|
Author
|
Topic: Biblical Statements About Infallibility/Inerrancy (A Theology / No Science Topic)
|
winston123180
Inactive Member
|
In response to the question about the 2 Timothy passage, I would venture to say that it refers to all of the Bible, I can find more on that if you give me a few days. As for the infallable/inspired statement, I would think that if scripture is inspired by God it has to be infallable.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 47 by arachnophilia, posted 11-10-2004 9:17 PM | | winston123180 has replied | | | Message 48 by jar, posted 11-10-2004 9:27 PM | | winston123180 has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
In response to the question about the 2 Timothy passage, I would venture to say that it refers to all of the Bible, i would not. i posted this elsewhere on here.
2 Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. paul is speaking of the biblical prophets: isaiah, jeremiah, amos, hosea, etc. he's not even speaking of the collections of writings attributed to the prophets (nevi'im) but the words they actually spoke.
2 Timothy 3:16 ALL scriptures is given by INSPIRATION of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reprove, for instruction in righteousness. (Emphasis mine) Influenced by the Holy Spirit, God and Spirit are one and the same, therefore, yes --- God did write the bible using the instruments he has always used --- men. inspiration and actually writing the books are very different. paul says inspiration, not that god wrote. and, for another matter, what's scripture? does paul count? he's the dear abby of the early christian church. let's see what jesus thinks is scripture.
quote:
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
quote:
Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
quote:
Mat 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
quote:
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
etc. the law = torah the prophets = nevi'im. that's two thirds of a book called the tanakh ( Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim) or what we call the old testament. what's this third section he's left out, the ketuvim? it's various writings. some prominent works in this section include psalms and proverbs, chronicles, job, etc. this is the last section in the hebrew bible and the least holy. although it is considered holy NOW, the new testament gives evidence that it was not considered holy in the time of jesus. jesus did not think these books to be close to the word of god, and did not consider them holy scripture. you have to look at when the books were written, by whom, for what purpose, and in what context. you can't just assume that because it's in the book, it's the word of god. people wrote these books. it is insulting to both the authors, editors AND god to say god did it. god could write a much better, more consistent, and timeless book. As for the infallable/inspired statement, I would think that if scripture is inspired by God it has to be infallable. there's movie out now called "the texas chainsaw massacre." maybe you've heard of it. it's remake of an old horror movie. it says on the box "inspired by a true story." and it is, leatherface is based on ed gein. gein, however, didn't own a chainsaw, and never lived in texas. nor did he kill more than two or three people. compare this to the movie. another famous movie which has a character based on gein is "the silence of the lambs." compare buffalo bill to leatherface. they're both inspired by the same REAL events, yet are suprisingly different stories. anyways, the point that i'm trying to demonstrate is that inspiration does NOT mean infallible. if it does, why do our four inspired gospels contradict each other? why do the inspired writings of paul contradict the inspired writings about what jesus said?
|
jar
Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
When it was written did the 2 Timothy reference include the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, the Book of Enoch, Gospel of Peter, Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs or the Epistle of James? Remember, when 2 Timothy was written we were still centuries from creating a list of exactly what would be in the Bible, which is something that still is not uniform.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Logic
The first rule of Bible interpretation: A text means what it says and says what it means UNLESS one or more of the following are employed: 1) Typology 2) Symbolism 3) Imagery 4) Parable 5) Analogy actually, the much older hebrew system of reading (pardes) insists that EVERY passage has four ways of being read: p'shat: simple (literal) remez: hinted (contextual/symbolic) d'rash: teaching (moral) sod: secret (mystic)
2nd Rule: Text without context is error. correct. but we must go beyond the context of the text itself, and look at how the people who wrote it understood it, and what the ideals of the society were. we do this by reading more books from the area and time.
Since when do you not mean what you say or say what you mean ? all the time. last nite i said, rather crassly to some friends, "i really need to take a dump." but i didn't steal any garbage, did i? it's called euphemism, and they can be found in the bible, along with figures of speech, and all kinds of other grammatical functions that do not mean literally what they say.
