Inspiration and the inerrancy of Scripture

[roberterasmus]

I’d like to start a discussion on the “inspiration” and “inerrancy” of the Christian and Hebrew Scriptures (I do not use the terms New Testament and Old Testament knowing that both are misnomers, but please use them if you are comfortable with them.). This might take into account the canon itself, how the prophets (inclusive of Jesus) looked at holy writ, why Scripture is “holy writ”, etc. Certainly anyone can post here, but I’d ask that those who no longer actually claim a belief in the term Scripture refrain from slander, wise cracks and abuse. Hopefully those posting here can help each other learn what we mean if we use the term inerrancy or inspiration.

There are tons of books and scholarly articles (both on the Internet…go to Google Books, BTW, and download some of the older ones) that might help in this discussion. There are thoughts and examples of inspiration in life other than Scripture as well. These may speak to the process as the following verses from Paul’s epistle shows:

Romans 1:20-22 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-- his eternal power and divine nature-- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools."

There is a God and this is actually the God of the Bible, IMHO (and in Paul’s). It is, for me, the crux of the matter as we start this. But let’s also begin with an age old Scripture from Paul to kick things off:

2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is inspired by God and useful for refuting error, for guiding people's lives and teaching them to be upright."

This, of course, referred to his Scriptures at his time in the first Century (which were the Hebrew Scriptures), but it sets the attitude; first that there are Scriptures and what they might be intended for. Let’s have some fun!

RE

[Tom]

I’d like to start a discussion on the “inspiration” and “inerrancy” of the Christian and Hebrew Scriptures (I do not use the terms New Testament and Old Testament knowing that both are misnomers, but please use them if you are comfortable with them.). This might take into account the canon itself, how the prophets (inclusive of Jesus) looked at holy writ, why Scripture is “holy writ”, etc. Certainly anyone can post here, but I’d ask that those who no longer actually claim a belief in the term Scripture refrain from slander, wise cracks and abuse. Hopefully those posting here can help each other learn what we mean if we use the term inerrancy or inspiration.

There are tons of books and scholarly articles (both on the Internet…go to Google Books, BTW, and download some of the older ones) that might help in this discussion. There are thoughts and examples of inspiration in life other than Scripture as well. These may speak to the process as the following verses from Paul’s epistle shows:

Romans 1:20-22 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-- his eternal power and divine nature-- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools."

There is a God and this is actually the God of the Bible, IMHO (and in Paul’s). It is, for me, the crux of the matter as we start this. But let’s also begin with an age old Scripture from Paul to kick things off:

2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is inspired by God and useful for refuting error, for guiding people's lives and teaching them to be upright."

This, of course, referred to his Scriptures at his time in the first Century (which were the Hebrew Scriptures), but it sets the attitude; first that there are Scriptures and what they might be intended for. Let’s have some fun!

RE

I am not sure that when Paul says "All scripture" in 2 Tim. 3:16, he is referring only to the Hebrew Scriptures. After all, he says "All scripture," not "the Hebrew scriptures as we know them today." I tend to think that Paul's thinking was bigger than that, especially when he was speaking about writings inspired by God. After all, there he was - writing writings inspired by God about writings inspired by God. I would not want to entertain any notion that would limit Paul's understanding about that which he was writing about when he said "All scripture."

I would not be surprised to find out that even in Paul's day, there were scriptures referred to in the scriptures that were being read that were not in the accepted “canon” of the day – lost books.

I also am not convinced that Paul thought of the then present “canon” of scripture as a closed set. From that, I would have to infer then that Paul did not know what he was doing when he was participating in the writing of Timothy. He did not realize that he was participating in writing writings inspired of God even though that’s what he was speaking about. I find that hard to believe.

Personally, I think Paul was very aware, not only of what he was saying, but of what he was doing. I think his understanding of scripture inspired by God was intimate. God inspired it. It was outside the box and above the authority of those who would presume to hand us a canon to go by, both then and now. Please note that I'm not saying you are doing this.

Tom

Edited February 28, 2010 by Tom

[Tom]

Please note that I'm not saying you are doing this.

Tom

Actually, it looks like I am saying you are doing this. No offense intended. My remarks about presumption were directed towards those who first prescribed the canon, not toward those who labor under the prescription. We've all got presumptions to live with:).

