Originally posted by thesonofsaulMost Christians (I hope!) would argue that God inspired the writing of the Bible - though some [parts] of the Prophetic books may have been based on direct Revelation.
Well? Did God actually write the Bible, in the opinion of the Christians posting in this forum, or did he only inspire its writing? And if the latter, how does the inspiration of the Bible differ from other works of literature and art that are "inspired"?
And come on everyone, try to stick to the subject. I'm sure I'm not alone in not wanting another thread arguing Bible verses.
... --- ...
How does it differ from other works of literature and art that are inspired? I'll come to that in a moment - but first let me focus on the similarity. Like any piece of literature, the authors would've used language, metaphor, symbols, literary forms & structure etc. that would reflect the era of composition and the direct audience it was intended for. The composition of books like the Psalms may also involve the literary creativity of the author.
The difference, of course, is the authors of the Bible were not penning down their own message but, rather, a message from God to humanity (whether they were aware of it or not). Given such factors as era, literary forms, ability of author etc., God would have prevented them from adding to / taking away from the message he intended to reveal to mankind.
Now don't ask me to prove all this. You wanted to know what Christians believe about the Bible - I think my answer covers the major bases.
Originally posted by thesonofsaulyes he did, definitely.... i think
Well? Did God actually write the Bible, in the opinion of the Christians posting in this forum, or did he only inspire its writing? And if the latter, how does the inspiration of the Bible differ from other works of literature and art that are "inspired"?
And come on everyone, try to stick to the subject. I'm sure I'm not alone in not wanting another thread arguing Bible verses.
... --- ...
Originally posted by lucifershammerI think I like your answer, but let me test something.
Most Christians (I hope!) would argue that God inspired the writing of the Bible - though some [parts] of the Prophetic books may have been based on direct Revelation.
How does it differ from other works of literature and art that are inspired? I'll come to that in a moment - but first let me focus on the similarity. Like any piece o ...[text shortened]... nted to know what Christians believe about the Bible - I think my answer covers the major bases.
You know that I find the 'inerrant' claims to be nonsense, and I will
have to assume that you recognize that there are historical errors
and/or contradictions in the Bible.
However, I would guess that you would maintain that these (human)
errors do nothing to detract from the (Divine) Truth.
If you agree, then continue on.
You say that God inspired the writing of the Bible. This means to
me that the essential message is Divinely authored through
the means of human vessels. That is (excusing the revelatory
passages which involved 'dictation'😉, you would say that God planted
a seed somehow and that the human 'translated' that seed into a
way s/he felt best expressed that seed. You point out the Psalms
which involved literary creativity. While the creativity is not necessarily
the seed (or message) that God planted, I will assume that you
would agree that the human creativity either enhances that seed's
understanding or is neutral (but never detracts!).
For example, when it says, 'Jesus got up and walked away,' I'd
consider this a 'neutral' passage. There is no Divine Truth here (but
neither is there evil). It's just a device to get Jesus from point A or
B. If, He in fact, didn't get up and walk away at that time, but instead
'rode away' (or whatever), it would make no difference with respect to
the Divine Truth.
Are you with me so far?
Here is my main question: What if the message was far more simple
than the author's presentation of the message? Let's take the birth of
Jesus. Assuming we accept the notion of 'inspiration' on the part of
God to the authors, we can clearly conclude that Sts Luke and Matthew
had 'seeds' planted in their heads that Jesus was an important guy
(let's not quibble about how important right now). But we (the readers)
can't see the seed. We don't know whether God said 'Jesus was born
like this' or if they interviewed people and God told them 'this guy
is telling the truth or not about the events in the manger/cave' or if
they just prayed and a vision came to them or what.
We don't know that God didn't just plant the seed 'Jesus had an
extraordinary birth, a virgin birth!' and left it at that; with a seed this
simple, Sts Matthew and Luke created stories (which don't reasonably
reconcile) in the 'language, metaphor, symbol, literary form, and
structure' of their times to communicate this seed in the most effective
way possible for their given audiences.
Do you see what I am saying? Very little of it needs to be
historically true in order for such a simple (but critical) seed to be
communicated in an effective way, in order that the kernel of Divine
Truth be transmitted.
Can you agree with stance, even if you don't adopt it?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI am familiar with the history of the Bible. And you would be mistaken in assuming that there was some great struggle over which books were part of the canon and which were not. (Have you been reading th Vinci Code?)
When that passage in I Timothy was composed, [b]there was no Bible.
