Inspiration of Scripture

[Josiah]

Josiah...OSAS is not a Calvinist claim...

I realize that, it's a teaching of uber-Calvinists. It's found nowhere else. But this thread is not about this new Calvinist invention; if you want to discuss that, here is a thread: http://christianityhaven.com/showth...-quot-of-TULIP-and-a-Distinctive-of-Calvinism


See the opening post (and thread title)


- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

I realize that, it's a teaching of uber-Calvinists. It's found nowhere else. But this thread is not about this new Calvinist invention; if you want to discuss that, here is a thread: http://christianityhaven.com/showth...-quot-of-TULIP-and-a-Distinctive-of-Calvinism

No...it not Uber Calvinist. OSAS is a claim from semi-pelagian Christians such as yourself. Secondly, the term uber-Calvinist is something you have coined in an attempt to support your uber-denominationalism over Christian faith. You cannot think outside the narrow box of your Lutheran concordia.
Here's a word of advice: Let God's word direct your understanding rather than your denomination.

 

[MennoSota]

It should be noted that one of the biggest attempts to undermine the inerrancy of scripture took place at Luther Seminary in St Paul when they commissioned the Jesus Seminar in the early 1990s.
Lutherans...always seeking to deny the deity of Christ and the authenticity of scripture... /s

 

[hedrick]

I read that the N.T. isnt as accurate as the O.T., but thats what you get w those heathens. In the O.T. different scrolls there was 8 things different or so. If they had one letter wrong they could bury the whole thing.

Huh? Archaeologists currently tell us that OT history isn't very accurate until the time of the Kings. There are debates even about the kings, though I tend to accept the overall picture starting about with Judges.

In the NT, while there may be issues of detail, the picture of Jesus we get seems pretty good.

The business about letters is about accuracy in copying. But it only applies after Jesus' time. There's a fair amount of uncertainty of the text dating from early times. I'd say the NT in general has fewer issues with the text, though to be honest, the uncertainties of text in both OT and NT are small enough that it doesn't affect the message.

 

[hedrick]

There are two major models of inspiration. One is that the text itself is inspired. The other is that the events described come from God, but that Scripture is a witness written by humans describing their experiences with God. In that case it's not the text itself that is inspired but the things it talks about.

The evidence from science, archaeology, and even from the text itself (e.g. the fact that there are distinct different viewpoints shown by different authors) all point to the second model of inspiration.

 

[Josiah]

I think we simply have a mystery here. It IS God's literal words. It's also the words of the penmen. How that can be.... how that "cranked out" .... I don't KNOW. It probably doesn't matter that I don't KNOW.

 

[NewCreation435]

Huh? Archaeologists currently tell us that OT history isn't very accurate until the time of the Kings. There are debates even about the kings, though I tend to accept the overall picture starting about with Judges.

In the NT, while there may be issues of detail, the picture of Jesus we get seems pretty good.

The business about letters is about accuracy in copying. But it only applies after Jesus' time. There's a fair amount of uncertainty of the text dating from early times. I'd say the NT in general has fewer issues with the text, though to be honest, the uncertainties of text in both OT and NT are small enough that it doesn't affect the message.

Which archeologists are you referring to? I haven't heard anything like that.

 

[Pedrito]

Perceived contradictions in Holy Scripture can normally be explained (not explained away) in the light of one of three considerations. They are:
- The superficiality with which most (if not all) denominations condition their adherents to address Scripture. The leaders (and others) know that a more in-depth study will expose defects in their doctrines and practices.
- Scribal errors, including errors with respect to Hebrew numbering, that are often very easy to identify.
- A misapplication or misunderstanding regarding verbal descriptions given of physical structures.

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

With respect to the supposed contradiction between Mark 5:1-20 and Matthew 8:28-34, Pedrito suggests that the first consideration above, endemic superficiality, is the cause of the perceived problem.

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

But can Pedrito prove it?

And if he does prove it, will people accept his expressed observation regarding the conditioned superficiality he states they are victims of? And will they be willing to do something about it? Will they be willing to do anything about it?

