ECT What does the Doctrine of Inspiration mean to you?

[George Affleck]

You stated the authors of the original manuscripts were inspired , but what they recorded or wrote isn't .

So you must not concider what they wrote to be the Word of God , correct ?

You have entirely missed the explanations given.

 

[George Affleck]

Faither,

Please do not quote my words as your own as you did in post 34.
If you do it again I will report it as plagiarism.

If you do not understand how to use the formatting options, make sure you find out before you post.

 

[Faither]

Faither,

Please do not quote my words as your own as you did in post 34.
If you do it again I will report it as plagiarism.

If you do not understand how to use the formatting options, make sure you find out before you post.

How about a simple answer to my simple question ?

If what the inspired authors recorded and wrote were not inspired as you claimed , do you concider the original manuscripts to be the Word of God ?

 

[George Affleck]

How about a simple answer to my simple question ?

If what the inspired authors recorded and wrote were not inspired as you claimed , do you concider the original manuscripts to be the Word of God ?

Of course it is the Word of God.

And I answered this question already.

 

[Cross Reference]

Inspired writings do not exist. "Inspired" is not an inherent quality of an inanimate object. It can only be said that those who produced them were inspired.

UH? It can be rightly assumed inspiried writings are of an inspired mind and can only be fully partaken of for intended understanding by a hungry inquiring mind blessed of God. Gal. 2:20 KJV ONLY by Paul comes easily to mind when he wrote for our understanding:

"I now live by the FAITH OF the Son of God".

Compare the same verse with the coptic non-inspired interpretation.

Use you favorite translation and prove my point.

 

[Faither]

Of course it is the Word of God.

And I answered this question already.

I knew when I asked you if you see the contradictions , and you said no , I should have just left it at " okay thank you ". Now I'm having to chase you all over the place to get you to stand on a declaration of your understanding you made .
You said ,
1) the authors were inspired by God .
2) what they recorded and wrote were not inspired by God .
3) the original manuscripts were not inspired by God , but you do concider them to be the Word of God .

I'm asking ,
In your understanding , how can the original manuscripts not be inspired by God , and be the Word of God , in your mind ?

Also , since what the authors wrote was not inspired by God , in your understanding , does that mean their thinking was also not inspired by God ? Does that mean what they spoke was also not inspired by God ?

 

[George Affleck]

I knew when I asked you if you see the contradictions , and you said no , I should have just left it at " okay thank you ". Now I'm having to chase you all over the place to get you to stand on a declaration of your understanding you made .
You said ,
1) the authors were inspired by God .
2) what they recorded and wrote were not inspired by God .
3) the original manuscripts were not inspired by God , but you do concider them to be the Word of God .

I'm asking ,
In your understanding , how can the original manuscripts not be inspired by God , and be the Word of God , in your mind ?

Also , since what the authors wrote was not inspired by God , in your understanding , does that mean their thinking was also not inspired by God ? Does that mean what they spoke was also not inspired by God ?

My problem is not with the Word of God, or inspiration, or inerrancy.

The problem is with the English words that are popularly used which lead people to erroneous conclusions.
It's really simple.
We use the word 'inspired' and have no idea what it really means.

Inspiration is a process; a work of the Holy Spirit with a beginning and an end. The Word of God is not in process.
Inerrancy is not a process; it is an abiding, resulting quality, the evidence of inspiration having taken place. The Bible exhibits this quality.

 

[Cross Reference]

My problem is not with the Word of God, or inspiration, or inerrancy.

The problem is with the English words that are popularly used which lead people to erroneous conclusions.
It's really simple.
We use the word 'inspired' and have no idea what it really means.

Inspiration is a process; a work of the Holy Spirit with a beginning and an end. The Word of God is not in process.
Inerrancy is not a process; it is an abiding, resulting quality, the evidence of inspiration having taken place. The Bible exhibits this quality.

Does any of that have any bearing on that fact of Redemption? Salvation? The new birth? How 'bout sonship when one is born again? Where are you in all/any of that?

 

[George Affleck]

Does any of that have any bearing on that fact of Redemption? Salvation? The new birth? How 'bout sonship when one is born again?

None.

Where are you in all/any of that?

This would take too long. Suffice it to say, I accept all doctrine that is biblical. If it cannot be shown from the scriptures, I am against it.

 

[Faither]

My problem is not with the Word of God, or inspiration, or inerrancy.

The problem is with the English words that are popularly used which lead people to erroneous conclusions.
It's really simple.
We use the word 'inspired' and have no idea what it really means.

Inspiration is a process; a work of the Holy Spirit with a beginning and an end. The Word of God is not in process.
Inerrancy is not a process; it is an abiding, resulting quality, the evidence of inspiration having taken place. The Bible exhibits this quality.

Your problems seem to go deeper into your fundamental understanding of God and His ways . Beyond any misunderstanding others may have of the English language and how it's used correctly .

I'm not going to press you to make a stand on your own declarations anymore .

I do want you to know I appreciate you refraining from the misrepresentations and name calling I usually recieve here in this forum .

 

[Cross Reference]

....Poor guy and he is so pure>

 

[George Affleck]

Also , since what the authors wrote was not inspired by God , in your understanding , does that mean their thinking was also not inspired by God ? Does that mean what they spoke was also not inspired by God ?

This needs to be addressed separately.

I did not say that what the authors wrote was not inspired by God.
It was. This was the purpose; to produce an inerrant Word by inspiration.
There is a subtle difference here that you are not getting.

Let's take Mark for example.
He was inspired, from beginning to end, to record what God wanted him to record.
But that inspiration (guidance) ended when he finished.

