All scripture is inspired of god...which scripture? (page 2)

elderelite

Well played sheep. I would also add paul citing being taken to "seventh heaven" and his use of "Tartartus" both of which are foreign anywhere else in the scriptures

Cagefighter

We often gloss over the meaning of the word in question: "Inspired"

If Dr. Phil inspires me to start my own series of self-help books what would that mean? Would my words necessarily be Dr. Phil's or would my words be truths as I have found them to be based on his principles.

Taking the bible literally is A) dumb and B) impossible as it is almost certain it has been changed and the cannon is different depending on who you ask.

However it is a great book and does share the great story of Christ, the apostles, and ancient Israel. It can lead one to the truth about God and like any other piece of literature uses "figures of speech" which I feel many take literally.

Imagine 5000 years from now: In 2012 I wrote that, "I was fired from my job". Could you imagine another culture and language translating that to mean I was consumed with fire at my place of employment for poor performance and people extrapulating from that meaning? I can.

Phizzy

Dear Elderlite,Tartarus is in 2Pet2v4 , I don't think Paul mentions it, but your point still is good, the writers of the books were obviously familiar with many writings not in our Canon, Jude being another example, Michael and the devil disputing about moses' body.

I would be pleased if a believer in Bible "inspiration" and Inerrancy would prove to us that it is "inspired of god" in some way, and not full of errors.

If it has no input from God, how can it lead us to the "truth about god" ? If it is full of lies and errors how can it lead us to truth ?

tornapart

Tartarus is in the book of Enoch, a book that Jude also refers to. A book that was left out of the bible canon (except for coptic christians). So is the book of Enoch inspired or not? :/

Phizzy

The WT have there answer to this problem, which if memory serves goes along the lines that the phrases culled from such writings and appearing in our Bible are inspired by God to the extent that he inspired the bible writers to use them, the rest of the contents of such books you JW's must not touch with a bargepole.

Neat huh ?

Cagefighter

How does the Bible lead to the truth about God?

I would say it is similar to a movie about a battle or historic event. There might be plenty of details that might contradict actual accounts, but the movie as a whole should convey the message and meaning of the event if done properly.

jamesmahon

Thanks sheep - I didn't know that. Clearly he is saying then that there is a canon of texts that he considered to be inspired that are now thought not to be inspired, not beneficial and by some Christians (including the JWs) to be misleading.

Just to be clear folks (for those who have not seen any of my previous posts) I don't believe in any gods so am not arguing about this from a deep religious perspective. I was just interested in the circular notion of the statement itself, to what texts it was actually referring (and why some of these are now ignored) and how it could relate to texts that had not been written yet.

tec

Scripture would be that which is given to someone BY God, through the Spirit, and then written down. (something given in spirit)

Revelation would be scripture... the author is in spirit as he receives it. Though Paul could not have been referring to Revelation (because I'm not sure that it was written yet)

The prophets recieved 'in spirit' as well. The law as well (not everything added to it though... sort of like how the WTS adds all sorts of rules and addendums of their own)

Scripture would not be history accounts, or investigative accounts. Luke for instance is a recording of things that happened.... through interview and investigation.

What was chosen to be canonized or discarded doesn't make something scripture or not... and the entire bible is also not one book, but many, so you can't label the thing in entirety as scripture, or inerrant, or infallable.

The bible does not claim itself to inerrant (it cannot even speak as to itself as a whole, and neither could Paul have been doing so), or infallable. There is scripture in it though.

Peace,

tammy

jamesmahon

I see what you are saying Tammy and think that is the only way really that it can be explained from a christians' perspective. For part of the bible to say 'all scripture is inspired' but then create a canon of scripture ignoring some texts because it does not agree with what you believe is intellectually dishonest.

However (and I don't want this to turn into a Tammy bashing thread please) is there also not a dichotomy in your view that is similar? From what you just posted is it fair to say that there is a canon of texts that you determine to be inspired scripture that fits your world view and anything that disagrees with that - be it in the bible or in other texts - you dismiss as not being 'scripture'? Sorry, it is hard to ask this without sounding like I am picking for an argument which I am not, but hope you can see the point.

Does not your approach take a subjective, personal view of what is scripture and inspired when whether something is inspired should be an objective and testable fact (testable from a religious philosophy perspective rather than scientific I add)

EntirelyPossible

Scripture is "what I think it is", regardless of who the "I" in the sentence is. No more, no less. There is no way to test, to way to verify, no one to ask that can give an authoratative list.

All scripture is inspired of god...which scripture?

Share this