Edited February 28, 2010 by Tom

[year2027]

God first

thanks roberterasmus

let talk about "fools" in Romans 1:22

God first

I am a fool but all men are fools,

We think, we plan, we study but we still man of flesh!

10-13-2009

As I write to you I know how I have been foolish in my thinking how that no matter how hard I try it does not change nothing? Men run everyday off cliffs one way or another while we try to be spiritual outside the womb but we are only inside God’s womb.

God is everywhere but his womb only cover the area inside God but there is a outside to God that we have never seemed. When we die we shall awake to see the real glory of God but now we have limit vision.

How can we be not fool it is impossible to know real truth until our birth has come because we only see in part the picture is not complete yet. The creation of our heavens and earth is not done yet because it must be born first then everything will be spiritual.

Some say the creation is only one and many but I say it will be new to the men kind that are created to live on it. Are we not the first God never said we are the first or even the second it does not matter this our time in God womb.

No matter how much we study we cannot changed any thing because time must be play out like it has for many we changed has we growth. I will end here to see if you can add to my words thank you, with love and a holy kiss Roy.

is this what you are talking about are should i look more

with love and a holy kiss Roy

[roberterasmus]

Actually, it looks like I am saying you are doing this. No offense intended. My remarks about presumption were directed towards those who first prescribed the cannon, not toward those who labor under the prescription. We've all got presumptions to live with:).

Thanks Tom,

I’ll entertain the idea that Paul was aware that what he was doing was recording “wisdom that the holy spirit teaches”. Others were aware so why not he himself (2 Peter 3:16). I’ll also agree that, in the case of Paul, he had to go “outside the box and above the authority of those who would presume…” (I realize I did not finish your quote, but this was really well said) and there were a lot of others who “presumed” a lot about God and his purposes. Paul turned a lot of that on its ear with the introduction of the "secret of God". It will be interesting to follow the term “scripture” through the texts and actually see if there is a pattern. I personally think that, in the context of Romans 16:25 and 26, the scriptures referred to are the ones penned after Pentecost 28 CE (Romans 16:25-26 "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith”).

I also agree, at least partially, in the idea that there was a broader sense of what canon was in Paul (and Jesus’) time. How to deal with this is another matter entirely. So, on the one hand, I am “doing this” (presume(ing) to hand us a cannon to go by”) since we run around in Christian circles, and on the other I love discussions about how do we (and how did they) apply wisdom from other sources that didn’t make the supposed cut.

RE

[spectrum49]

First of all, thank you Bob for inviting me to this new topic (from the “Front page Article”). So far, it promises to be very enlightening and interesting. I am excited to see just where it may lead us. Let us hope the “dissenters” keep their comments down to a “dull roar” as we honestly delve into the varied aspects of this wonderful discussion.

Romans 1:20-22 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-- his eternal power and divine nature-- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse...

2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is inspired by God and useful for refuting error, for guiding people's lives and teaching them to be upright."

First, let me comment on the two verses above. I love the renderings – especially the 2nd one! What version are they from?

Now, about Ro 1:20ff: This does seem to indicate that “truth” may also be gleaned from things in nature (that which was made by God, of which Genesis 1 is a wonderful and vast source of that which was made) as well as scripture. We all are aware that Jesus taught “many things in parables” (and frequently about things found in nature) showing them to be as indicators of these "invisible qualities of God". I believe that the physical and spiritual realms are closely related, working together in harmony - for God designed them both!

It will be interesting to follow the term “scripture” through the texts and actually see if there is a pattern.

I personally think that, in the context of Romans 16:25 and 26, the scriptures referred to are the ones penned after Pentecost 28 CE (Romans 16:25-26 "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith”).

I also agree, at least partially, in the idea that there was a broader sense of what canon was in Paul (and Jesus’) time. How to deal with this is another matter entirely. So, on the one hand, I am “doing this” (presume(ing) to hand us a cannon to go by”) since we run around in Christian circles, and on the other I love discussions about how do we (and how did they) apply wisdom from other sources that didn’t make the supposed cut.

As an "aside", I want to give you my take on Rom 16:25-27. I have edited it somewhat to show how it flows in a grammatical sense. Note the many parenthetical phrases [in brackets] which render the “heart” of this entire passage to be simply, “Now to him….to God…be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.”

