and understanding of the audience - for the good reason that they would never understand it otherwise!

The problem is assuming that God is writing a story when He identifies it as history.

 

[crawfish]

Two points -- by far the vast majority of people who believe in the traditional view hold that the original manuscripts were the perfect versions -- there is no problem with recognizing copyist errors, etc. Specifically the KJV only crowd is a very small minority.

A few problems: we have NO original manuscripts of ANY biblical texts. We have some very old copies of the OT scripts, and fragments of the NT books dated from <100AD, but we do not have any of the originally written texts. Thus, according to that point of view, every bit of scripture we have is flawed.

I'll have to look up the exact numbers - but the number discrepancies in the text of the early NT books/fragments that we have is staggering (one of Bart Ehrman's books, I believe). You have to either accept the fact that inspiration is a more complex process than dictating to one author, or that we've lost God's true word.

The second point is that it affects much. If the Scriptures are limited to the worldview and understanding of the authors, then they are no better than other literature. If, however, God took a direct hand in the production of the Scriptures, then they are true - for He does not lie. And while the primary purpose of God's revelation is spiritual and relational, they are accurate when they talk on other matters.

Is a great spiritual truth told as a parable or poetry a "lie"? If God inspires a metaphor, even if it's written entirely by a human author without direct Godly intervention, doesn't that make it different - greater - than other literature?

 

[crawfish]

But frankly I don't see why the issue of authorship has anything to do with the issue of interpretation.

I mention it because I think it's a key difference between TE's and C's. An author-created book could not possibly explain the creation in detail; a divinely-written book could.

It doesn't affect my opinion either way. God was not having the book written for its scientific value. It would matter for a C, tho.

 

[shernren]

I mention it because I think it's a key difference between TE's and C's. An author-created book could not possibly explain the creation in detail; a divinely-written book could.

It doesn't affect my opinion either way. God was not having the book written for its scientific value. It would matter for a C, tho.

Ah, I see what you mean. Now I get why creationists are so passionate about plenary verbal inspiration: simply because it proves that God could have written passages that are rightfully interpreted as if they were written to a modern scientific context.

I never saw the significance because I saw that proving that God could have comes nowhere near proving that He did. But ah well. We must always take whatever ground we can, no?

 

[shernren]

Sorry, not funny.

Either I'm bad with jokes or you have a bad sense of humor. Being generous I'll assume the former.

There is an entire science that deals with various manuscripts and in trying to get as close to possible to the originals. It is a matter of great effort.

But what does that matter if there are copyist errors? After all, you don't have good chain of transmission records for the originals, so how do you know they weren't tampered with?

For example, the John 1:1 we have now reads in the Greek kai Theos en ho Logos. But suppose that what John had actually written was kai Logos en ho Theos ("and the Word was a God", if my rudimentary Greek serves me correctly). At the beginning there must have been only one original manuscript of John, so that at some point one copyist must have been making the only copy of John. If at that point the copyist wrote kai Theos en ho Logos, then the only copy of John which would have been passed on to us today would be just that, while the original manuscript would be hopelessly lost, no matter how inspired "and the Word was a God" actually was.

You see? You have to assign some degree of inspiredness to the copies themselves to make verbal plenary inspiration work - that God not only made the writers write right, but made the copyists copy right too. (Oh, the puns!) But then you run into two issues. Firstly, the copies themselves are obviously not letter-for-letter identical, and even significantly diverge in spots here and there, so that "verbal" plenary inspiration breaks down if you try to apply it across multiple copies. Secondly, why then bother to apply it to the originals? What we have now are the copies; if you claim that the copies were inspired to some extent, then whether the originals themselves were inspired or not simply doesn't matter.

The problem is assuming that God is writing a story when He identifies it as history.

Funny. I don't recall seeing a Genesis 1:0: "In the beginning, God decided that any time He recounted the doctrine of creation to the Jews, He would do so as history." Genesis 1 has a refrain, for crying out loud! I wouldn't be surprised if it was singable.

