dgszweda
Posts: 34
Joined: Dec. 2006
|
I could write very extensively on this, but the text would consume many pages of this thread. So I will hit the highlights as concisely as I can.
| Quote | | First: When both Paul and Peter wrote these passages, what books were they referring to? Especially considering some of the New Testament had not yet been written. |
They were speaking of the entire cannon of scripture including those which were not written. I think the trouble you and I are having is that you believe that the Word of God was driven my man's experience, and I believe it was driven by God. If you take the belief that it was driven by man's experience, than the difficulty arises in how they dealt with the future of scripture which had not been written yet. In II Timothy 3:16, the term All (Greek: pas) refers to every all. It is not related to that which is only known at the time, but the entire collection.
2Peter 1:20-21 states | Quote | | "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpreation. For 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." |
These were not their words, but the words of God himself. Since they were the words of God, as II Timothy 3:16 concurs as well and we know that God never changes as confirmed by Hebrews 13:8 | Quote | | "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." |
Then the words are consistent through any time period of the Bible through any age.
| Quote | | Second: If they became scripture the moment they were penned, why was there any further debate over which books to include in the canon? (More on this in a minute) |
This is a common mistake that many make. The fact that there was a debate amongst men is irrelevant on whether the the scripture was actually cannon. There is still debate amongst some people who claim to be Christian on whether Jesus ever existed. The fact that there is still debate doesn't mean that it isn't settled for the Church. Here is a good article on why the Church believes it had the cannon from the beginning (http://www.baptistbulletin.org/?p=16)
| Quote | Third: "God Breathed" is an accurate translation for the Greek in II Tim 3:16, and Christians are taught that really means "God Dictated"--the autographs (the original writings) were dictated word by word from God.
However there is no other passage in Koine NT we can look at and see a parallel to give us further insight into the meaning of "God Breathed." It might mean "God Inspired" which is far different than "God dictated."
(Note: There not being another occurrence in the NT is based on my memory from Greek class 25 years ago—if I am wrong feel free to correct me and I will examine the other passage.)
|
Since I am younger and I still study both Greek and Hebrew, maybe it is more fresh in my memory.
Both II Timothy 3:16 and I Peter 1:20-21 are Locus Classicus for the Key Apostillic witness of inspiration.
No we are not taught it was God dictated. Maybe you might have been, but the accurate wording is theopneustos which is literally God breathed or breathed out by God. The word inspired was taken from the Latin Word Inspiratus a Deo which was found in the Latin Vulgate and used in the KJV. This made more sense in Old English, but inspired has changed meaning considerably in modern times. Both the NIV and ESV handle the translation much better. Warfield stated in his commentary,
| Quote | | The traditional translation of the word by the Latin inspiratus a Deo is no doubt also discredited, it we are to take it at the foot of the letter. It does not express a breathing into the Scriptures by God. But the ordinary conception attached to it, whether among the Fathers or the Dognaticians, is in general vindicated. What it affirms is that the Scriptures owe their origin to an activity of God the Holy Ghost and are in the highest and truest sense His creation. It is on this foundation of Divine origin that all the high attributes of Scripture are built. |
The other scripture that confirms the Bible is God's Word as noted above is II Peter 1:20-21. Let's look at these two verses.
1)no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation, or ou pas propheteia graphe ginomai idios epilusis. Ginomai is written in a Present Passive Deponent Indicative Tense. It does not have it's origin in a private interpretation.
2)as they were moved. This is the Greek word phero. In this passage it is used as in the Present Passive Particple tense. The voice of passive clearly indicates that the authors are passive. It is the Holy Ghost doing the moving. The authors are receiving.
3)Neither II Timothy or I Peter deal with or mention the Divine/Human Relation of Scripture. Both scriptures emphasis is on the fact that God has spoken.
| Quote | | Fourth: When Peter writes “God Inspired” how to you take the leap to say it means “God dictated”? Why can’t it mean what it says? They were inspired by God to write. |
I think that I have shown above that your definition of inspired does not coincide with the Biblical text, nor does it coincide with what the Early church fathers wrote as well. Since they were trained by the apostles themselves, than their writings should dictate other beliefs in regard to scripture, but they don't. They all coincide with the interpretations given above.
| Quote | | Fifth: Who was right about divorce, Moses or Jesus? |
Both. I don't want to waste a lot of space, so I will just point you to one article about this (http://www.westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com/articles/mark/mark_10.html) It is easier than me writing out my explanation. Much has been written about this. Although I have never really heard much contention about this passage. It has never been one in which I heard someone using to argue against scripture being the Word of God.
| Quote | | The Council of Trent made the Roman Catholic canon official in 1546. Interestingly, this vote was far from unanimous. To these Christian leaders, the canon was not obvious. |
I won't go into each of the people you mention, but I wouldn't include the Council of Trent as speaking for the Church. You call your blog the WhoreChurch and yet you use the Councils of the Roman Catholic church as Mind of the Christ's Church? I am confused by your disparity. Were their people who argued against certain books? Yes for sure, even today there are. The fact that you said it was settled in the 17th century because no one else argued is false. There are still those today who argue against certain passages and even certain books. People argue against certain passages within Mark and certain books like Esther. To use your reasoning than even your statement of the 17th century is false by your own admission.
The Old Testament in my mind and many other scholars is not even questionable. All of the books in the Old Testament were in the Septuagint and the Masoretic Texts that were the texts that Jesus quoted from. If the Septuagint was not God's Word than Christ would have stated it, instead he quoted from it. You will probably try to go down the road that the Septuagint had Aprochryphal books in it. That is true, but they were never regarded as scripture, and the Orthodox Jews never considered them scripture, they were only historical writings in much the same way our current translations have commentaries and such added to them.
My link above clearly shows how the Church Fathers analyticaly followed the Holy Spirit in seeking out the scripture. The fact that fringe groups have insisted on various things doesn't deviate from what is known and what even Heddle posted.
| Quote | unless you accept Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation as divinely inspired then your faith is not Biblical”—which is what I believe you said to me.
|
I never said that to you, I said that I didn't believe your statements were supported by scripture. Which I don't believe you have shown any. Just ancedotal analysis of some English words and how you might use them.
| Quote | | But even if the canon was settled by 300 CE, it still negates the argument that one must believe these particular books were divinely dictated in order to have Christian faith. |
If you do not believe they were divinely dictated than what is correct in scripture and what are the mistakes. If we must suffer an interpretation of man than we are doomed. We must believe scripture is the divine Word of God because the Bible teaches us it is the Word of God. Which scripture teaches otherwise?
|
