|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Inspiration?
« Back to club forum| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Inspiration?There are several ways of answering this question. I'll list a few, and perhaps other members might add a few more or care to dissect what I say. 1. Divine Dictation This is the view that God fed the words directly into the writer's mind, who then acted as a secretary taking dictation. This is a widespread view, possibly because it is so close to how human businesses operate that we can all understand it without any effort. On the plus side, it provides a sense of certainty; these are the very words that God Himself gave the writer to transcribe, so they are automatically authoritative and fixed for all time. Everyone likes to be certain! It is interesting the Islam holds to this version of 'Inspiration' of the Quran; the words were delivered to the Prophet by the Archangel, who learned to recite them ('Quran' comes from the word 'recite') from memory, and scribes wrote down what the Prophet recited. On the negative side, it brings up more questions than it answers. For example, it would mean that only the original words are 'inspired', and translations are the result of men substituting their own words in place of God's word. This is why Muslim scholars maintain that the Quran may not be translated but must be studied in the original Classic Arabic, a language that is no longer spoken.; any so-called 'translations' are at best a 'commentary', at worst a 'blasphemy'. Even to explain it in simpler words, such as a Sunday School teacher might do, is to cloud the divine meaning by filtering it through your own words. Thus the tradition of the Quran being recited in Classical Arabic in madrassahs around the world, with the children memorising strings of sounds without understanding what they mean. This gives Muslim clerics huge power over the faithful, because nobody else understands what the text actually says. It's a bit like the Church of the 1400's allowing only the Latin Bible, and the priests as the only interpreters. It also tends to undermine itself. For example, when Matthew's Gospel reports the Sermon on the Mount, It gives Jesus' speech in Koine Greek. But when addressing the masses, Jesus surely would have spoken Aramaic. Or in Luke 4:18-19, Jesus quotes from Isaiah; but Isaiah is written in Hebrew, not Koine. My guess is that Jesus would have read the Hebrew from the scroll, but Luke, the man 'inspired' to write the Gospel, doesn't hold to that form of 'inspiration' himself, or he would have written in Hebrew. 2. Literary Presentation of divine ideas This version holds that the MEANING of the text is given directly from God, but the individual author used his own skills and perspectives to decide how to present it. This removes the 'certainty' of the 'dictation' approach, because it is not obvious where the core message blends into the literary presentation. This problem is particularly acute when reading passages that are in a genre no longer familiar to modern readers, such as apocryphal presentations in Daniel or the Revelation to John. This is probably why there are so many different understandings of these books; moderns bring their own assumptions rather than adopting those of the authors. This approach means that the careful reader will need to be aware of the context of the original writer; what literary culture he and his readers were embedded in, the conventions of their times, their surrounding secular culture, even the politics of the times. Yes, all this is hard work and demands research, but when you're dealing with God's Word such efforts are worth it! 3. Pious men moved by God This approach holds that the writers wrote from their own contemplations of the faith-tradition they were part of. They understood those pious men who went before them, added to this their own experiences and meditations, and adapted their tradition to the times. In this idea of 'inspiration', the writers were not directly moved by God in terms of the words or the ideas, but by God so shaping and guiding all their lives and experiences so that they would NATURALLY write what God intended. This is almost another version of the Incarnation of Christ, the Word. As he was fully Man and Fully God, so the scriptures are also fully the work of the author, but fully the word of the God who so shaped the author. 4. Documents themselves Guided by God This could perhaps be called the 'Accident of History' approach. It holds that lots of people wrote lots of things in lots of places over the centuries. For example, we know for a fact that Paul wrote to the Corinthians more than the two letters we now have. But God allowed most of these writings to be lost, but preserved others which He chose to preserve. Often through all-to-human politics, but they were preserved. For example, 'The Shepherd' by Hermas has also been preserved and was considered 'Sacred Scripture' by many for centuries before being voted OUT of the New Testament). So we are left with the canon we have, fixed not by direct inspiration, but by the God guiding the seemingly chaotic process of history. Yes, we Protestants who hold that Scripture has primacy over Tradition need to remember that the Scriptures as we hold them today are themselves determined by Tradition! SUMMARY Any more comments on 'Inspiration? We haven't even started on 'infallible' yet. |