Ro 16:25 Now to him [that is of power to stablish you] [according to my gospel], [and the preaching of Jesus Christ], [according to the revelation of the mystery], [which was kept secret since the world began],

26 [but now is made manifest], [and by the scriptures of the prophets], [according to the commandment of the everlasting God], [made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:]

27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.

This also lines up with that which Paul expounds upon in further detail in Ephesians concerning this “mystery”:

Eph 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things…

With the context of the “mystery” in mind, observe a similar wording to that which we saw in Romans. [Again, the parenthetical phrases are in brackets.]

20 Now unto him [that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think], [according to the power that worketh in us],

21 Unto him be glory [in the church] by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

I agree with you Bob…..the “canon” in Jesus’ and Paul’s time was most likely much broader than that which others had “selected” later on to form what they call the “holy scriptures”.

Cases in point: (and there are many more referenced in the OT.)

2Ch 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?

2Ch 12:15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually.

Es 10:2 And all the acts of his power and of his might, and the declaration of the greatness of Mordecai, whereunto the king advanced him, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia?

Just where are these today? Are there others as well which are not mentioned? Did Jesus and/or Paul have access to them?

And (most importantly), when the time came for “canonization”, why were these left out? After all - they were important enough to have been referenced as additional supporting evidence to things being spoken of in the OT.

So, Paul had at least four sources: Former writings we have as the Bible today, other manuscripts (many of which are now either lost or hidden), and things found in nature. He also had what God was giving to him and his contemporaries, and a brain to relate all these facets together to form what he believed as "the truth".

And isn't it funny that God said people are left "without excuse" for not believing the truth, based simply upon the physical things alone ! (Ro 1:20) And how much greater does that ring true in light of these other sources as well!

SPEC

:)

[geisha779]

Actually, it looks like I am saying you are doing this. No offense intended. My remarks about presumption were directed towards those who first prescribed the canon, not toward those who labor under the prescription. We've all got presumptions to live with:).

I would normally avoid a statement like I am about to make. . . . at least here, but, when I affirm faith in the canon. . . . . I am also affirming the providence of an able God . . . . affirming the Spirit of God. . . . and also His love for His word.. . . the importance of His having communicated to us in this fashion and also my faith in Him.

[JeffSjo]

Say for consideration sake the scriptures ARE INERRANT. We are not, the scriptures speak of those unstable souls that utilize scriptures but end is destruction.

Say the scriptures ARE NOT INERRANT as supposed by some. But some get sooo much good from them that they at least recieve good end results.

Either way, inerrant or not, some end up good and some end up nasty.

[Ham]

Paul quoted Aratas as well. Perhaps in some kind of remote context he considered that "scripture" as well..

Edited March 1, 2010 by Ham

[waysider]

Paul quoted Aratas as well. Perhaps in some kind of remote context he considered that "scripture" as well..

By sheer logic, it must have been.

[Tom]

I would normally avoid a statement like I am about to make. . . . at least here, but, when I affirm faith in the canon. . . . . I am also affirming the providence of an able God . . . . affirming the Spirit of God. . . . and also His love for His word.. . . the importance of His having communicated to us in this fashion and also my faith in Him.

Hi geisha,

I also think that our able God has so lovingly guarded his Word that we are able to ascertain the the import of his communication to us. I just don't think that any canon arrived at by man is equivalent to God's testimony that we should put our faith in it as we would to God's Word.

[TrustAndObey]

I also think that our able God has so lovingly guarded his Word that we are able to ascertain the the import of his communication to us. I just don't think that any canon arrived at by man is equivalent to God's testimony that we should put our faith in it as we would to God's Word.

I guess I just don't get.. I'm not trying to be the "dissenter" who takes this discussion in a different direction, so I hope this post is actually helpful if only to aid others to clarify their thoughts on the subject.

But to me, it seems like you can't avoid circular logic if one is going to attempt to arrive at calling anything "God's words".. Which then makes the attempt rather, well, subjective and biased.. Am I wrong?

I have no doubt that the creator of the heavens and earth left His mark in everything. It's clearly evident even today with anyone who makes something. Whether it be the unique way your hand moves with every stroke or the logic each person utilizes and pushes into their creation. To some extent I believe it is unavoidable. The same reason you track who made bombs, viruses, and other man made creations back to the original. So in the same way, I believe God's handiwork has a sort of indelible mark.

