Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the Bible inspired by God?
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 1 of 40 (46599)
07-20-2003 7:44 PM


I once posted my opinion of this subject to the Online Bible Church where it was promptly deleted and then given a slick spin by a moderator who referred to me as "colleague" while refusing to make the post available to his readers. Ah well, I have found a more suitable soapbox now, haven't I?
A question posed by minnemooseus in message #3 of the topic "Theistic Evolution" has led me here. We shall see whether this becomes a thread indeed, or a lonely strand, feared and ignored by the faithful, left to bleach in the sun of righteousness and twist in the foul, foul wind.
minnemooseus:
quote:
How can one be certain that the Bible "cannot be wrong", when "fallible humans" have been involved in it's production?
doctrbill responds: [revised excerpt]
quote:
Proponents of inerrancy claim that the original documents are free from error. This is moot since there are NO ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. There are literally thousands of manuscripts from antiquity; all different; not one in complete agreement with the others.
This is then challenged by funkmasterfreaky who writes:
quote:
Where did you get your information? Seems like everyone and their dog has a different story.
In answer to the funkmaster:
quote:
I got them from a website posted by someone who is translating parts of the New Testament.
Here's what he says:
"... the thousands of Greek manuscripts of the four gospels which we do have available to us today all differ from one another." ... "The problem is, if God preserved his word perfectly to the letter, in which of the 5,000+ manuscripts is it preserved, since not one is identical to the other?"
Excerpted from: Bible Translations - Why are there so many differences? http://www.ilovejesus.com//school/hologos
This guy claims to "believe in the inspiration of scripture by God" and furthermore, gives credence to the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy http://www.bibletranslation.ws/down/chicago.txt which is puzzling given the meaninglessness of it all in face of the facts: No Original Documents. No Agreement Among Documents Extant.
I believe these guys are terrified of their God, of what he will do to them if they break with tradition; or perhaps terrified they might discover that he does not exist. They seem to exercise a poor brand of scholarship, put tradition ahead of truth, and delude themselves through mental gymnastics. They offer evidence in support of their misconception but their "evidence" does not stand up to scrutiny.
The argument for divine inspiration (and thus: "inerrancy") is taken from a statement by Saint Paul:
quote:
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness ..." 2 Timothy 3:16 Revised Standard Version
Alternative readings:
1. "Every scripture inspired by God ..." [footnote: Revised Standard Version]
2. "Every inspired scripture ..." [New English Bible]
3. "The whole Bible ..." [Living Bible]
The first two alternatives are OK but will require someone to decide which of the scriptures are inspired, or which are inspired by God.
The third alternative is what many people think it really means. But that presents an immediate problem. Right away we must conclude that the New Testament, the Christian portion of the Bible, is not covered by Paul's statement and thus not "inspired by God," because it did not yet exist when he wrote those lines.
Another alternative, and a simpler one in my opinion, is to look at the Greek here. Two verses prior to the one in question, Paul mentions the "Holy Scripture" < Greek - hiera grammata or priestly writings, noting that his reader, the young preacher Timothy, has read those since he was a child. Then, he talks about "All scripture" < Greek - pasa graphi, literally everything written, saying that they are "profitable for teaching ..." etc.
The Septuagint Bible, the one popular in Paul's time has since been purged, especially among Protestant churches; the groups most concerned about "inspiration." Many of the Septuagint scriptures have been deleted by some ecclesiastical "authority" who decided that they were not "inspired by God."
And yet, Paul utilized those very scriptures; quoted them in his lessons; obviously recognizing them as profitable for teaching .... If he had thought the Septuagint or any part of it to be uninspired, he could have said so. He did not. He also quoted Pagan poetry, utilizing that scripture in the same way he utilized all other. And if he was concerned that someone might mistakenly think them to be inspired, he could have easily injected a word of caution into any one of his voluminous correspondences, or created a list limiting what could be called "inspired of God," saying, "not THAT book, or not THAT Bible." But he didn't. All of which suggests to me that his use of pasa graphi was nothing less than intentional.
db