 

[mont974x4]

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

"inspired" from this passage
G2315
&#952;&#949;&#959;&#769;&#960;&#957;&#949;&#965;&#963;&#964;&#959;&#962;
theopneustos
theh-op'-nyoo-stos
From G2316 and a presumed derivative of G4154; divinely breathed in: - given by inspiration of God.

G2316
&#952;&#949;&#959;&#769;&#962;
theos
theh'-os
Of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively a magistrate; by Hebraism very: - X exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward].
G4154
&#960;&#957;&#949;&#769;&#969;
pneo&#772;
pneh'-o
A primary word; to breathe hard, that is, breeze: - blow. Compare G5594.



Does this help?

 

[laptoppop]

Actually we only have to assume a reasonable level of accuracy regarding the manuscripts. Since they all agree on John 1:1, that ones easy. The question of inspiration is something different. The goal is to come as close as possible to the originals. Certain things, like the dead sea scrolls have shown that the scribes took their job very very seriously such that copyist errors are very low - even over long periods of time.

 

[Melethiel]

Granted, my Greek is mostly Modern, only rudimentary Koine, but that example doesn't look right to me.
(I plan on actually contributing to this thread tomorrow, after I get some sleep )

 

[gluadys]

Genesis 1 has a refrain, for crying out loud! I wouldn't be surprised if it was singable.

It is singable.

I have been told by those who know biblical Hebrew that some word choices may have been dictated by metrical considerations.

It has long been recognized that the whole passage was written with a liturgical use in mind.

 

[gluadys]

So -- are you saying that there are no future-telling prophecies about Jesus in the Old Testament? One principle of Christian Biblical interpretation is to use the New Testament to interpret the Old. Do you deny the scriptures listed in the New Testament as prophecies?

What I am saying is that the early Church scoured the OT for prophecies pertaining to the Messiah and identified any statement that had any possible allusion to the life of Christ as such a prophecy.

Had Jesus' life been different, they would have identified different OT passages as prophecy and some that have been identified as Messianic prophecy would not be so identified in the NT.

The existence of "future-telling prophecy" depends on those who live after the event making the identifying link of the ancient text to the event. That link is not obvious in itself until it is identified by those searching for it.

But the associative faculty of the human mind is such that it is always easy to find such a link when you do search for it. So it proves nothing.

Muslims believe that the NT prophesies the coming of Muhammad. Bahai's believe both the NT and the Qur'an prophesy the coming of Baha'ullah. What makes those beliefs any less valid than the Church's belief that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is prophesied in the OT?

I know it is damaging, if not fatal, to some interpretational viewpoints to admit that the writers of Scripture wrote things beyond their own understanding -- but it is plain.

I very much disagree that it is plain. If it were that plain, we would not have Jewish commentators disagreeing on the interpretation of the so-called Messianic passages. Even on whether or not some passages are Messianic prophecies (e.g. the Servant Songs of Isaiah are considered Messianic by Christians, but not by Jews.)

In short, the identification of a text as prophetic is itself an interpretation of the text. Whether it is a good interpretation of the text is a different question. It is still an interpretation inspired by the event it supposedly foretold, not something plain from the text itself.

Even scripture indicates as much, for when Jesus encountered the disciples on the road to Emmaus, he had to interpret the OT passages to them. This shows that the meaning was not plain. We see a similar event in Philip's encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch. And, of course, Paul, when he preached in the synagogues introduces this new interpretation of the OT. And the controversy that ensues makes it clear that this interpretation was not at all obvious.

So the whole package of Messianic prophecy is really early Christian apologetics.

 

[laptoppop]

Wow. I am surprised that you would take such a position. The early church? Are you calling the New Testament just their thoughts and not the explicit revelation from God?

Read Isaiah 53, Psalm 22 and tell me that it is just the interpretations of the early church. How about Isaiah 7:14? (Yes, I know the Hebrew can be interpreted "young woman" -- but it is not much of a "sign" that a young woman gets pregnant, and the Septuagint translated way before Christ uses the specific term for virgin, showing that it was the interpretation of that passage before Christ).

For other TEs -- is this your position as well?