Course with that, one has to first start with the premise that there is someone/something that created such said things before one can begin to define his attributes that then could be used to actually pin point his "mark". So before I could even begin to acknowledge various "writings" (graphE - aka: scripture) as being "breathed" by God, well, we'd have to actually start from scratch. I'll accept the premise of there being a "creator" of the heavens and the earth since there is enough scientific prove to persuade me on this, but you'll have to persuade me how you jump from there to the Bible is His very words.. Maybe you guys didn't want to go there, and are looking for those who already "accept" your premise of the Hebrew writings (and the various canons thereof) or even further of the NT writings.. But if you ask me, I like to check everything, consider it all suspect until proven. Anti-american maybe, guilty until prove innocent, but why wouldn't I, I was already taken for a ride by those whom I approved innocent but were wildly guilty!

Ok, there's my starting spiel...

While I believe some things written in said Christian writings may actually have been said by our Creator.. I believe many things in there are also writings of those who were "inspired" by our Creator, and not HIS actual words or even possibly His complete and without variance thoughts on any such matter.. Just so you know, my POV!

Personally I don't see 2 Timothy 3:16 as actually defining what "writings" he refers to when he says "All God inspired and profitable writing [is] for teaching, for reproving, for perfecting, for the training in what is right....." I actually see him referring to two things, those writings both inspired and those profitable..

[geisha779]

I guess I just don't get.. I'm not trying to be the "dissenter" who takes this discussion in a different direction, so I hope this post is actually helpful if only to aid others to clarify their thoughts on the subject.

But to me, it seems like you can't avoid circular logic if one is going to attempt to arrive at calling anything "God's words".. Which then makes the attempt rather, well, subjective and biased.. Am I wrong?

I have no doubt that the creator of the heavens and earth left His mark in everything. It's clearly evident even today with anyone who makes something. Whether it be the unique way your hand moves with every stroke or the logic each person utilizes and pushes into their creation. To some extent I believe it is unavoidable. The same reason you track who made bombs, viruses, and other man made creations back to the original. So in the same way, I believe God's handiwork has a sort of indelible mark.

Course with that, one has to first start with the premise that there is someone/something that created such said things before one can begin to define his attributes that then could be used to actually pin point his "mark". So before I could even begin to acknowledge various "writings" (graphE - aka: scripture) as being "breathed" by God, well, we'd have to actually start from scratch. I'll accept the premise of there being a "creator" of the heavens and the earth since there is enough scientific prove to persuade me on this, but you'll have to persuade me how you jump from there to the Bible is His very words.. Maybe you guys didn't want to go there, and are looking for those who already "accept" your premise of the Hebrew writings (and the various canons thereof) or even further of the NT writings.. But if you ask me, I like to check everything, consider it all suspect until proven. Anti-american maybe, guilty until prove innocent, but why wouldn't I, I was already taken for a ride by those whom I approved innocent but were wildly guilty!

Ok, there's my starting spiel...

While I believe some things written in said Christian writings may actually have been said by our Creator.. I believe many things in there are also writings of those who were "inspired" by our Creator, and not HIS actual words or even possibly His complete and without variance thoughts on any such matter.. Just so you know, my POV!

Personally I don't see 2 Timothy 3:16 as actually defining what "writings" he refers to when he says "All God inspired and profitable writing [is] for teaching, for reproving, for perfecting, for the training in what is right....." I actually see him referring to two things, those writings both inspired and those profitable..

It IS circular reasoning :) absolutely . . . . which is why I personally try to avoid such statements here. Usually such a statement is reserved for other Christians who also have a particular high view of God. There is usually no dissension there. I have to say though. . . . I have come to appreciate your view of God. Great starting spiel . . . . I agree to a great degree!

Geisha

[spectrum49]

It will be interesting to follow the term “scripture” through the texts and actually see if there is a pattern. I personally think that, in the context of Romans 16:25 and 26, the scriptures referred to are the ones penned after Pentecost...

…I also agree, at least partially, in the idea that there was a broader sense of what canon was in Paul (and Jesus’) time...

OK, Bob – I’ll bite! First, I will do my best to define the word “scripture” as used in 2Ti 3:16, referencing it from 3 different Greek Lexicons (to be less biased).

