Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9869 | ||
Greetings Jim! I was going back and reading this entire thread, simply because it has caused quite a stir. I just responded to one of your later posts. But, allow me to respond to this one, because it may the cruz of the problem with the rest of the thread. The issue is Inspiration. 2 Tim. 3:16 makes it clear that Scripture has God as it's ultimate source. It is literally 'God-Breathed.' This word (translated as 'inspired') was used of a boat carried along by the wind. So, the human authors were moved or carried along by God. Therefore, Scripture is unique in relation to all other literature in that it has "two-authors." What do I mean by that? Simply this, Scripture is the product of both the Divine will and the human will of the individual author, like Matthew. This answers the question you seem to have been asking. "How did Matthew know what went on during the temptation of Christ?" "How did Moses know about the events of Creation?" The answer: They didn't, but God did. In a purely human book, someone would have to witness the events in order to record or report them. However, Scripture isn't just a human book. God is the primary source of information and inspiration. Just as Scripture is unique in relation to all other literature, it is also similar to other literature. It uses figures of speech, methaphors, poetry, ect.... To take the Bible as literally true simply means to take it in the way it was intended. If Jesus uses a parable, interpret the passage as a parable. If He uses an historical reference, interpret as an historical reference. If an historical narrative uses an estimate, interpret it as an estimate. Literal means nothing more nor less that this. I hope this helps and I would be happy to discuss this in more detail with you if you like! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 10016 | ||
Tim - Thanks for the follow-up. Going back to the beginning of my initial question, as you did, was a good idea. What I was trying to ask, albeit very badly I guess, was really a very pedestrian question. How did the writers find out? The one response I got that suggested direct revelation made me uncomfortable, not because I doubt that it's possible or anything like that. It's just that I try to put things like this into their appropriate context. In this situation, I was thinking through the actual process the writer would go through, and how his original writings would be received. The only reason that direct revelation made me uncomfortable was that I could see the people who read the gospels for the first time, some of whom had in fact been a part of Jesus' life, reacting with surprise and perhaps skepicism if they read details that they knew couldn't possibly have been witnessed. Sort of a "Wait a minute. I was there. That didn't happen!" kind of thing. I'm not saying it happened that way, and in fact it may be that revelation is exactly what happened. If so, great. I was just looking for insight on the practical side of things. Yours in Christ, Jim D. |
||||||
3 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 10037 | ||
Greetings Jim! I think that the issue which began this thread really was the issue of how does inspiration work. How and in what manner is the Bible the Word of God? The theologian Milliard Erickson defines inspiration in this way: "By inspiration of the Scripture we mean that supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit upon the Scripture writers which rendered their writings an accurate record of the revelation or which resulted in what they wrote actually being the Word of God." It is this influence of the Holy Spirit that makes Scripture more than just a history book. This is where I differ with many modern theologians. We have tried to dig so much into the human side of Scripture (motives, structure, culture) that we have neglected the Divine side of Scripture. My understanding of the inspiration can be summed up under the following terms. 1) Inspiration is Verbal: The influence of the Holy Spirit extends even to the words chosen. The writers didn't always even understand what they were writing. They didn't always have all the facts, but the Holy Spirit gave them the words. 2) Inspiration is Plenary: The influence of the Holy Spirit extends not only to the words, but it covers all of Scripture. There are some who believe that the parts of Scripture that deal with spiritual issues are "God's Word," but everything else is simply human. I reject this view. Everything in the Bible is there because God willed it. 3) Inspiration is Confluent: Having said all of the above though, I do not believe that the Holy Spirit simply dictated the Bible to the authors. Rather, God worked through them in such a way that their personalities, style, ect... shine through. This view is consistent with 2 Tim. 3:16. 2 Tim. 3:16 makes it clear that Scripture has God as it's ultimate source, in that it is literally "God-breathed." I have said all of this that I might apply it to your question. Scripture was never presented to it's readers or hearers as just another biography, history, or sermon. It was always presented as "Thus saith the Lord." Therefore, I think we err if we assume that each detail in Scripture must have had a human source of information. There is much in Scripture that is recounted by eye-witnesses, but there is also much (Like Revelation or all Prophecy) that comes directly from the Holy Spirit. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 10038 | ||
Tim - This is good stuff. I think I understand what you're saying pretty well. I believe we're pretty much on common ground. My only "objection", and it's a pretty mild one, is that, for example, 2 Peter 1:3 says, "His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness," NOT, "His divine power has given us everything we need for astronomy, geology, business, economics, etc." So why not throw in categories like grammar. We know, even in the autographs, that some of the biblical writers, even the very intelligent ones like Paul, butchered the grammar at times. But that's fine! And as you related regarding confluence, "inspiration can be confluent, so the writers' personality, style, etc. can shine through." I remember when I was very young I read a "Ripley's Believe It Or Not" column that said the word "few" is equal to 8 since 1 Peter 3:20 says that a "few people, that is, eight. I think that the idea of inerrancy can be pushed beyond the bounds of reasonableness. Yours in Christ, Jim D. |
||||||
5 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 10080 | ||
Greetings Jim! Thanks for the response! Concerning your minor "problem," grammar is not a hard, fast science. Grammar has, at best, only loose rules which chance over time. So, it is hard to say that there is a problem with someones grammar. Especially in Greek, which really has no particular word order anyway. Concerning inerrancy, I am a firm believer in it for several reasons. One, Scripture claims it for itself. Two, God's nature demands it. God, who can not tell a lie, cannot publish a lie. However, like with the word 'literal,' there are many problems with the word 'inerrant.' Here is the definition that Millard Erickson gives in his systematic theology. It is one of the best definitions I have seen. "The Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms." This allows the Bible to be judged based, not upon today's standards, which have changed, but on the standards of the time in which it was written. For instance, is the Bible in error because it does not footnote? Some today would say yes, simply because they are judging the Bible on today's standards. Your example at the end of your post is a good example. The purpose of 1 Peter 3:20 was not to define the word "few." To take it that way is to take the verse in a manner in which it was never intended. Furthermore, 'few' may have had a different meaning then as opposed to now. You also mentioned the sciences. Obviously, the Bible is not a physics textbook. It was never meant to be. Saying that the Bible is inerrant, doesn't mean that it includes every detail about every subject. It simply means that where the Bible does touch on issues relating to science, health, or government, the Bible is right. Inerrancy can't be stressed enough. When Paul says that homosexuality is a sin, he is not simply giving his opinion. He is speaking for God. To abandon inerrancy or inspiration is to turn the Bible into a collection of nice sayings equivalent to the book, "Chicken Soup for the Soul." It is a good read, but not God's word. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 10087 | ||
Tim - Based on the definition of inerrancy you posted, I can agree with you (and it) completely. The definition is excellent - it's going in my database for future reference. Funny about that Ripley's snippet on 1Pet.3:20 - a friend reminded me of it a few days ago, and I remembered it right away. Heck, when I was a kid, I believed it! Yours in Christ, Jim Dunne |
||||||