||
|
I am seeking first to understand. And also ask is there any parameters for this discussion? I will wait to comment further. |
||
|
|
||
|
Apatzer |
||
|
I could only speak about personal inspiration. Which is best kept secret as instructed by Jesus. For it's the fruit of our alone time with God and it is for us as an individual. However the men and women of the Bible had a special mission. I think too many people don't see the Forest for the trees. |
||
|
|
||
|
Apatzer 19:10 As you say, the answer can't be known for certain. But even if you don't concern yourself with that question, you still work on an assumption or assumptions that imply one answer or another. The aim of this thread is to examine the different approaches, their assumptions, and the results. I have listed a few possible options, and outlined what each would imply. Anyone who says 'The Bible is inspired by God' must have at least some idea of what he means when he says that, even if he can't put it into words on the spot. Otherwise, he is just repeating a meaningless slogan. |
||
|
This thread is a great topic of discussion and good for learning. I will ponder this more and give a proper reply. I am not trying to derail the thread by any means. |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
I'm on lunch (limited time) All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. It would appear this verse describes clearly what the usage is. All in relation to us wildling away the log in our own eye. I know that humans have a deep desire to categorize, define and lable. However in this instance I think it has been quite detrimental to many. I also believe that having to lean on that impossible to know understating is a crutch. Where does faith come in? I don't really want to say , however I feel that in the past such need to define has been used as a method of controlling, grabbing power and enforcing mana will even in direct prediction to the word of God itself. |
||
|
Correction |
||
|
|
||
|
Colin 08:14 Absolute agreement there, Colin! To draw an analogy, sometimes a carpenter uses a hammer, and sometimes he uses a screwdriver. I think this sometimes shows in the style of writing itself. What scholars call 'genre'. Paul's letter read much as if they are written from his own mind and heart, with personal greetings and details such as Paul telling Timothy "When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments." This would be the 'God fashioning a man through hid whole-of-life experiences'. Other passages, such as parts of Ezekial and Revelation, seem as if written from overwhelming visions; these would be something close to God beaming the visions, perhaps even the words, into the writer's mind. Then there are bits of poetry, such as the Psalms and Job, which must come from some unconscious source that only top-class poets would know about. One important principle I picked up at college is what exegetes call 'Sitz im Leben', which means 'situation in Real Life'. Good exegetes don't just ask 'What does this verse mean to me?' They ask 'Why did the writer write it? What situation in his life or the life of his readers gave rise to the need to write this, and what purpose was it put to in that situation?' This is a very important consideration, because it forces us to read the passage in context. The idea that 'God wrote this to me, personally' leads us into all sorts of error if we ignore that context. The Bible was NOT written to me, personally; it was written to the original target audience, and God has preserved it so I can understand and learn from the experiences of those who went before. |
||
|
Apatzer 12:33 to 14:45 But the New Testament itself, as far as we know, was written entirely in Greek, the 'world language' at the time. 2 Tim. 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired by God..." literally means "Every writing is God-breathed...". This does not actually indicate clearly HOW God 'breathed' it; Paul's main purpose here seems to be to focus on the USE of Scripture, not the process by which it was written. It is given so 'that the Godly person may be properly equipped for every good work.' By-the-way, I am repeatedly reminded how often the Greek uses the word 'anthropos' = 'person' or 'human', but the English translates it as 'man' (which in Greek would be 'aner'). But Scripture doesn't use 'aner' in these cases; it is the translator who imposes this subtle sexism. |
||
|