Since it is the word #1124, which was derived from #1125, I have referenced them both. [However, at this time I care not to expand it by referencing the OT equivalents from the Septuagint (LXX).] Then I will add some “food for thought”.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture <Strong’s #1124 - from #1125> is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

OLB – (Online Bible Greek Lexicon):

1124 graphe

AV-scripture 51; 51

1) a writing, thing written

2) the Scripture, used to denote either the book itself, or its contents

3) a certain portion or section of the Holy Scripture

STR – (Strong’s Greek Lexicon):

1124. graphe; a document, i.e. holy Writ (or its contents or a statement in it):— scripture.

NAS – (New American Standard Greek Lexicon):

1124. graphe; from 1125; a writing, scripture:—

NAS-Scripture (31), Scriptures (20).

----------------------------------------------------------

OLB:

1125 grapho

AV-write 206, writing 1, describe 1, vr write 1; (Total of 209)

1) to write, with reference to the form of the letters

a) to delineate (or form) letters on a tablet, parchment, paper, or other material

2) to write, with reference to the contents of the writing

a) to express in written characters

b) to commit to writing (things not to be forgotten), write down, record

c) used of those things which stand written in the sacred books (of the OT)

d) to write to one, i.e. by writing (in a written epistle) to give information, directions

3) to fill with writing

4) to draw up in writing, compose

NAS:

1125. grapho; a prim. vb.; to write:—

NAS-read (1), sent this letter (1), write (37), writes (1), writing (14), written (117), wrote (20). (Total of 191)

STR:

1125. grapho; a primary verb; to "grave," especially to write; figuratively, to describe:— describe, write(-ing, -ten).

==================

The following is the first usage of this word graphe for scriptures:

Mt 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures <1124>, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Jesus was referencing Ps 118:22-23 and Is 28:16 (among others) from the OT. He called these “scriptures”.

Similar NT references to these are in Mk 12:10-11, Lk 20:17, Act 4:11, Ro 9:33, Eph 2:20, and 1Pe 2:4-8. So, (according to Jesus and others) writings in the OT are considered “scriptures”.

Now, Bob – about your “pattern”. (And by the way, for those who suppose we may be starting with some “premise” that there IS a pattern, and then looking for things to substantiate it – be advised! We suspect there may be a pattern, and are merely searching for indicators to see if one exists strongly enough to name it as such.)

Correct me if I am wrong, Bob. I believe your desire is to ascertain whether or not Paul’s reference to “scriptures” relates to that which was written after Pentecost – correct?

Concerning verses written by Paul containing these words (1124 & 1125), I find the vast majority of their usages refer to his quoting of OT records in reference to that which he was trying to communicate. Much of what he taught and shared seemed to be in this manner – showing that truths he desired for people to understand had their roots in OT scripture.

He wrote many personal letters. It seems he used his “scope” of the OT scriptures to properly judge and give his insight as to how to deal with situations that emerged among the people – because this just “made sense” to him. Isn’t that the way most of us communicate – using our knowledge, skills, logic, and experience to relate to “the truth”?

The Pauline epistles show how he dealt with the “problems of the day”, referencing visits to the brethren, personal confrontations at times, and letters to others at times (believers and unbelievers). These all seem to show this same manner of teaching, using wisdom from the OT, wit, culture of the times, and personal experience.

If one were to just do a superficial reading of these letters, it might not seem as though it were more “Godly inspired” than it was “just making natural sense of things”. But my take on this (and this is my personal thinking) is that Paul was inspired of God to share specific things from his “repertoire”, rather than to just blab about what made sense to him, as I am doing right now. (Or am I?)

But there seems to be an exception to this case when it comes to his letter to the Ephesians, for example. Much wisdom is in that epistle, yet I can find little reference to OT scripture in it, except perhaps “in principle”. This “grace he was given” is something uniquely his own, and certainly this “mental scripture” (if you please) was what fueled the rest of his ministry and the other things I have mentioned already.

Certainly God allowed him to be “privy” to something NEW, which we only have vague refences to here and there, except that through his writings it may be possible to obtain from God something similary “new and personal” for ourselves, just as he did.

Here are a couple of referecnes to his “revelation”:

2 Co 12:1 It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.

2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven…

…4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter…

…7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

Ga 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul definitely had received something unique. Maybe this “gospel” is his “scripture”. Perhaps more could be revealed if we expanded the search to include words related to “scripture” and “written” such as rhema and logos, etc.

Nuff for now…I’m tired! Ec 12:12…much study is a weariness of the flesh.

