Inspiration of Scriptures

[Nehemiah6]

Why? Peter did not use your Bible, they had different versions. So believer or unbeliever in what exactly?

Of course Peter did not use our Bibles. But our Bibles are what Peter had at his disposal in Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

Show me that Bible is the word of God.

Of course you will not find the statement "the Bible is the Word of God" in the Bible in those exact words. Only a naive person would expect to find that. But you will find this Scripture which says the very same thing and is more than enough (2 Tim 3:16): All scripture is given by inspiration of God [theopneustos = God-breathed], and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

I have already shown where "Scripture" means both the Old and New Testaments (66 books in our English Bibles).

 

[heartofdavid]

Actually they did have the epistles.
Peter even says "pauls letters are not easily understood" or something similar.

 

[Dino246]

So, explain me this:

Matthew 3:17 "This is My beloved Son."
Mark 1:11 "You are My beloved Son."

And no, the voice did not happen twice.

Trofimus, ...
It is becoming more and more evident that you are looking for problems where none exist.

What if both statements are true, therefore both are allowed to stand as divinely inspired? No matter what you may think, it is God the Holy Spirit who inspired both writers to put down what they wrote. On one hand Matthew is indicating that God was speaking to confirm that Jesus was His beloved Son, while Mark and Luke recorded the exact words spoken -- "This is my beloved Son". But in the Gospel of John we have John the Baptizer saying "And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God". John the Baptist heard the very same words but he also indicated and gave a witness ("bare record") that Jesus is the Son of God -- a confirmation. So we have various statements about the same incident expressed in different ways.

In a court of law, the testimony of every witness will not be an exact replica of that of every other witness, but they will all confirm that they witnessed something and their testimony will agree. So it is in Scripture. You will also find that what the Holy Spirit stated in the Old Testament is sometimes stated a little differently in the New Testament, but both witnesses are true.

I think Trofimus is addressing a very valid concern, because some hold to direct inspiration and verbatim recording. I see nothing wrong with N6's explanation, but he has not addressed the fact that both Matthew and Mark recorded a direct quotation. If either wrote, "A voice from heaven said that Jesus is the beloved Son" there would be no conflict.

With those passages in mind, I see four options (please share if you see others):

- God made both exact statements, but directly inspired each writer to record only one;
- God made only one statement, and inspired them to be recorded differently;
- God made only one statement, directly inspiring only one of the two authors;
- God made only one statement, and inspired both authors to record the essence of the statement.

I reject the first because, though plausible, it seems contrived to me. I reject the second, because it impinges God's truthfulness. I reject the third, because it is inconsistent with inspiration of "all Scripture...". That leaves the fourth option, which is consistent with God's character and it doesn't require the contrivance (eisegesis?) of the first.

I also see "inspiration" as something other than verbatim copying of words that the Holy Spirit gave. In my personal experience, when God reveals something, it often comes as a complete mental picture, without words. I could express that thought-picture in any of several ways and wordings without violating its essence. I'm not claiming that is what happened with the authors of Scripture, but it could be. I also believe that some passages may have been more closely superintended by the Holy Spirit, or perhaps that God so prepared the authors that the wording they chose would be the exact wording He wanted. Again though, the latter borders on contrivance. Verbatim dictation would be easier!

What I reject is the idea that the KJV (in particular) was directly inspired in English. Rather, it's a translation of previously-existing versions. Preservation of Scripture does not require verbatim re-inspiration. Preservation through a multiplicity of manuscripts is valid and allows for a greater confidence in what was originally recorded by the authors.

 

[Inquistor]

Of course Peter did not use our Bibles. But our Bibles are what Peter had at his disposal in Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

Of course you will not find the statement "the Bible is the Word of God" in the Bible in those exact words. Only a naive person would expect to find that. But you will find this Scripture which says the very same thing and is more than enough (2 Tim 3:16): All scripture is given by inspiration of God [theopneustos = God-breathed], and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

I have already shown where "Scripture" means both the Old and New Testaments (66 books in our English Bibles).

How is it, that "ALL SCRIPTURE" referred to in 2 Timothy 3:16 did NOT APPLY to ALL 80 books of the 1611 King James bible, through 1881?