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

In Matthew 8:28-34 the writer’s purpose is to record the occasion in broad but accurate terms. There were two demon possessed men. They were both liberated. The demons were permitted to enter a herd of swine. The people of the area told Jesus to clear out.

In Mark 5:1-20 the writer’s purpose is different. He focuses on one man. That man is truly scary. It would seem that he is the particular one, of the two possessed people mentioned in Matthew, upon whom most attention would naturally fall. The writer also establishes, by concentrating on the conversation with this one individual, that in this case, Jesus followed (what we know from other sources to be) the normal Jewish exorcism procedure: 1. Find out the name of the demon doing the possession; 2. Command the demon by name to come out of the possessed person.

But why is that important? Is it important? Indeed it is. Decidedly so.

In his next post, Pedrito will demonstrate why. (Unless someone less conditioned than the mainstream, beats him to it.)

Continued…

 

[Imalive]

-

 

[Josiah]

"Dr. Knapp given as the definition of inspiration, "an extra-ordinary divine agency upon teachers while giving instruction, whether oral or written, by which they were taught what and how they should write or speak." Without deciding on any of the various theories of inspiration, the general doctrine of Christians is that the Bible is so inspired by God that it is the infallible guide of men, and is perfectly trustworthy in all its parts, as given by God."


.

This is a good, generic conveying of the doctrine.... I framed it a bit more conservatively above than Dr. Knapp did.

Yes, an implication of this is that Scripture is inerrant (that's usually not the doctrine itself but it is an implication of it). I don't deny there are issues that seem puzzling in that light (WAY TOO MUCH attention is given to the TINY percentage of such, rarely having any consequence at all). I agree that often the "problem" can easily be explained ... and sometimes it's part of a Law/Gospel difference or simply a part of a paradox or mystery. But sometimes, it can't be "explained." Does this bother me? No. Is it a matter of "transmission errors" (copies of copies)? Rarely, if ever. Is it a matter of different denominations? Never (denominations can't change the text, only the interpretation). Is it a matter of not having the originals? Never, that issue has been resolved. We simply have a tiny, tiny few Scriptures that we can't resolve and are left with what SEEMS like an error - in things that don't matter. My advise? Move on.



- Josiah

 

[hedrick]

Which archeologists are you referring to? I haven't heard anything like that.

Here's a good review: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html

Here's a more detailed discussion of the Exodus and where the people of Israel came from: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/moses-exodus.html

There are more radical versions, that think the whole OT history was created during the Exile. I think the more moderate account in these two articles is more plausible. It assumes that there's some basic truth behind the histories, but that things didn't happen exactly as described.

 

[Pedrito]

...Continued

In his former post (Post #28), Pedrito stated that Jesus’ actions in Mark 5:1-20 were decidedly important.

The Reader might have wondered why that is so.

First of all, Jesus, by taking the actions He did, gave Scriptural credence to the Jewish exorcism procedure recorded in Jewish writings (but not directly in the Bible itself).

And by so doing, He also gave indirect credence to an associated Jewish belief that we will see expressed shortly.

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

An interesting interchange is recorded in Matthew 22:41-42:
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.

So, Matthew 1:20 and Luke 3:31 not withstanding, the term “Son of David” was a recognised title of the long-awaited Messiah (the Saviour of Israel).

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

Now let’s have a look at Matthew 12:23:
And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? (Note: Ancient Greek had no upper and lower case – capital letters in English etc. are supplied by the translators.)

The people thought he must be the Messiah.

Why was that?

Well, let’s look at the previous verse, Matthew 12:22:
Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.

The Jews were unable to drive the demon out of such a person. (Because they could not determine the demon’s name.)

The fact that Jesus was able to do so, was proof that he was the Messiah. That the Messiah alone could drive demons out of people who were unable to speak, was the associated Jewish belief mentioned above.

By driving out that demon without determining its name, Jesus proved in the eyes of the people that He was indeed the One that would deliver Israel. The fact that He would also be much more, and just how much more, would be revealed later.

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

So the supposed contradiction between Mark 5:1-20 and Matthew 8:28-34, is shown to be not a contradiction at all, but rather God-inspired recording from different perspectives.