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 07-21-2003 3:59 AM doctrbill has replied
 Message 8 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2003 1:26 PM doctrbill has replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 3 of 40 (46680)
07-21-2003 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by PaulK
07-21-2003 3:59 AM


quote:
I think the problem is mainly in the OT books.
If you mean the question of "inspiration" then I would have to agree. But it does not simplify the issue very much.
There were two variants of sacred Jewish scripture available at that time: The Hebrew text, which few could actually read; and the popular Greek Septuagint. Paul apparently imagined the Hebrew, Greek and Pagan scriptures to be equally "inspired by God," quoting them all at will, without citation; apparently judging them by content rather than source.
{Lest anyone should misunderstand the terminology here: the word scripture simply means anything written. It is not an exclusive reference to the Bible.}
quote:
A Christian fundamentalist is someone who believes that the Gospels four are independent accounts - all written by the same Person.
That's cute but I don't believe they think of it in quite the same way you do. I believe they would say that the holy spirit guided all four. They are not likely to know about the scores of other Gospels which the Church decided not to include in The Book. If they are aware of it, then they must trust the Church to know what's inspired by God and what is not. And that seems to be the issue here.
Who decides? How do they do it? And how do we know they did well?
I have read some of the materials which have been left out of the Bible, and frankly, I would agree with some of their decisions. Not all literature stands up to the test of time. But then, I fancy myself a Bible scholar and those are the kinds of decisions which scholars have to make.
As to whether the four gospels were written by the same "person," I suspect you already know how easy it is to demonstrate the flaws in that theory.
db
------------------
Have you graduated from Sunday School?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 07-21-2003 3:59 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 07-21-2003 12:24 PM doctrbill has replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 9 of 40 (46719)
07-21-2003 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Buzsaw
07-21-2003 1:26 PM


Just a quick reply before I go to work. I'll respond more fully and to other posts when I return.
quote:
translators tend to think the need to be interpreters rather than sticking to the job of translating
Whether one is willing to admit it or not, translation is interpretation; that's why translators are also called: interpreters. It just can't be helped. Unfortunately for us, Hebrew and Greek are not English and there is simply no way that every word in those old languages can be understood by the scholar. One simply had to be there to understand. But even then, many would not, did not at the time, and if you pressed the speaker, or writer, he might come up with a different, perhaps even to him, better way of saying what he said.
quote:
... they are assuming the role of the reader and preacher which is to decide what the literal words are saying.
I'm afraid you don't realize the challenges of translation. Besides, no matter what the translator gives as equivalency, the preacher and reader will make they want of it.
quote:
Biblical literalist based nations are the prosperous and the blessed of the planet's cultures. To me that says something.
Indeed, it says that they are dominators. Besides, it wasn't always that way. Israel has never been a major player in that game and where do you think we got the Bible in the first place?
If God wants to send me a message he can call. He's got my number doesn't he, and my email?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2003 1:26 PM Buzsaw has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 14 of 40 (46786)
07-21-2003 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
07-21-2003 12:24 PM


quote:
... fundamentalists who explicitly state that the Bible is literally the Word of God - not that it is somehow guided.
Yes, I too have that experience; but if they are sincere, they will evolve; and as they become more sophisticated, these arguments become more useful.
quote:
The real point is that fundamentalists don't usually think about the implications of what they are saying.
You'll get no argument from me on that account. They are merely parroting the assertions and arguments of their trusted clergy. Unfortunately for church members, the clergy is not best known for scholarship. Most are simply too busy for that. Those who are scholarly are not likely to last long in an environment where re-evalutation of tradition is considered taboo. The scholarly types, the honest ones, are likely to abandon such a hell and lead their following to greener pastures. This is one reason why Christianity continues to splinter.
db
------------------
Are you a Sunday School graduate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 07-21-2003 12:24 PM PaulK has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 21 of 40 (46798)
07-21-2003 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Buzsaw
07-21-2003 1:26 PM