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...1j0i22i10i30k1j33i160k1j33i21k1.0.0KI5HMI1RUc

 

[Dino246]

How is it, that "ALL SCRIPTURE" referred to in 2 Timothy 3:16 did NOT APPLY to ALL 80 books of the 1611 King James bible, through 1881?

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...1j0i22i10i30k1j33i160k1j33i21k1.0.0KI5HMI1RUc

How about we leave the Catholic assertions to a Catholic discussion thread. This thread is about inspiration of the canon, not its limits.

 

[MarcR]

No that's not what I'm saying at all. God has indeed preserved His true Word in the MAJORITY of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, and in the Reformation Bibles (including the KJB). Only a small percentage of manuscripts have been corrupted. However, Satan has used rationalistic *critics* (scholars) to undermine the true Word and promote the corruptions. A major hoax was perpetrated in the Christian world, and almost everyone swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. This is all a part of "the mystery of iniquity".

As I see it, NONE of your (so called) corrupted versions substantially change anything . You seem to discount the role of the Holy Spirit in the reader. You also seem to be mincing words. I agree that those translations that follow the majority text are superior translations. I would not call the others corrupted.

 

[John146]

As I see it, NONE of your (so called) corrupted versions substantially change anything . You seem to discount the role of the Holy Spirit in the reader. You also seem to be mincing words. I agree that those translations that follow the majority text are superior translations. I would not call the others corrupted.

If they contain errors, small or great, then they are corrupted. Who are we to say an error is small or insignificant?

 

[Dino246]

If they contain errors, small or great, then they are corrupted. Who are we to say an error is small or insignificant?

Then the KJV is corrupted. You really should think through your position before posting.

You have not addressed Trofimus' question: at Jesus' baptism, did the Father say, "Thou art My beloved Son" or "This is My beloved Son"?

 

[MarcR]

I think that the key word is παρηκολουθηκότι, which means "to properly investigate".

We can translate the sentence as: "I also properly investigated from the beginning"
Or: "I also properly investigated from above", but I am not sure if this makes sense.


Yes, their emphasies are quite noticable, Mark has 16 chapters, Luke 24. But what is important for the inspiration theory is when they quote the same saying of Jesus or describe the same event.

For example:

Matthew 3:17 "This is My beloved Son."
Mark 1:11 "You are My beloved Son."

If the Holy Spirit let human authors to change words (even though the message is the same), we cannot hold the "every word" inspiration.


So, only the essential truths are inspired? You believe that every letter is... so now I am confused.

Here is an excerpt from my commentary:

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
3 It seemed good to me also, having accurately followed after all things from above, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

having NOT having had This is the perfect active participle NOT the pluperfect!
diligently (or accurately) NOT perfect this is the adverb ἀκριβῶς NOT the adjective τέλειον.
pursued (or followed) NOT understanding this is the verb παρηκολουθηκότι NOT the noun συνέσει.
all things NOT of all things this is the dative NOT the genitive case.
above NOT the very first this is ἄνωθεν not ἀρχῇ.

The accuracy of most of this translation demonstrates that the translators had better scholarship than one would deduce from their rendering of this verse. I believe that this is an example of allowing one’s theology to drive translation. One should rather translate the text as strictly as possible; and allow the unaltered text to drive one’s theology.

Theophilus Friend of God. There is some scholarly disagreement whether the name is intended to apply to all believers, or to an individual. In my opinion the title ‘most excellent’ suggests an individual; but, the content is certainly applicable to and pertinent to all believers.

 

[Inquistor]

How about we leave the Catholic assertions to a Catholic discussion thread. This thread is about inspiration of the canon, not its limits.

There are NO Catholic assertions involved, and Catholics most CERTAINLY WERE NOT INVOLVED in deciding what was printed in any King James Versions of the bible! But KJV-only advocates choose to ignore HISTORY about their ORIGINAL bible versions! Why is that the case?


The REAL 1611 King James Version

There is a strange new doctrine being taught in some circles -- the doctrine that the King James Version of the Bible alone is the Word of God, and all modern versions of the Bible (such as the New American Standard Bible or the New International Version) are "corrupt perversions." Advocates of this KJV-Only position strongly insist that "the 1611 KJV is the only real Bible." The irony is, most KJV-Onlyists have never actually seen a real 1611 KJV. They would be surprised and even shocked to see how different the 1611 KJV was from the "modern" KJVs they read today!