SPEC

:)

Edited March 3, 2010 by spectrum49

[cman]

What scripture would you like to discuss RE.

I'll be willing to talk with you.

The current canon as prescribed by most or others.

It don't matter to me.

Whatever is discussed will have an affect.

If another perception or view can be considered.

Which does not require changing your own.

Translations are not as important as what it says to you.

And interpretations are subject to change, even while the former is also true.

[Oakspear]

Is Paul perhaps defining "scripture" as that which is given by inspiration of God, thus saying that which is given by inspiration of God is given by inspiration of God? What is that called, a tautology? Kind of like, "I have said what I have said".

As much as I dislike circular reasoning I think you have to put up with some in a religious discussion. You can not prove that scripture is given by God, but you can operate under the premise that it is and go from there. But couldn't one set up conditions that eliminate inspiration and see if "the scriptures" meet this test.

[spectrum49]

Is Paul perhaps defining "scripture" as that which is given by inspiration of God, thus saying that which is given by inspiration of God is given by inspiration of God? What is that called, a tautology? Kind of like, "I have said what I have said".

I believe I have just coined a new word which describes a method used by TWI: tauntology !

Its meaning (combining taunt & tautology) would be rendered: "The redundant usage of words while goading someone into responding, often in an aggressive manner."

One example of tauntology is in session 12 of TWI's foundational class, where they "encourage" the students to speak in tongues for the first time.

SPEC

:)

Edited March 3, 2010 by spectrum49

[Oakspear]

I believe I have just coined a new word which describes a method used by TWI: tauntology !

Its meaning (combining taunt & tautology) would be rendered: "The redundant usage of words while goading someone into responding, often in an aggressive manner."

One example of tauntology is in session 12 of TWI's foundational class, where they "encourage" the students to speak in tongues for the first time.

SPEC

:)

Nice

[JeffSjo]

I've been considering the little historic knowledge I have of the scriptures and have formed a few opinions.

It seems to me that the pre-Christian Jews had a long time and well established record of considering the scriptures and a lot of the commentaries with a type of reverence that we in the west have never seen consistently in our western culture.

I have often heard of the extreme care the Jewish scribes had as concerning the scriptures. Specifically how they counted each marking on the page of every type and kept track of authenticity over centuries of time. I've heard dead sea scrolls scholars report that they were amazed at how close to identical the most ancient dead sea scroll was to more contemporary Jewish scripture.

In the west it seems to me that Christianity has not even come close to living up to the old Jewish standard. Any interlinear provides multiple texts on any one of a multitude of scriptural passages.

IMO western Christianity has been sloppy and irreverant by any comparison with the old Jewish examples of consistent scriptural reverence.

I think both within Jewish and Christian circles there has been a lot of discussion as to consideration of writing of all types, whether scriptural or commentaries. Jews have codified and standardized commentaries, but so has Christianity.

In both camps there is a multitude of opinions, ideas, and grouping over a wide range of ideologies. Some Jewish groups hold others to be reprobate and heretical, the same in Christian circles.

All that being said, personally I am content with my belief system as pertaining to my reverence of the scriptures. If my ideas perchance are good and laudable to God, IMO that in and of itself would be a true miracle considering all the variations and volotile history of both the Jewish and Christian religion. (added in editing) I mean a miracle of true biblical proportions. :B)

And one more thing....

Because I give the old Jewish system of scriptural consistency a lot of credit, I find it a little annoying that it seems so easy for a modern scholar to get so much press and attention with their unsupportable ideas that hold the Jewish scriptures at the same level as myths that weren't accurate and have been reported to have been written centuries after the texts themselves say they were written. It seems unthinkably ironic to suggest that bad history and false stories from the outset could have then be held so consistently over so many centuries with so much reverence by soooo many good people.

Edited March 4, 2010 by JeffSjo

[Oakspear]

And one more thing....

Because I give the old Jewish system of scriptural consistency a lot of credit, I find it a little annoying that it seems so easy for a modern scholar to get so much press and attention with their unsupportable ideas that hold the Jewish scriptures at the same level as myths that weren't accurate and have been reported to have been written centuries after the texts themselves say they were written. It seems unthinkably ironic to suggest that bad history and false stories from the outset could have then be held so consistently over so many centuries with so much reverence by soooo many good people.

The fact that once the texts were written they were accurately copied and faithfully transmitted over centuries of time really has nothing to do with the underlying "accuracy" of the texts or with whether they are myth or history.