Buzsaw,
quote:
Likely Paul was speaking of all the sacred writings of the Jewish scriptures including the prophets ...
I'm sure he was. Those and more. Whatever he found profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness ...
And he demonstrated, by example, what that meant to him.
He quoted the Septuagint which Jews reject.
He quoted apocryphal books which Protestants reject.
He quoted Pagan poets (such heresy!).
Paul employed these scriptures as if they were inspired, utilizing them in circumstances which HE had designated appropriate to the use of inspired scripture.
Today's fundamentalists present a puzzling picture. On the one hand asserting Pauls words regarding inspiration, and on the other hand, rejecting much of the material he obviously accepted as inspired. Paul, and only Paul, was bold enough to assert such a revolutionary sentiment; namely, that everthing written is inspired by God. But then Paul was very impressed with literary talent.
quote:
The Christian compilers of the Bible canon evidently thought so, though it took them some time to sort out which of the NT should be included.
Yes, and "them" were Roman Catholic scholars weren't they?!
quote:
Bottom line is that Biblical literalist based nations are the prosperous and the blessed of the planet's cultures. To me that says something.
It says something to me too. It says you are dreaming.
Is Japan not prosperous?
Are Chinese jobs going overseas?
Is the Swiss economy in trouble?
Furthermore, the people of Israel never achieved the standard of living enjoyed by citizens of the empires which ran them over. One might safely assume that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were fundamentalists who took the Word of God literally. Yes?
db
------------------
Are you a Sunday School graduate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2003 1:26 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Buzsaw, posted 07-22-2003 12:01 AM doctrbill has replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 23 of 40 (46801)
07-21-2003 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Buzsaw
07-21-2003 11:06 PM


quote:
... the temple worship and Levitical sacrificial atonement had been replaced by a better testament.
New and Improved Judaism. The name has been changed to protect the duped.
quote:
We, being corrupted by secularism and materialism amid our prosperity are headed for the greater fall.
I find your statement almost sinister; as if anyone who enjoys a carefree life is responsible for the demise of America. Is that what you want to say?
Two thoughts:
1. - Secularism constitues relief from Religionism.
Everyone needs a break now and then.
2. - Materialism may be seen unaccompanied by prosperity but
where prosperity is found, materialism cannot be far.
db
------------------
Are you a Sunday School graduate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2003 11:06 PM Buzsaw has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 26 of 40 (46808)
07-22-2003 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Buzsaw
07-22-2003 12:01 AM


quote:
Paul warns of Satans ministers ... he warns of those who would teach "doctrines of demons," forbidding to marry, abstaining from meats, etc. He, ... warned of those who would teach false doctrines ...
OK so far
quote:
Would you mind citing the passages where he quoted or rejected the scriptures you designated and where he quoted paganism?
Whoah there judge! You appear to be misreading my brief. Not that it surprises me much. These things are virtually NEVER shared with anyone below the rank of seminary student. I once feared for my life everytime I opened this can of worms. But now, ... worms can be helpful, ya know? They get the soil ready for sprouts like us.
Anyway ... I never said, and do not want you to think, that Paul ever rejected ANY scripture. Remember, he said, "All scripture is inspired by God."
No, as far as I can tell, he never put down on anyones literature. Prove me wrong if you can. I should hear about it if it's true, yes?
And he didn't quote paganism as such; he quoted pagan poets. See the difference? Not even liberal old me would go so far as to endorse ALL scripture as inspired and I suspect he had his limits but what they were, I don't know. Vulgarity perhaps. Graffiti?
A listing of which scriptures he quotes would be a good thing for me to have handy, but unfortunately I don't. I could build such a list based on my Greek New Testament, which has a listing of OT and other script quotes listed by book. I will skim through this quickly and see if I can satisy a bit of your requirement.
He 11.37 (he quotes from) Ascension of Isaiah 5.11-14
1 Cor 10.2 (he quotes) Baruch 4.7
Col 2.3 < Enoch 46.3
He 11.35 < 2 Maccabees 6.18-7.42 (must be a summary)
1 Tm 6.15 < 2 Maccabees 13.4
1 Tm 6.15 < 3 Maccabees 5.35
Ro 7.7 < 4 Maccabees 2.5
Ro 2.6 < Sirach 16.14
He 11.5 < Wisdom 4.10
This is just a sample. There are many others. Plus, all the other NT writers quote from the apocrypha. Hope the terse abbreviations don't bother you. That's how it appears in the book.
Both Luke and Paul quote pagan writings. Paul quotes Epimenides, de Oraculis at Titus 1:12 and Menander, Thais (218) at 1 Corinthians 15:33.
This should give you a starting point. Better yet, try to get your hands on the GNT. They are prepared for use by translators and published by pretty much every Bible Society you've ever heard of and printed by the Wurttemberg Bible Society in Stuttgart, West Germany. Well, mine is. Mine is the 1966 edition and the index of quotations is in the back, last thing in the book. I think you will be amazed at how complex these manuals are. You will believe that there are thousands of variables to consider in the matter of "simple" translation.
Happy hunting.
db
------------------
Are you a Sunday School graduate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Buzsaw, posted 07-22-2003 12:01 AM Buzsaw has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 27 of 40 (46809)
07-22-2003 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Buzsaw
07-22-2003 12:01 AM