This website will list of some of the material found in the actual 1611 KJV, though not found in today's KJVs. But don't take my word for it... click on the links to see what these pages looked like in the 1611 KJV itself. (Note: these graphics files are big... around 100 Kb. each. If you want to see the larger full versions, use your browser's "view image" function.)


[h=3]What Will You Find in the REAL 1611 KJV?[/h]

[h=4]The REAL 1611 KJV had a (page 8);[/h]
- a passage explaining why a new translation is necessary (page 9);

- a passage affirming that God's Word was originally given in Hebrew and Greek; and explaining why marginal notes with alternate translations of words are necessary; and on the importance of using a variety of translations (page 10);

- a passage explaining why translators should be free to use more than one English word to translate a word in the original languages; and the need for a translation in language that could be understood by the most common of common people (page 11)

*Significance: the arguments in the Translators Preface answer the same objections of today's KJV-Onlyists against modern translations.
*Significance: some KJV-Onlyists believe Jerome and Origen were "corrupt," and that the Septuagint is "corrupt" (some go so far as to say that the Septuagint didn't even exist, and was Origen's invention!)


[h=4]The REAL 1611 KJV had this Table of Contents[/h]
- note that the 1611 KJV contained the Apocrypha, including the passage on prayer for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45).

* Significance: most KJV-Onlyists consider the Apocrypha not to be inspired or authoritative, yet apparently King James himself thought it important enough to spend the time and resources to have it translated and printed.
* Significance: KJV-Only literature is filled with examples of how modern versions remove words, verses, and even entire passages from the KJV, yet today's KJVs remove entire books that appeared in the original 1611 KJV


[h=4]The REAL 1611 KJV had a calendar for each month of the year. The calendar for the month of October contains such things as[/h]
- a list of designated saints days' (Oct. 18, Luke the Evangelist; Oct. 28, Simon and Jude);
- a list of designated fast days (Oct. 27 and 31);
- a notation about which sign of the zodiac the sun is in that month (Oct. 12, "Sol in Scorpio");
- a schedule of Scripture readings for morning and evening prayer which includes passages from the Apocrypha (Judith, Oct. 6-13; Wisdom, Oct. 14-17; Ecclesiasticus, Oct. 18)

* Significance: saints' days and fast days are considered "popish" and "Romanist" by some KJV-Only advocates, yet there they are listed in the 1611 KJV
* Significance: many KJV-Only supporters consider astrology "New Age" and "of the devil," yet there it is in the 1611 KJV
* Significance: the 1611 KJV encourages rather than discourages the use of the Apocrypha in devotional reading and public worship, which is strange if the Apocrypha is not considered in some way inspired and authoritative Scripture


[h=4]The REAL 1611 KJV had a list of Holy Days to be observed throughout the year, including[/h]
- Christmas ("The Nativitie of Our Lord") and Easter
- The Purification of the Blessed Virgin
- The Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin
- All Saints' Day
- other saints' days

* Significance: Some KJV-Onlyists regard Christmas and Easter as pagan holidays not to be observed and celebrated by Godly people, yet there they are in the 1611 KJV
* Significance: saints' days and days honouring Mary are considered "popish" and "Romanist" by some KJV-Only advocates, yet there they are in the 1611 KJV


[h=4]The REAL 1611 KJV had marginal notes showing alternate translations and readings based on Greek and Hebrew manuscript evidence[/h]
- Judges 19:2 - "Or, a yeere and foure moneths. Heb. dayes, foure moneths"
- Ezra 10:40 - "Or, Mabnadebai, according to some copies"
- Psalm 102:3 - "Or, (as some reade) into smoke"
- Matthew 1:11 - "Some reade, Iosias begate Iakim, and Iakim begat Iechonias"
- Matthew 26:26 - "Many Greeke copies haue, gaue thanks."
- Mark 7:3 - "Or, diligently, in the originall, with the fist: Theophilact, up to the elbowe."
- Luke 10:22 - "Many ancient copies adde these words, And turning to his Disciples he said"
- Luke 17:36 - "This 36. verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies"
- John 18:13 - a marginal note indicating that this verse, which is identical to verse 24, appears in verse 13 is some manuscripts
- Acts 1:20 - the note in the margin reads, "Or, office: or, charge" -- often used in modern translations, a less Anglican translation than "Bishopricke."
- Acts 13:18, 34 - a marginal note containing the Greek text of an alternate reading "according to the Sept. [Septuagint] and so Chrysost." [John Chrystostom, one of the church fathers], as well as a cross-reference to the Apocrypha (2 Maccabees 7:27)... see for yourself!
- Acts 25:6 - "Or, as some copies reade, no more then eight or ten dayes"
- Ephesians 6:9 - "Some reade, both your, and their master"
- James 2:18 - "Some copies reade, by thy workes"
- 1 Peter 2:21 - "Some reade, for you"
- 2 Peter 2:2, 11, 18 - three alternate readings in the margins on the same page... see for yourself!
- 2 John 8 - "Or, gained. Some copies reade, which yee haue gained, but that ye receiue &c."