[Sunesis]

I'm not going to address whether people think they are inspired, inerrant or whatever, people will have their own opinion. I will just address what I think about the order of the NT cannon. Its just something I've kind of come up with over the years. Its also, really kind of simple.

I look at the Book of Acts. Every single Book in the NT fits within the framework and timeline of Acts - except the Pauline "prison epistles."

So, to me, Acts is a timeline. Christ was at the door ready to return, the Kingdom he would usher in was at hand.

So, I look at the chronological timeline of Acts and the chronological order of the NT. For instance, we read about the Corinthians in Acts, people mentioned by name. We look at the Book of I Cor. and its written the same time and mentions the same people.

So, on the Acts timeline, I paste Corinthians on there.

Then, hey, mission to the Galations in Acts, put the Book of Galations on the Acts timeline there.

And so on.

To me, the NT books are appendages to Acts. They give more detail as to what was going on.

Then, you hit Acts 28:28. Israel is set aside. Their rejection of their Redeemer, King and Kingdom is complete. its over for the time being.

So, now you have the Pauline "prison epistles" written AFTER the Book of Acts.

As the above poster said, there is a "new" revelation given to Paul.

In the "Acts Epistles" as I like to call them, the ones that are in the Acts Chronological timeline - you do see Paul quote loads of OT scripture. Why? Because this was Israel's time and Israel's hope - he and the 12 Apostles were commissioned with opening the eyes of Israel and Gentiles were welcome to join in and become joint-heirs with Israel. But, it was still about Israel's Hope.

Remember, Paul did not even receive revelation about the "One New Man" being created to abide in the Heavenlies during the time of the Book of Acts. It was revealed AFTER Acts 28:28. Thus, he was not teaching this in the Acts period because it had not yet been revealed. It was only after Israel's rejection, that later "Plan B" so to speak was revealed.

That's why, you are correct. In Paul's epistles written in the years after the close of Acts (Eph., Col., Phil., I & II Tim., Titus, Philemon - the "prison epistles") there is virtually no mention of the OT prophecies and prophets - why? Because Paul's revelation regarding new "heavenly citizens" came after the Book of Acts. This new heavenly population was a mystery "kept secret/hidden from before the foundation of the world." No one knew. Israel is in abeyance and Paul's mission is now to the Gentiles. Here Paul teaches those who believe will have a dwelling literally in the heavens. Whoa! That's not in the OT.

Our blessings will be enjoyed - in the Heavenlies. Just as Israel's blessings will be enjoyed on the earth, we will literally have to be in the heavenlies to enjoy our blessings, as that is where our blessings are laid up in store for us - in the heavenlies.

This teaching, this new revelation which is in Eph. was mindblowing to some and, since it could not be proved from the OT (because it wasn't there), many people turned away from him.

Now, you also have the Book of Revelation which some think was written later after the Acts period, or some earlier - during the Acts period. I almost tend to think earlier, since Revelation is Israel's Hope - the return of the King in Glory and the establishment of His Kingdom on earth which was what they were looking for and talked about during Acts and the Epistles written during that period.

I see the prison epistles as a parenthesis. If Israel had accepted the Apostles preaching their King would have returned and they would have stepped directly into the Book of Revelation - those events would have started.

So, to me, Acts is the clothesline so to speak, and the NT books hang off of it in nice chronological precision, and enhance Acts with more detail - with the exception of Paul's Prison Epistles - they are after and beyond to a different group. And Revelation, as I said, I'm not sure where that one should be, but it is fascinating reading.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Sunesis

[JeffSjo]

The fact that once the texts were written they were accurately copied and faithfully transmitted over centuries of time really has nothing to do with the underlying "accuracy" of the texts or with whether they are myth or history.

No it doesn't have anything directly to do with the accuracy of the source material but I prefer a perspective of the texts that includes an understanding of the dedication, cultural reverence, and intelligence of the folks who handled the scriptures. And I don't think we in our culture have much of any contemporary examples in terms of handling the texts consistently over the course of time. Much less are we qualified to judge these types of folks without at least seeing how much stuff they dealt with a long, long time ago in order to preserve the integrity of the original texts. Our tendency, even in acedemic circles is IMO underestimating them, else why would it be so easy to assume they are as illogical and inconsistent as western Christianity as a whole has proven to be with the texts?