When an individual author of a Biblical book is concluded to have written what is written, then that passage is the eternal word of God. that makes no sense. i wrote what i wrote, so it's the word of god.
This is the claim of the canon. this is your assumed claim of the canon. the canon makes no such claim, and varies from religion to religion, church to church. the first christian canon was devised so constantine could have a pretty book to read, not to devise what was accurate or not.
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
Message 50 of 85 (158194)
11-10-2004 9:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 48 by jar
11-10-2004 9:27 PM
|
|
When it was written did the 2 Timothy reference include the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, the Book of Enoch, Gospel of Peter, Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs or the Epistle of James? here's a devil's advocate answer. or, in this case, a christ's adovocate answer i suppose. no, it didn't. i would argue that it, at most included tanakh (probably just the torah and nevi'im and not the ketuvim), but not the inter-testamental documents (most of the apocrypha). it probably included at least one gospel (luke-acts?) that would have been used in the churches under the direction of paul. i seriously doubt it included paul's own writing, but i'd have to think about that one. it is evident that by the time of jesus, "the bible" looked like this: torah: genesis exodus leviticus numbers deuteronomy nevi'im: joshua judges samuel kings isaiah jeremiah ezekial (hosea) (joel) (amos) (obadiah) (jonah) (micah) (nahum) (habakkuk) (zephaniah) (haggai) (zechariah) (malachi) it's likely that jesus would also have heard of the majority of psalms, since i think he mentions them somewhere. the rest of the texts translated in the septuagint still technically have not been canonized in jewish world, i think, but were certainly in various collections at the time of christ.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 48 by jar, posted 11-10-2004 9:27 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 51 by jar, posted 11-10-2004 10:18 PM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
The reason I couched my question around the time of 2 Timothy was the time line. All of the books I mentioned were in circulation before 2 Timothy. So would they likely be considered as part of the Scripture? We tend to look at the Scriptures of Christianity through today's viewpoint. But during the first three hundred years or so, the subject of what was scripture was quite different. The Epistles were still letters. And there were Gospels all over the place. So at the time Timothy was written, say betwen 100 and 200 AD, which of all of the new Christian works would have been considered scripture?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 52 of 85 (158214)
11-10-2004 10:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 51 by jar
11-10-2004 10:18 PM
|
|
The reason I couched my question around the time of 2 Timothy was the time line. All of the books I mentioned were in circulation before 2 Timothy. So would they likely be considered as part of the Scripture? this is true. but enoch was also around at the time of the septuagint and was not included, so i think we can rule that out.
We tend to look at the Scriptures of Christianity through today's viewpoint. But during the first three hundred years or so, the subject of what was scripture was quite different. The Epistles were still letters. And there were Gospels all over the place. well, this is more or less what i've been saying. epistles are letters. it's good to look at things in context like that. who wrote the book? to or for whom? why?
So at the time Timothy was written, say betwen 100 and 200 AD, which of all of the new Christian works would have been considered scripture? in which church? there is no definitive nt canon until after 330 ad. luke/acts appears be the first attempt at it, but that was after paul, and before 330.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 51 by jar, posted 11-10-2004 10:18 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 54 by jar, posted 11-10-2004 11:00 PM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
winston123180
Inactive Member
|
Your arguments for the meaning of the word 'inspired' would be great if the New Testament were written in English, but it wasn't. The Greek word that Paul uses in 2 Timothy 3:16 which is translated in the version that you used as 'inspired' is "Theopneustos" (my Greek font won't work). This word literally means "breathed out by God" or simply "God breathed." God sometimes breathed His words into the human writers to be recorded much as dictation. He said to Jeremiah: "Behold, I have put My words in your mouth" (Jer 1:9). But as clearly seen in Scripture itself, God's divine truth more often flowed through minds, souls, hearts and emotions of His chosen human instruments. Yet, by whatever means, God divinely superintended the accurate recording of His divinely breathed truth by His divinely chosen men. By the way, 2 Peter was written by Peter, not Paul.