quote:
... during the dark ages the popes and bishops kept the scriptures to themselves and forbad the laity to use and interpret them for themselves.
There are always two sides to every story.
"During the dark ages, the laity was pretty much illiterate, and if not illiterate, then uneducated.
AND ...
Bibles were not cheap in those days. Think about a miniature handmade copy of the world's most ancient library. Think about ten thousand man hours of tedious labor by highly skilled professionals. Think about azure, vermillion, burnt umber and titanium white. Think about gold leaf illumination by world famous artists. Think about a million dollar project. Think about the single most valuable article in the monestary. Think about how it puts your town on the map. And this treasure you think we should loan to a bunch of dirt-grubbing, half-civilized, illiterate sharecropping ingrates?
Aren't you glad Bibles are dirt cheap now? Why you can hardly give them away! And still, almost no one understands a word it says.
db
------------------
Are you a Sunday School graduate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Buzsaw, posted 07-22-2003 12:01 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by truthlover, posted 07-22-2003 5:21 AM doctrbill has replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 34 of 40 (46880)
07-22-2003 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by truthlover
07-22-2003 5:21 AM


Hello Truthlover,
quote:
The idea that Paul or anyone else considers every writing inspired of God seems a bit much, and I was shocked you or anyone else would suggest it.
It seemed a bit much to me at first but when I considered his attitude toward civil authority I saw a similarly broad stroke.
The powers that be are ordained by God. Romans 13:1. KJV
Hello George!
Or, as the Living Bible puts it:
There is no government anywhere that God has not placed in power.
Hello Saddam!
Paul goes on to call armed tax collectors, ministers of God.
Hello IRS!
There may be additional evidence for this argument but I can’t seem to find it now. Perhaps you know it. As I recall, Paul compares the power of an aggressive man to the power of a written message, which can dispatch an army! Sound familiar? If it reads anything like I remember, it may suggest that he was promoting literacy. Whatever the reality of that may be, Paul seems to have understood, not only the great power of the written word, but it's limitations as well.
The kingdom of God is not in word but in power 1 Cor. 4:20
As I compose this it occurs to me that Paul, when he considered the word: "inspired," may not necessarily have thought it to mean absolute, inerrant, or timeless. And if this is true, then it would explain how those churchmen who love to cite 2Tim3:16 can at the same time disagree with Paul regarding what is useful for teaching, reproof, correction, etc. (as they so willingly demonstrate by excluding portions of his bibliography from the canon).
quote:
Well, if anything written is literature, then this is easy, as he told the Thessalonians (2 Thess 2:2) not to be misled by letters that seemed to be from him.
Thank you for that. It points up the need to be sure of the source. But then, can we really be sure he wrote this?
quote:
I assume you'd agree, too, that any literature produced by those persons pushing circumcision would have been rejected by him as well. Correct?
Yep. And to my thinking this would include a lot of the OT.
quote:
(I realize the pastoral epistles are classified as doubtful, as far as Pauline authorship, but so is Hebrews, and you used that.)
Yes, but you realize that for purposes of argument, I am working within the myth.
Thanks for the additional references.
db
------------------
Are you a Sunday School graduate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by truthlover, posted 07-22-2003 5:21 AM truthlover has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024