Summations Only

I have to say that Biblical Inerrancy is a really weird mind-set if it means taking obvious myths like the Tower of Babel story at face value, while regarding a similar reading of the first view verses of Luke as "idiosyncratic".

I think PaulK has made a really good point with the opening versus in Luke 1 and that you shouldn't be glossing over it like you have.Your sermon talks about scripture being "god-breathed", and you are claiming that god sorta "dictated" the scripture to the authors, and that makes what they wrote inerrant.But if we look at the opening of Luke 1:

quote:

---

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

---

The author is explicitly telling us that he researched this stuff himself. He doesn't say anything about god breathing the words into him, or anything that could be construed as being dictated to him.He says it himself that he researched it.That is scripture, itself, that contradicts what you say all of scripture is.

All that's being contradicted here is the wrong understanding of inerrancy and inspiration. I keep trying to say that inspiration does not bypass the human personality but you all keep insisting it does and that I'm talking about some kind of takeover of the mind. I'm not, never was, never had such an idea about inspiration. The Tower of Babel story is inspired truth and so is the gospel of Luke.

So you accept that the author of Luke was a human writing about the findings of his own researches, and not Jesus ?

But you've said that Jesus authored the entire Bible and here we have the author of Luke saying that he wrote it based off of the research that he did and not through dictation from God/Jesus.If what you are claiming is true, then the author of Luke would have started like some of the other books do where they go: "The word of the Lord came to me and said..."But that's not what the author of Luke said. He said that he carefully investigated it back to the beginning.

Again, the only problem here is your expectation of what inspiration means. I never use the term "dictation" but that's the weird idea you all get and I don't know how to dispel it.I don't think anybody knows exactly how God inspired all the writers of the Biblical books, but we know He did.As for Jesus' authorship, maybe it would be clearer to say "Son of God" rather than Jesus.

You are making a false distinction based on how the writers came by their knowledge. All the gospel writers are considered to have been inspired in their writings. Matthew Mark and John had lived through the events but also made use of other written materials; Luke learned about the events from interviewing the people who had lived through them. The source of the knowledge has nothing to do with whether the writing was inspired or not.

quote:

---

Again, the only problem here is your expectation of what inspiration means. I never use the term "dictation" but that's the weird idea you all get and I don't know how to dispel it.

---

Faith, according to you Jesus authored every book of the Bible, meaning that the words are all his and not those of the men who actually wrote the books. Which really suggests dictation, since you allow no role for the human authors other than setting down the words decreed by Jesus.So this "weird idea" comes directly from your own words.THe Gospel of Luke, however, is devoid of any suggestion of inspiration. The human author carried out researches - surely redundant if Jesus is just going to give him the words anyway - and set out the results, with no mention of any supernatural influence.Why does this not suggest that if there was any inspiration, it was something more subtle than Jesus controlling the whole thing ? Why say that Jesus was the author when the book presents itself as a human composition ? At the least you are claiming that a simple text is badly misleading, which seems rather odd in an book inspired by God.

quote:

---

The source of the knowledge has nothing to do with whether the writing was inspired or not.

---

Faith, as usual you have trouble understanding the views that you are opposing. Nobody is arguing about whether Luke was inspired or not. We are arguing about the nature of inspiration (assuming it is present) given the text of Luke 1:1-3

I've already said whatever I have to say on the subject of the nature of inspiration, concluding that I don't think we can really know, so I'll just stay out of it if that's your focus. HOWEVER, there is nothing different about the first verses of Luke as I also said. It shouldn't make any difference what the source of knowledge is whether the writing is inspired or not OR how it was inspired.

quote:

---

I've already said whatever I have to say on the subject of the nature of inspiration, concluding that I don't think we can really know, so I'll just stay out of it if that's your focus

---

So your idea that Inspiration means that Jesus is the author is just an opinion that you won't support.

quote:

---

HOWEVER, there is nothing different about the first verses of Luke as I also said.

---

If course, to you doctrine always dictates to the Bible. That's necessary to maintain the illusion of inerrancy.But, as I said, if you are going to take the view that a plain reading of the Bible should be the default, why claim that a plain reading of the introduction to Luke is "idiosyncratic"? That really does suggest that they are different in some way that suggests a less literal approach.

quote:

---

It shouldn't make any difference what the source of knowledge is whether the writing is inspired or not OR how it was inspired.

---

But you're the one insisting on a view of inspiration that is not found in the Bible, and one that does not sit comfortably with Luke. Why bother if it doesn't matter ?