As far as I know, the entire NT in the form that we have it was written in Greek. Where it quotes from the OT, I think I'm right in saying that it uses a translation of it into Greek, which was done by Greek-speaking Jews a few centuries before Christ. I suppose there must be a possibility that some NT writers such as Matthew, James and Peter may have written in Aramaic, but as far as I know we don't have any original manuscript that's survived to support that. In the culture of the time, they would probably have needed to be bilingual, so could have dictated their writings in Greek to a Greek scribe. I think that many years ago I saw an article by someone who had attempted to translate the Sermon on the Mount back into Hebrew or Aramaic, and in so doing had come across a possibility that if Jesus had spoken it originally in one of those languages, he might have been using a poetic form to make the words easier to remember. But again, I don't know of any original manuscript evidence to back this up. In considering this sort of issue some weeks ago, I noted that any translation or copying process has the capacity to introduce an error, either through a mistake or because translation isn't an exact science when it comes to idioms and figures of speech. So I concluded that what the 2 Timothy verse is trying to convey about whatever Bible version I happen to have, which means an English translation as I wouldn't get very far with the original language, is that as long as the translation has been done competently and with integrity (i.e.not distorted by a cult), I can trust that its teaching is profitable. The possibility of error from translation or copying prevents God from giving a guarantee that the version I have is inerrant. |
||
|
There are probably more examples I am missing. |
||
|
Colin 15:31 If the legend is true, they all made identical mistakes, because the Septuagint is not an accurate translation of the Hebrew. Yet the New Testament writers often quoted from it, rather than translating the Hebrew original into Greek when quoting. So much for 'verbal inspiration', if not even the writers of Scripture believed in it! Translation error can occur, but it is very rare these days. More often it is a deliberately inaccurate translation, done for theological reasons; No body paying for a translation will pay if it contradicts their own theology. I have a few 'indicators' that I look at when considering a new translation:- 1. Job 19:26 - the Hebrew says 'FROM my flesh I will see God'. So far I have not found an English translation that doesn't say 'IN my flesh...'. 'From' could mean 'from a position in my flesh' or it could mean 'even when my soul is removed from my body in death'; so it is ambiguous. But 'IN my flesh' asserts the Resurrection of the Dead, so Christians prefer that mis-translation to an accurate translation. 2. Genesis 4:8 - 'Cain spoke with his brother Abel; and when they were in the field'. NIV and others translate this as 'Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.” While they were in the field...'. This expanded version implies premeditation that is not necessary in the original Hebrew, but it's Christologically convenient to contrast the 'righteous victim' who makes an 'acceptable sacrifice' with the 'evil brother'. 3. Ephesians 5:19-22 is a more complex passage. In the Greek, it is a series of participial phrases ('addressing each other..., singing and making melody..., giving thanks..., submitting to one another'). It also has a chiastic structure, something Paul as a pharisee would be familiar with from the Old Testament. The first and the last 'addressing each other,' and 'submitting to each other' imply mutuality, while the central two are about worship. This indicates that true worship demands a context of mutual service. The Authorised Version and others in that tradition follow this schema accurately. But the RSV, NIV and others that tradition stop the sentence after verse 21, and make 'Be subject to one another a totally new and independent sentence. Apart from being grammatically and structurally contrary to Paul's main point, why would anyone do this? The answer is in Verse 22 immediately following. 'Wives, be subject to your husbands'. In the Greek of this verse, wives are NOT told to be subject to their husbands! The verb 'be subject' doesn't even appear in the Greek! In the preceding verses, ALL Christians are told to be subject to each other, in mutuality! But the translators wanted to avoid that terrible 'feminist' implication, so they removed the verb 'be subject' from the context of mutuality, and instead placed it in a verse which made females subject to males. To be blunt, I consider this deliberate mistranslation to be verging on blasphemous. These petty churchmen are misrepresenting their own doctrines as if they are God's Word! |
||
|
bobspringett That gives an entirely new meaning to martial relations. A more healthy and accurate one of I may say. |
||
|
Apatzer 21:08 It can also mean 'to be connected to'; for example, a contract might have a list of requirements listed in a schedule; the schedule would be 'hupotasso-ed' to the contract. Thus, one possible meaning Paul intends when he tells women to be 'subject' to their husbands is that they be 'connected' to their husbands. This was due to Roman law having two types of marriage; in one, the wife was legally transferred into the family of her husband, and in the other she remained the daughter of her father, who could pull her out of that marriage if he saw fit to do so. Paul would obviously want a Christian woman to be under the legal custodianship of her supposedly Christian husband, rather than her father who might still be a pagan and who could legally demand the woman return to his control. The whole question is multi-faceted, but one certain point is that however the legal structures might be explained, it was still the duty of Christian husbands to "love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her". Male 'headship' (however that was understood) was to be exercised through service and sacrifice, not by control. |