You are taking for granted the book which you call 'The Bible' is a
complete text, when it is, in fact, a bunch of books compiled together.
And, if you want to argue that God guided the council, then you will
have to argue that the Protestants desecrated that canon when they
excised the seven books from their version.
Nemesio[/b]
And the Protestants did not excises anything. The apocryphal books were added after the canon with gathered together into the Bible. The debate over the inspiration of the added books is an old one - and off topic.
The question is about what does it mean that Scripture is God breathed.
And I did not refer to the Book of Revelation, I was referencing to the concept of God's revelation. The Bible is God's revelation.
Originally posted by NemesioI think it's a reasonable stance to adopt.
I think I like your answer, but let me test something.
You know that I find the 'inerrant' claims to be nonsense, and I will
have to assume that you recognize that there are historical errors
and/or contradictions in the Bible.
However, I would guess that you would maintain that these (human)
errors do nothing to detract from the (Divine) Truth. ...[text shortened]... e
Truth be transmitted.
Can you agree with stance, even if you don't adopt it?
Nemesio
Peter refers to the letters of Paul as "Scripture."
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
(2Pe 3:15-16 ESV)
Originally posted by Coletti
I am familiar with the history of the Bible. And you would be mistaken in assuming that there was some great struggle over which books were part of the canon and which were not. (Have you been reading th Vinci Code?)
Let me ask you this: was there or wasn't there debate about whether
or not to have Revelation as part of the canon?
And, no, I've never read the Da Vinci Code; I read Angels and Demons
and I thought it was horrible.
And the Protestants did not excises anything. The apocryphal books were added after the canon with gathered together into the Bible. The debate over the inspiration of the added books is an old one - and off topic.
It's very much on topic. 300 of the 350 Scripiture citations come from
the Septuagint translation of the Bible (which included what you are
calling the appocrypha). The early (orthodox) Christians used this
translation of the OT as their Bible. This was compiled by St Jerome
for the Vulate and this is what was ratified by the Council.
The Jews who excised the books from their Scriptures did so in
reaction to the Christians. They even cursed the name of Christ as
they ratified their different canon.
And, lastly, the Church used this as their Bible for over 1000 years.
Who was better to judge what should or shouldn't be in the Bible:
1) Jews who cursed the name of Christ?
2) Protestants 1500 years after the fact, and after 1000 years of tradition?
3) A council who ratified the Bible's contents (with the guidance of the
Holy Spirit, they say) who based this decision on the fact that the early
Christians used the Septuagint as their OT?
Peter refers to the letters of Paul as "Scripture."
He fails to enumerate which letters. Do you think that the Letter to
Titus, for example, is by St Paul (most scholars do not)? And what
gives authority to the letters attributed to St Peter as being Scripture
such that we might accept this claim in the first place? What about the
letters of Sts John and James or the Gospels?
If we found another letter by St Paul (let's say the one mentioned by
St Paul in Colossians 4:16 to Laodicea), would you add it to your Bible
as God-breathed?
The argument that the Bible is necessarily Scripture is circular. Two
citations refer to the notion: 1 Timothy, that all Scripture is inspired, and 2 Peter that St Paul's letters (which?!) are Scripture is all we have.
Many books are omitted and, 300 years later, a council convened and
ratified which books were Scripture (but then the Protestants removed
some).
As such, using a passage written in the late-first century to justify the
fourth-century compilation's 'Scriptureness' is anachronistic.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioOf course it is circular. There is not greater authority than Scripture because it is God's Word - and Christ is God's Word.
The argument that the Bible is necessarily Scripture is circular.
Be that as it may, let me ask you - do you, or do you not, believe there is anything that can be considered the inspired word of God?
I'm curious because you seem to give many mixed messages and I am having trouble understanding your views. Maybe I am confusing your views with No1 - who has clearly rejected any validity to scripture. Your views seem to be whatever is the opposite of mine - you seem to be simply anti-coletti. Which is weird. What do you believe about Scripture and how do you make your case for your view?
I've given mine. It's your turn.
Originally posted by NemesioSt. Jerome - Latin Vulgate*
Originally posted by Coletti
[b]I am familiar with the history of the Bible. And you would be mistaken in assuming that there was some great struggle over which books were part of the canon and which were not. (Have you been reading th Vinci Code?)
Let me ask you this: was there or wasn't there debate about whether
or not to have Revelati ...[text shortened]... ury to justify the
fourth-century compilation's 'Scriptureness' is anachronistic.
Nemesio[/b]
😀