Okay so far. And how do we know he did?--Percy

Upon reading and researching what others say about this, i came upon the following quote:

quote:

---

The Holy Spirit moved men to write. He allowed them to use their own styles, cultures, gifts, and character. He allowed them to use the results of their own study and research, write of their own experiences, and express what was in their minds. At the same time, the Holy Spirit did not allow error to influence their writings. He overruled in the expression of thought and in the choice of words. Thus, they recorded accurately all God wanted them to say and exactly how He wanted them to say it in their own character, styles, and languages.

---

I can't speak for Percy or Faith or any one of you. All I can tell you is how I feel and what I believe on this subject.Let me just say that I have been inspired by a lot of different books, a lot of different authors, and that their inspiration was accepted and acknowledged by me--in part--because what they said stirred me up and caused me to want to do better...speak more intelligibly so that--perhaps--I could pay it forward and allow their inspiration--filtered and rearranged by me---to inspire, educate, and bless others. Should I give the credit to God? Let me just say that I believe that God gives me life and that I trust Him to shepherd me into eternity...I don't believe that this life is all there is.I agree with those of you who say that we (I) should live this life as fully, altruistically, and profitably as I can...and I don't mean profitable in a financial sense. If I can inspire you by my actions and words...if my teaching encourages you to also make this world a better place...than I can die happy. In summation, we humans can't prove the source of our inspiration. Some of us believe that we inspire each other and that is where it stops. Others, myself included..believe that it is part of a Divine Plan.

I think its your problem with your expectation of what inspiration means. You said that god wrote the Bible through the authors. What word would better describe how he did it?When an author says that the word of the Lord came to him, why can't the word "dictate" be used to describe that?And how far off, really, is dictation from "God-breathed"? Rather than knowing it, you believe it on faith, but let's not waste time bickering about that. And you are falsly making all inspriration to be too similiar.The Bible clearly and explicitly makes a distinction between the way that, say, the author of Ezekiel was inspired (see chapter 21:1 for example) and how the author of Luke was inspired.Ezekiel says that the word of the Lord came to him. Luke says that he investigated the history of the events.Those two authors claim very different ways in which they acquired the knowledge that they recorded.You don't have an explanation for why they are so different and it contradicts what you have been saying in this thread. Oh okay. But that is just you using your theology to guide your interpretation of the Bible. You've already decided that Luke was inspired just like the rest of them, so when presented with the verses that show that it was different, all you can do is stand by your original position and re-interpret and twist what the author of Luke said so that it fits within what you already believe.That's not you deriving your theology from the Bible, that's you deriving your interpretation of the Bible from your theology.How can you not see yourself doing this? Hang on, obviously God has to be the source of the knowledge for it to be inspired, no?Where does the author of Luke say anything about God being the source of his knowledge?

Scripture says they were "moved by the Holy Spirit." Only the prophets used that phrase but all the writers are considered to have been inspired. And they didn't necessarily write down what God told them at the moment they received it either; they often say they received it at such and a such a time and place, such as by a river, where they wouldn't have been in a position to write it down. When it is said that God preserved every word they wrote it isn't meant to imply something as direct as dictation as I understand it, just that when they wrote it they were moved to use words that said exactly what He wanted them to say. I don't have a problem with this since I think God in some sense controls everything we all do all the time, only in the case of the writers what they wrote was all true and the rest of us get things wrong. That's just a passing thought though, don't skewer me with it. I don't know but dictation would only apply if they were writing at the moment they got the information which I don't think was ever the case.Again, the inspiration of the writing of scripture doesn't seem to be related to how the knowledge they are writing about occurred in the first place. Moses must have received a great deal of his knowledge from word of mouth, perhaps some from direct illumination from God, it doesn't say, and much from his own eyewitness experience as well. The prophets got their more esoteric knowledge straight from God as He revealed things to them they couldn't otherwise have known, but they didn't necessarily get it as they were sitting down to write, in fact I don't think any of them did. They are accounts of things that had already happened, including their receiving of esoteric revelations, prophecies etc. Luke got his knowledge from the eyewitnesses, he was also an eyewitness himself at times on the trail with Paul as he describes in Acts; other gospel writers were eyewitnesses and used each other's writings to fill in the blanks as well. To believe all this is inspired is simply to believe that God guided and protected the writing of it, which is apart from how the knowledge was acquired. John MacArthur explains it in a more direct way than I would normally think of it myself, so maybe I should listen to some other sermons about it.The difference you make between how Ezekiel and Luke were inspired isn't a difference in how they were inspired in the writing of their text but a difference in how they learned what they learned.abe: God is the source of the knowledge, sure, because He's the source of everything, but He's the source of the inspiration of the writing of it in another sense than that. All the writers had all kinds of knowledge they didn't write down, or if they did write it down the writing of it wasn't inspired. The determination of what writings were inspired was a judgment made by the churches through the Holy Spirit.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.