* Significance: when similar marginal notes appear in modern translations, many KJV-Onlyists raise a great hue and cry about how they "cause the reader to doubt the Word of God," yet there they are in the 1611 KJV


[h=4]The REAL 1611 KJV had verses that are worded differently from today's KJVs[/h]
- Ruth 3:15 - "...and he went into the city." Today's KJVs read "...and she went into the city."
- Psalm 69:32 - "...and your heart shall liue that seeke goode." Today's KJVs read, "...and your heart shall live that seek God."
- Jeremiah 34:16 - "...and euery man his handmaide, whom yee had set at libertie...." Today's KJVs read, "...and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty...."

* Significance: KJV-Only advocates believe that the KJV is the "inerrant, pure, perfect, preserved Word of God." Which KJV are they referring to... the 1611 KJV or the KJV used today?


[h=4]The REAL 1611 KJV had marginal cross-references to books of the Apocrypha[/h]
- Daniel 8:25 - the note in the margin reads, "2 Macc. 6:9," a cross-reference to a book of 2 Maccabees in the Apocrypha

- Matthew 6:7 - the note in the margin reads, "Ecclus. 7:16," a cross-reference to a book of Ecclesiasticus in the Apocrypha

- Matthew 23:37 - the note in the margin reads, "Wisd. 2:15,16," a cross-reference to a book of Wisdom in the Apocrypha

- Matthew 27:43 - the note in the margin reads, "4 Esd. 1:30," a cross-reference to a book of 4 Esdra in the Apocrypha

- Luke 14:13 - the note in the margin reads, "Tob. 4:7," a cross-reference to a book of Tobit in the Apocrypha

- John 10:22 - the note in the margin reads, "1 Macc. 4:59," a cross-reference to a book of 1 Maccabees in the Apocrypha

- Hebrews 11:35 - the note in the margin reads, "2 Macc. 7:7," a cross-reference to a book of 2 Maccabees in the Apocrypha

*Significance: why have a cross-reference to an "uninspired," "unauthoritative," "unscriptural" book?


[h=4]The REAL 1611 KJV had these other marginal notes of interest[/h]
- Isaiah 14:12 - "How art thou fallen from heauen, O Lucifer, sonne of the morning?" The marginal note reads, "Or, O daystarre"

* Significance: KJV-Onlyist literature attacks modern translations which read morning star or day star instead of Lucifer because they allegedly "equate Satan with Jesus (cf. Rev. 22:16)." Yet the marginal reading in the 1611 KJV is the same as the one found in modern translations.


[h=4]Other Websites Of Interest[/h]
KJV-Only Advocates Refuted!
The KJV-Only Issue
WHAT... is "KING JAMES ONLYISM ?"
The KJV Debate
The Heresy of KJV-Onlyism Page

 

[Nehemiah6]

You have not addressed Trofimus' question: at Jesus' baptism, did the Father say, "Thou art My beloved Son" or "This is My beloved Son"?

His question was addressed, and Trofimus has gone well beyond legitimate questions. I presented the Greek text which was correctly translated. As to how and why God allowed the differences we are not told, and indeed we do not need to know. If we walk by faith and not by sight, it should be sufficient that that is how Scripture was written. Anything which attempts to pry beyond what is revealed is not of God.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I agree that those translations that follow the majority text are superior translations. I would not call the others corrupted.