My point is that in modern Christianity we have not even come close to the way the Jews handled the texts in terms of reverence. Heck, if western Christianity had done a better job with analysis and preservation of the texts Wierwille at least wouldn't have had the ability to sell the Wayfers on the whole, "We will recover the original inspired Word of God" stuff in the first place.

Edited March 4, 2010 by JeffSjo

[JeffSjo]

Even The Way International has not turned me away from the idea of an original and inspired Word of God.

But Wierwille's character faults and the vile abuses of the ministry he built makes it very easy to understand why anybody might trash the whole idea, I mean for them the concept is a part of the bill of goods that led to their own abuse. I think he will be responsible for these folks in that great day coming!

[geisha779]

No it doesn't have anything directly to do with the accuracy of the source material but I prefer a perspective of the texts that includes an understanding of the dedication, cultural reverence, and intelligence of the folks who handled the scriptures. And I don't think we in our culture have much of any contemporary examples in terms of handling the texts consistently over the course of time. Much less are we qualified to judge these types of folks without at least seeing how much stuff they dealt with a long, long time ago in order to preserve the integrity of the original texts. Our tendency, even in acedemic circles is IMO underestimating them, else why would it be so easy to assume they are as illogical and inconsistent as western Christianity as a whole has proven to be with the texts?

My point is that in modern Christianity we have not even come close to the way the Jews handled the texts in terms of reverence. Heck, if western Christianity had done a better job with analysis and preservation of the texts Wierwille at least wouldn't have had the ability to sell the Wayfers on the whole, "We will recover the original inspired Word of God" stuff in the first place.

Good points Jeff . . . .

Lot's of good things in the gospels to be gleaned . . . in particular how the Lord viewed scripture.

When Jesus is speaking in Mt 12 about judgment He references the men of Nineveh and their repentance in response to the preaching of Jonah. He is trying to tell them that one greater than Jonah has come. . . . and they are rejecting His preaching. Nineveh heard Jonah, but these guys are not listening to Jesus. Pretty important topic . . . . final judgment. . . . . so, Jesus, who claims to be the Son of God. . . . and is not speaking in parables here. . . . . is supposed to be referencing a folktale? Doesn't make sense.

A made-up person, a folk-hero. . . . who if pretend. . . . didn't really preach. . . . and the repentance of Nineveh. . . . was also made up. . . . . and He uses this for illustrating final judgment? Well, if you remove the historical basis. . . . you remove the teeth.

Jesus believed Jonah was a real prophet. . . . He did not charge these Pharisees with not believing in Him by referencing a folk-hero! He used the OT like an appeals court. . . . He rebuked them for not studying profoundly enough.

Before Abraham was I AM. . . . . now if Abraham wasn't. . . . Jesus wasn't before Him?

Jesus referenced Sodom, Noah, Lot, Issac and Jacob, David, He even referenced the plague of the snakes in Egypt. . . . . .He also gave the nod to Genesis 1&2 A-Z Abel to Zechariah. .He spoke of them killing all the prophets . A-Z. . . . He said they were guilty of all that blood. . . . pretty serious accusations.

Jesus treated these narratives from the OT as fact . . . the force of His points depend on them being true. Jesus treated the OT as equal to history. The ones skeptics have the most difficult time with are the accounts He seemed the most fond of! :)

Edited March 4, 2010 by geisha779

[soul searcher]

When Jesus is speaking in Mt 12 about judgment He references the men of Nineveh and their repentance in response to the preaching of Jonah. He is trying to tell them that one greater than Jonah has come. . . . and they are rejecting His preaching. Nineveh heard Jonah, but these guys are not listening to Jesus. Pretty important topic . . . . final judgment. . . . . so, Jesus, who claims to be the Son of God. . . . and is not speaking in parables here. . . . . is supposed to be referencing a folktale? Doesn't make sense.

Why wouldn't Jesus reference a folk tale? He might have been trying to illustrate a point in terms they understood.

I haven't read Jonah yet but, personally, I don't think he could have lived inside a fish for three days, although I'm sure he was a fine prohet. The hydrochloric acid in any vertebrate species' digestive system is strong enough to inflict burns on most other tissues of the body. That's why the stomach has a lining.

Sorry to get so technical. I'm just sayin'...

Or maybe Jonah did live inside a whale for three days, what do I know? :)

@ Jeff: nice post.