It is a different thing to say that the scriptures "are inspired" than to say they "were inspired".
Saying they are inspired leaves people with the idea that they contain inspiration as an attribute.
What is really true is that they exhibit the earmarks of having been produced by inspiration of God.

 

[whitestone]

I will not presume to understand your question or the purpose for it when I don't. Perhaps you can elaborate a bit?

oh,okay thanks for the honesty...the things Jesus heard from the father and spoke were they "inspired",,,and whom did he speak them to?

 

[George Affleck]

oh,okay thanks for the honesty...the things Jesus heard from the father and spoke were they "inspired",,,and whom did he speak them to?

"Things" are not capable of being inspired.
Words are not inspired. The word "the" is used about 20,000 times in the New Testament. In the original it was ὁ, ἡ,τό.
This word is not capable of being breathed into (inspire - breathing in). We use this word every day. Can you tell the difference between an inspired one and a non-inspired one?

Men are capable of being inspired (moved, guided, superintended) by the Holy Spirit to produce God's perfect revelation to mankind.
But even holy men are still sinners.
Inspiration was the method God utilized to prompt them into action and prevent them from error while still in their sinful condition.

Neither the Father nor the Son needed to be inspired to speak truth. God is the one doing the inspiring, not receiving inspiration.

It is necessary to get away from the worldly concept of inspiration and stay only within the confines of what God has revealed to us about this process. If we continue to think that "inspired" is an adjective that can somehow be applied to words on a page, we will continue to misunderstand God's process.

If it were possible to expunge from history every author of the books of the Bible, we would be left with nothing true about God. In every case, He has chosen to reveal Himself only and always because of holy men who were moved by the Holy Ghost. If what was produced is true and perfect, what further need is there of inspiration?

 

[whitestone]

"Things" are not capable of being inspired.
Words are not inspired. The word "the" is used about 20,000 times in the New Testament. In the original it was ὁ, ἡ,τό.
This word is not capable of being breathed into (inspire - breathing in). We use this word every day. Can you tell the difference between an inspired one and a non-inspired one?

Men are capable of being inspired (moved, guided, superintended) by the Holy Spirit to produce God's perfect revelation to mankind.
But even holy men are still sinners.
Inspiration was the method God utilized to prompt them into action and prevent them from error while still in their sinful condition.

Neither the Father nor the Son needed to be inspired to speak truth. God is the one doing the inspiring, not receiving inspiration.

It is necessary to get away from the worldly concept of inspiration and stay only within the confines of what God has revealed to us about this process. If we continue to think that "inspired" is an adjective that can somehow be applied to words on a page, we will continue to misunderstand God's process.

If it were possible to expunge from history every author of the books of the Bible, we would be left with nothing true about God. In every case, He has chosen to reveal Himself only and always because of holy men who were moved by the Holy Ghost. If what was produced is true and perfect, what further need is there of inspiration?

John 8:38 KJV ,,, John 5:37 KJv ,,, John 12:49 KJV ... lol,,,"JESUS SAID!"...

 

[George Affleck]

John 8:38 KJV ,,, John 5:37 KJv ,,, John 12:49 KJV ... lol,,,"JESUS SAID!"...

If these verses are meaningful to you, wonderful. But without an explanation from you of how you think they impact what we are talking about, I can't discover your meaning.

I am aware of and have read these verses many times.

 

[whitestone]

If these verses are meaningful to you, wonderful. But without an explanation from you of how you think they impact what we are talking about, I can't discover your meaning.

I am aware of and have read these verses many times.

In John 12:49 KJV ,,,did Jesus say and speak what the father said to say and speak?

 

[George Affleck]

In John 12:49 KJV ,,,did Jesus say and speak what the father said to say and speak?

But you're off topic aren't you? You are forgetting about John.

John is the human author who is recording these words as scripture, not Jesus. John was inspired by the Holy Ghost to record these words of Jesus because God wanted us to know that He said them. Because John was inspired, we know that Jesus did, in fact, utter these exact words. The point is that, without John having been inspired, we would not have these words of Jesus'.

So we know that Jesus said these words, and we know that Jesus does not lie. So what about the fact that Jesus said he was speaking the words of the Father creates an "Aha!" moment from your perspective?

 

[whitestone]

But you're off topic aren't you? You are forgetting about John.

John is the human author who is recording these words as scripture, not Jesus. John was inspired by the Holy Ghost to record these words of Jesus because God wanted us to know that He said them. Because John was inspired, we know that Jesus did, in fact, utter these exact words. The point is that, without John having been inspired, we would not have these words of Jesus'.

So we know that Jesus said these words, and we know that Jesus does not lie. So what about the fact that Jesus said he was speaking the words of the Father creates an "Aha!" moment from your perspective?

lol. not at all,,,was Moses told to write what he heard also?

 

[Faither]

This needs to be addressed separately.

I did not say that what the authors wrote was not inspired by God.
It was. This was the purpose; to produce an inerrant Word by inspiration.
There is a subtle difference here that you are not getting.

Let's take Mark for example.
He was inspired, from beginning to end, to record what God wanted him to record.
But that inspiration (guidance) ended when he finished.

It is a different thing to say that the scriptures "are inspired" than to say they "were inspired".
Saying they are inspired leaves people with the idea that they contain inspiration as an attribute.
What is really true is that they exhibit the earmarks of having been produced by inspiration of God.

Maybe this is all about perspective .

Allow me to ask you a question , and I will tie it into the OP.

Are you familiar with the deeper truths of God being paradoxical ? If yes , give me three examples of this