Well evidently you have failed to investigate this matter thoroughly. As I have mentioned a few times, all Christians who want to know the truth about this should start by reading and studying The Revision Revised by Dean John William Burgon, and then go on to study the other books on this subject by both Burgon and Scrivener. They confirm that the modern Bibles (since 1881) were corrupted by relying on the Minority Text of Aleph A B C D (and a few others) used for the critical texts of Westcott & Hort, Nestle, Nestle-Aland, United Bible Societies, etc. We have this eye-opener in The Revision Revised:

We know that Origen in Palestine, Lucian at Antioch, Hesychius in Egypt, “revised” the text of the N. T. Unfortunately, they did their work in an age when such fatal misapprehension prevailed on the subject, that each in turn will have inevitably imported a fresh assortment of monstra into the sacred writings. Add, the baneful influence of such spirits as Theophilus (sixth Bishop of Antioch, A.D. 168), Tatian, Ammonius, &c., of whom we know there were very many in the primitive age,—some of whose productions, we further know, were freely multiplied in every quarter of ancient Christendom:—add, the fabricated Gospels which anciently abounded; notably the Gospel of the Hebrews, about which Jerome is so communicative, and which (he says) he had translated into Greek and Latin:—lastly, freely grant that here and there, with well-meant assiduity, the orthodox themselves may have sought to prop up truths which the early heretics (Basilides, A.D. 134, Valentinus, A.D. 140, with his disciple Heracleon, Marcion, A.D. 150, and the rest,) most perseveringly assailed;—and we have sufficiently explained how it comes to pass that not a few of the codices of primitive Christendom must have exhibited Texts which were even scandalously corrupt.

“It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound,” writes the most learned of the Revisionist body, “that the worst corruptions, to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed: that Irenæus [A.D. 150] and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.” [Quoting Scrivener]

And what else are codices Aleph B C D but specimens—in vastly different degrees—of the class thus characterized by Prebendary Scrivener? Nay, who will venture to deny that those codices are indebted for their preservation solely to the circumstance, that they were long since recognized as the depositories of Readings which rendered them utterly untrustworthy?

The Revision Revised, pp. 55,56.

 

[Nehemiah6]

How is it, that "ALL SCRIPTURE" referred to in 2 Timothy 3:16 did NOT APPLY to ALL 80 books of the 1611 King James bible, through 1881?

Well the answer is quite simple. The Catholic scholar Jerome rejected the Apocrypha as being divinely inspired, and so did the KJV translators. Therefore they inserted those 15 (not 14) books into a separate section labeled "Apocrypha" but cautioned the reader that this was neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament.

Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.

http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm

 

[MarcR]

Originally Posted by MarcR

The 39 books of the OT were determined at the time of Ezra c. 512-520 B.C.

By whom? And why do you trust him/them?

Originally Posted by MarcR

The 27 Books of the NT were determined by concsensus by the end of the 2nd century A.D.




Are you sure about that concensus? For example Revelation was very suscpicious book into much later period. And the first Church had various canons, if we can call that so. With Hermas, Didaché etc.

Originally Posted by MarcR

The books of the OT apocrypha and the NT apocrypha have been included in various bible versions by many publishers.




Not sure what you mean by publishers, but the very first hand-copied "Bibles" had them.

Originally Posted by MarcR

These books are usually not considered inspired because of either questionable authorship or content.




Considered by whom? And why to trust him/them?

Originally Posted by MarcR

I believe that the 66 books of the OT and NT are divinely inspired.



Why not 65 or 67?

Originally Posted by MarcR

I believe God directly revealed His truth to men of His choosing; and superintended both the recording and transmission of His word.



Which line of text is the superintended line for the OT and which one for the NT?
I believe that God used imperfect men to record and transmit His perfect Word.

Originally Posted by MarcR

I believe that many passages of Scripture include minor errors of fact; but I believe that none of them are of such a nature as to in any way compromise God's message; and that all principles taught are totally reliable.



So, you believe in inspiration of principles, but not of details? Details can have errors?

Originally Posted by MarcR

In spite of the minor errors which I readily acknowledge; I believe that the Bible is the absolute standard of truth and ANYTHING which contradicts it is a lie or an error.




What if the contradiction is in details? Is the Bible the absolute standard in details, too? Or only in principles?

Originally Posted by MarcR

I believe that except for a small number of translations written by cults to promote heresies; all translations ate far more remarkable for their agreement than for their differences.