|
jar
Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
There is still no definitive canon. That at least has not changed.  If we look at the formative period of the Christian Church it is extremely dynamic, competitive, cut throat. It was a competition of viewpoints, politics, theology, hubris, funding, territory, authority, bigotry, credit and sex. Around the time of John there was the need to differentiate Christianity from Judaism. It's confusion and envy, hate and jealousy, love and admiration; people being leaders, people being mentors, people being councilors. The one thing it was not, was simple.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2330 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: 05-10-2003
|
And the word used for "scripture" is graphe. This means anything written.
Asgara "Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it" http://asgarasworld.bravepages.comhttp://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
|
winston123180
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 56 of 85 (158238)
11-11-2004 12:01 AM
|
Reply to: Message 55 by Asgara
11-10-2004 11:35 PM
|
|
Actually, it can have more meanings than just that, here are three: 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 These are from an online lexicon at: Graphe Meaning in Bible - New Testament Greek Lexicon - King James Version The context of the verse in which "graphe" is used demands that it is something other than "everything written" or even the Old Testament, because in verse 15 we can see Paul speaking of "the sacred writings which are able to give you wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." Although Jesus Christ is hinted to in the Old Testament, those hints are far from sufficient to lead to salvation through faith in Christ.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 55 by Asgara, posted 11-10-2004 11:35 PM | | Asgara has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 57 of 85 (158255)
11-11-2004 1:08 AM
|
Reply to: Message 54 by jar
11-10-2004 11:00 PM
|
|
i agree with your post, except:
There is still no definitive canon. That at least has not changed. i would argue that there is. the vast majority of christian bibles sold today all have exactly the same line up of books in the new testament.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 54 by jar, posted 11-10-2004 11:00 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 58 by jar, posted 11-11-2004 1:13 AM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Line up of books in the NT
Except, as I have pointed out, where they are different. For example, the Ethiopian Orthodox Christian Church excluded several of the books that are included in the Roman, Protestant and Greek Orthodox Churches.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
In that case, the way that you determine 'reality' be it sense perception, etc., is what you call the absolute authority. No, the only "absolutely authority" on what is or is not is what is or is not; that is, reality. The sense perceptions we experience are just that, perceptions. They aren't the reality. Only the reality is the reality; the degree to which reality is accessable to us is a question for philosophers. The only absolute is reality. Authorities must be judged based on how well they conform to it, and in the case of the Bible, that's "not very well."
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
By the way, 2 Peter was written by Peter, not Paul er, yes. thanks for catching the goof. so used to arguing pauling letters.
The Greek word that Paul uses in 2 Timothy 3:16 which is translated in the version that you used as 'inspired' is "Theopneustos" (my Greek font won't work). This word literally means "breathed out by God" or simply "God breathed." God sometimes breathed His words into the human writers to be recorded much as dictation. He said to Jeremiah: "Behold, I have put My words in your mouth" (Jer 1:9). it's likely a play on the hebrew concept of the spirit of the lord, actually. our god is often represented by wind. el was the ugaritic wind god, and yhwh is called el in some portions of the bible. when genesis 1:2 says "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. " the word it uses for spirit actually means wind. one of my translations says that sent a wind over the waters. similarly, when moses parts the sea of reeds, it's a strong wind that drives the waters back. so when paul says " pasa grafh qeopneustonz" he doesn't neccessarily mean that god breathed it so to speak. and what if he does mean it that way? so what? it's his opinion. and if you beleive genesis 2, we all have the theo-pneustos in us. so this post was brought to you by the breath of god. and which scriptures is he refering to? certainly not EVERYTHING written down, as asgara pointed out? is he refering to his own work?
|
™ Version 4.2