Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | How is the Bible the Word of God? | Ezra 9:2 | Morant61 | 115700 | ||
Greetings Ischus! You said in a previous post that you believed that the Bible is God's Word. If you do not believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture, then in exactly what way is the Bible the Word of God? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | How is the Bible the Word of God? | Ezra 9:2 | ischus | 115712 | ||
Tim, First of all, as you know,there are not only two choices as far as inspriration goes; verb. plen. or not at all. I believe that the bible is God's word, in that it contains spritual truths, as well as historical facts, which lead us to faith in God. I do not believe that the words of the bible were given orally or verbally or that they were dictated to the writers. I think that it is very much a human work, but that it is all God's will. This is especially true for the original autographs. I think there is sufficient evidence to make valid conclusions that what we read today is basically what was written back then... but there are variants, additions, changes, etc. As someone has already said, these do not effect the theology or other doctrines of the bible, but they are there nonetheless. Verbal inspriration is just not logical when you seriously look at how the bible was put together. There is no doubt in my mind that God was completely involved... I just don't think that he gave the words or thoughts to the writers orally or internally in every case. Now, there are many many places in the bible where a word of the Lord comes to a prophet,etc. There are also many places where the words do not find their origin in God. Much of the Old Testament that we have today is the result of thousands of years of copyists and editors. Even the NT has gone through many changes, but this is beside the point. I think that what we have is very close to what was originally written. Now, inspiration is simply beyond human comprehension, and when we try to explain it, we fail. But, I think that some of the best insights into how the bible was written and inspired can be seen in Jeremiah and Luke. I can't see how you can reconcile their means of obtaining the material that they wrote with verbal inspiration. Plenary is another issue. I can not truly say that what we have is all from God. You know the verses that should not be there, and to say that the whole work of the bible should be called His word is simply not true. However. I do beilieve in the plenary inspiration of the original autographs. ischus |
||||||
3 | How is the Bible the Word of God? | Ezra 9:2 | Morant61 | 115718 | ||
Greetings Ischus! Thanks for the response my friend! I've noticed in your posts that your big into logic. This is not a put down, as I respect a logical mind! :-) The verbal plenary view of Scripture is very much a logical conclusion. Allow me to illustrate. You said in your previous post: "I think that it is very much a human work, but that it is all God's will." If God is perfect and without error, how can the Bible, which you freely admit is a product of God's will, contain errors? Now, I would agree that this only applies to the original autographs. But, no matter how one envisions the process of inspiration taking place, because of God's character and nature, the resulting revelation must be without error. There is also a practical concern with no believing in verbal plenary inspiration. How does one determine what is and is not from God? Would God give us a Bible which contained some of His words, some false words, some words of man, and then expect us to sort out which was which without any kind of guidance? Sorry this is so short, but I have to run. My summary would be: 1) The verbal plenary view is both logical and consistent with God's character and nature. 2) The verbal plenary view is also consistent with the self claims of Scripture. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | How is the Bible the Word of God? | Ezra 9:2 | ischus | 115733 | ||
Tim, I know that there is much logic in verbal plenary, but I do not think it matches up to what we currently have as a text. The reason that textual criticism is a part of exegesis is because, although God is involved, he can not compromise our free will (I really hope you believe in free will, or else you are really going to have a problem with my theory). Man is involved in the copying, and translation process- God chose this method. He is fine with a couple errors in the text. He could have given the bible to us all written out like he did to Joseph Smith (just kidding), but the fact is that he didn't. He wanted to use humans, and all that this would entail, including mistakes. I know that you are aware of the problems in the bible...so I think this should make some sense. I have to apologize for any wierdness and inconsistency today- I am very ill and it is all I can do to type these messages. |
||||||
5 | How is the Bible the Word of God? | Ezra 9:2 | Morant61 | 115740 | ||
Greetings Ischus! I pray that you get to feeling better my friend. When you do, perhaps we can discuss this further. I don't know of anyone who claims inerrancy for the copies or the translations of the text, but I believe that one can make a strong logical case for the original autographs, and I believe that Scripture makes this case concerning itself. So, I would contend that the Bible doesn't just contain God's Word, but that it is God's Word. For instance, 2 Peter 2:20-21 makes this statement about Scripture: "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." The fact that copyist may have intentionally or unintentionally added or deleted a few things here and there doesn't change the status of the original. And, as youself pointed out, we can be almost certain that the text we have now is in agreement with the original. This was an issue that I have spent much time studying. And, it has been my experience that the importance of and frequency of the variants readings has been vastly overblown. The majority of the texts are in agreement with one another. Get better! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6 | How is the Bible the Word of God? | Ezra 9:2 | ischus | 115870 | ||
Tim- I agree totally with all of this. my case is strickly for our english bible today, certainly not for the original autographs! I do take 2 Peter to be referring to "prophesy" and not "all scripture"(as in Tim.) I know the definition of prophesy and I know that it is not just "prediction and foretelling," but I take this to be the "thus says the Lord" comments of scripture. clearly there are many scriptures that were the interpretation or commentary of men about a particular situation, especially in the OT. ischus |
||||||