Translations is a different story... Lets leave them out, for now. Lets suppose that we are able to speak all ancient languages we wish and that we have all manuscripts that are found.


Which line of text is the superintended line for the OT and which one for the NT?

Since the Mesoretic text is virtually identical to the Dead sea scrolls, there is no issue in the OT.

For the NT I prefer the Majority Text; but God can use any and superintends all through the work of the Holy Spirit in the mind of the reader.

Originally Posted by MarcR

The 39 books of the OT were determined at the time of Ezra c. 512-520 B.C.

By whom? And why do you trust him/them?

By the chief priest and scribes who served under Ezra's leadership. I trust them because I believe that their work was guided by the Holy Spirit.

The 27 Books of the NT were determined by concsensus by the end of the 2nd century A.D.

Are you sure about that concensus? For example Revelation was very suscpicious book into much later period. And the first Church had various canons, if we can call that so. With Hermas, Didaché etc.

The books of Hebrews, 2&3 John, 2Peter, Jude, and Revelation were challenged by the church of Rome into the late 4th century; but most churches accepted them from the mid 2nd century on. Both Historical validation and helpfulness of content cause me to accept them.

Originally Posted by MarcR

In spite of the minor errors which I readily acknowledge; I believe that the Bible is the absolute standard of truth and ANYTHING which contradicts it is a lie or an error.




What if the contradiction is in details? Is the Bible the absolute standard in details, too? Or only in principles?

I believe that nothing essential to sound doctrine has been compromised; and that anything tat doesn't effect our understanding of what God is trying to teach us is little or no importance. Where details are important they will be unambiguous.

Originally Posted by MarcR

The books of the OT apocrypha and the NT apocrypha have been included in various bible versions by many publishers.




Not sure what you mean by publishers, but the very first hand-copied "Bibles" had them.

Since Gutenberg invented the printing press, press owners have decided whether or not to include the Apocrypha in Bibles they have published.

Originally Posted by MarcR

These books are usually not considered inspired because of either questionable authorship or content.




Considered by whom? And why to trust him/them?

During the second century there were approximately 325 cities that had established churches each with its own bishop or overseer. These Bishops collectively decided which books were inspired. Books that many considered useful but did not have unanimous acceptance became the Apocrypha. I trust their decisions because I believe they were guided by the Holy Spirit.

More tomorrow:

I got home late and don't want to start another fire. My shoulder is getting sore and I want to give it a rest.

 

[tanakh]

I believe that the bible is inspired. There are what I call degrees of inspiration. The Hebrew Bible consists of three main sections. The traditional Jewish view is that the Torah was dictated by God and is therefore the most inspired. The Sadducees only recognised those books to be inspired. The argument about life after death that they had with Jesus was based on this belief. Next in line of inspiration are the Prophets that include what we call the historical books and lastly the Psalms proverbs and others that don' fit into the other two categories. The last section is known as the Psalms but include all those books.

The Holy Spirit inspired the NT writers. He brought to mind passages from the OT that they knew Jesus teachings. Jesus also knew the OT in that everything he said had its roots in OT Scriptures. Although there are many direct quotations from the OT in the Apostles writings there are many more allusions to OT Scriptures that need to be searched out in order to fully understand the meaning of a passage. This especially true when reading Prophecy. Passages in both testaments often have deeper meanings than the plain text reveals. Allegories types and symbols are used and a method of interpretation called Midrash is used by Jewish interpreters. This was also used by Jesus the Apostles and their contemporaries.

I believe that God uses other books to reveal himself including the Apocrypha which was part of everyone's Bible until the Reformation. I would put any other writing at a lower level than the Bible which should be used to measure anything we read. The saying about picking out the bones comes to mind.

 

[MarcR]

Originally Posted by MarcR

I believe that the 66 books of the OT and NT are divinely inspired.
Why not 65 or 67?

Originally Posted by MarcR

I believe God directly revealed His truth to men of His choosing; and superintended both the recording and transmission of His word.




Which line of text is the superintended line for the OT and which one for the NT?
I believe that God used imperfect men to record and transmit His perfect Word.

Originally Posted by MarcR

I believe that many passages of Scripture include minor errors of fact; but I believe that none of them are of such a nature as to in any way compromise God's message; and that all principles taught are totally reliable.




So, you believe in inspiration of principles, but not of details? Details can have errors?

Originally Posted by MarcR

In spite of the minor errors which I readily acknowledge; I believe that the Bible is the absolute standard of truth and ANYTHING which contradicts it is a lie or an error.




What if the contradiction is in details? Is the Bible the absolute standard in details, too? Or only in principles?

Originally Posted by MarcR

I believe that except for a small number of translations written by cults to promote heresies; all translations ate far more remarkable for their agreement than for their differences.



Translations is a different story... Lets leave them out, for now. Lets suppose that we are able to speak all ancient languages we wish and that we have all manuscripts that are found.

Originally Posted by MarcR

I believe that the 66 books of the OT and NT are divinely inspired.
Why not 65 or 67?

Already answered under by whom and why

Originally Posted by MarcR

I believe that many passages of Scripture include minor errors of fact; but I believe that none of them are of such a nature as to in any way compromise God's message; and that all principles taught are totally reliable.




So, you believe in inspiration of principles, but not of details? Details can have errors?

I believe that most of Scripture is given by verbal plenary inspiration; there may be a mix with some sections given by verbal dictation and some by dynamic inspiration. The important thing is that God clearly communicates all that is necessary to understand whatever truths He is trying to communicate. Where details are important they are protected.

Originally Posted by MarcR

In spite of the minor errors which I readily acknowledge; I believe that the Bible is the absolute standard of truth and ANYTHING which contradicts it is a lie or an error.




What if the contradiction is in details? Is the Bible the absolute standard in details, too? Or only in principles?

I believe that Scripture DOES NOT contradict Scripture. Wherever a translation introduces an apparent contradiction,
one should go back to the original text and look for a reading, consistent with common usage that resolves the conflict.
I believe there will always be one.

You are a bright guy. most of your questions could have been answered by a little research on your part. The questions specifically about my belief are quite acceptable. For the others, why do you expect me to do your study for you?

 

[Dino246]

His question was addressed, and Trofimus has gone well beyond legitimate questions. I presented the Greek text which was correctly translated. As to how and why God allowed the differences we are not told, and indeed we do not need to know. If we walk by faith and not by sight, it should be sufficient that that is how Scripture was written. Anything which attempts to pry beyond what is revealed is not of God.

You responded to Trofimus' question; John146 did not. I addressed him directly when I wrote, "You have not...".

"Anything which attempts to pry beyond what is revealed is not of God" is absolute rubbish. God didn't give us brains so that we could toss them aside when we read the Bible. "We don't need to know" could be used with any uncertainty and any question, even from a new believer. That is the equivalent of "Just trust, don't think, and don't ask questions!" In contrast, the Scripture states, "It is the glory of kings to search out a matter."

 

[Nehemiah6]

"It is the glory of kings to search out a matter."

When the matter can be searched out. But some matters cannot be searched out because God has not revealed some things to us. This applies to Divine inspiration. What we know is that it was a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit to ensure that only those things were recorded which God planned to record, and only those words were recorded which should be. But we are not told how God allowed a person's individual style to be incorporated into Scripture.

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. ["as they were" was inserted] 2 Peter 1:21.

So all we know is that the prophets (and apostles and evangelists) were "moved"* (or borne along or being carried) by the Holy Spirit and thus their writings were "God-breathed" (inspired). God had His own reasons for withholding the details of the actual process of inspiration.

[TABLE="align: center"]
[TR]
[TD]*Strong's Concordance 5342
pheró: to bear, carry, bring forth
Original Word: φέρω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: pheró
Phonetic Spelling: (fer'-o)
Short Definition: I carry, bear, bring, lead
Definition: I carry, bear, bring; I conduct, lead; perhaps: I make publicly known.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[preacher4truth]

You responded to Trofimus' question; John146 did not. I addressed him directly when I wrote, "You have not...".

"Anything which attempts to pry beyond what is revealed is not of God" is absolute rubbish. God didn't give us brains so that we could toss them aside when we read the Bible. "We don't need to know" could be used with any uncertainty and any question, even from a new believer. That is the equivalent of "Just trust, don't think, and don't ask questions!" In contrast, the Scripture states, "It is the glory of kings to search out a matter."

Good answer and sound refutation!

 

[Nehemiah6]

Good answer and sound refutation!

And the refutation has also been refuted.