God's Inspiration of the Bible

[John of Japan]

The Prophets all spoke and wrote in a different fashion, and in the NT books, Luke greek much more polished then say that used by peter! Which makes sense, as one is a dr, and the other fisherman by trade!

Exactly! In discussing the inspiration of Scripture, one has to deal in one way or another the differences in style, vocabulary, syntax, etc., of the human authors. I believe that the Scriptures are 100% the Word of God, and 100% a human book, though protected from error by the Holy Spirit. If someone says that is impossible, then they have not considered the hypostatic union of Christ. "For with God, nothing shall be impossible."

 

[Yeshua1]

I'll add here that the term "mechanical dictation" is a term invented by liberals to mock fundamentalists. The term "dictation" has been used by theologians like Gaussen and Rice, but both men would reject the term "mechanical."

This is a very personal doctrine to me, since I was at BJU in the fall of 1971 when John R. Rice was accused by the faculty there of teaching mechanical dictation in his 1969 book, Our God-Breathed Book, the Bible. He actually had two chapters in his book rejecting "mechanical" dictation, but that didn't stop his opponents.

The view of "mechanical dictation" seems to be more akin as how Muslims see the interaction between Allah and Muhammed!

 

[Yeshua1]

Exactly! In discussing the inspiration of Scripture, one has to deal in one way or another the differences in style, vocabulary, syntax, etc., of the human authors.

Exactly! The Lord used someone like Paul to gave to us his "fancy theology", while James used to give us his "practical theology"
One like a Sproul, other like a Swindoll!

 

[37818]

Oh this is a problem of language. The word scripture meaning a writing. 2 Timothy 3:15 "Holy" qualifying the type of writing. We accept the 66 books of our Bible to be such writings.

 

[Yeshua1]

This does not discount dictated Inspiration

God used each one of them in their own unique way, as they each had a way to speak and write their own way from each other!

 

[rlvaughn]

The term "dictation" has been used by theologians like Gaussen and Rice, but both men would reject the term "mechanical."

Hopefully, I'll not distract too far from the main subject of the thread. How would you explain the difference in mechanical dictation and how Brother Rice used the term dictation? Thanks.

 

[SavedByGrace]

God used each one of them in their own unique way, as they each had a way to speak and write their own way from each other!

is the Bible 100% THE Word of Almighty God, or that of God and Man? You have still not responded to the use of the passive in 2 Tim. 3:16, and 2 Peter 1:21?

 

[John of Japan]

Hopefully, I'll not distract too far from the main subject of the thread. How would you explain the difference in mechanical dictation and how Brother Rice used the term dictation? Thanks.

Rice, following 19th century Swiss theologian Louis Gaussen (François Samuel Robert Louis Gaussen, 1790-1863, Theopneusty; Or, the Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures), used the term "dictation" to emphasize verbal inspiration. However, neither man believed or taught that the process was mechanical; in other words, that the process did not engage the personality and thoughts of the human writer. The liberal usage of "mechanical dictation" on the other hand, accuses conservatives who stand for verbal inspiration of believing in a mechanical process by which God overrode the personalities of the human writers. Gaussen and Rice argued for a miraculous process in which the final product of Scripture was 100% God's Word and 100% the words of the human writer, albeit superintended by the Holy Spirit to preserve 100% inerrancy.

 

[John of Japan]

is the Bible 100% THE Word of Almighty God, or that of God and Man? You have still not responded to the use of the passive in 2 Tim. 3:16, and 2 Peter 1:21?

There is no passive in 2 Tim. 3:16. It's an adjective with the εἰμι being understood. However, as you say, φερόμενοι in 2 Peter 1:21 is a passive participle.

 

[SavedByGrace]

There is no passive in 2 Tim. 3:16. It's an adjective with the εἰμι being understood. However, as you say, φερόμενοι in 2 Peter 1:21 is a passive participle.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges.

"given by inspiration of God] One word in the original, a passive verbal, occurring only here in N.T., and meaning ‘filled with the breath of God’ so as to be ‘living oracles,’ Act 7:38. Cf. 2Pe 1:21, ‘holy men of God moved by the Holy Spirit.’"

The New American Commentary

"Fourth, what is the meaning of the adjective “God-breathed”? Is it active in meaning, suggesting that all Scripture has an inspiring effect? Is it passive in meaning, suggesting that all Scripture has its origin in God, is the product of the breath of God? The Greek word (theopneustos) contains a suffix (tos), which frequently suggests a passive meaning (e.g., agapētos, “loved [by God],” Rom 1:7). The term in our text is passive in its meaning"

Richard Lenski

"The major question is one regarding the predicative θεόπνευστος, or call it the predicate if you prefer the translation “is inspired.” Is this verbal adjective passive or is it active? So assured is the passive sense that Wohlenberg is right when he says that this needs no proof. B.-P. 556 devotes only four short lines to establish the undoubted meaning: von Gott eingegeben, inspiriert.
The claim is often made that θεόπνευστος is active, “breathing God,” at least that it may be active and must not be passive. Why is this verbal passive beyond the shadow of a doubt? Stoeckhardt and Kretzmann collect examples of compound verbal adjectives in τος and think the passive is assured when the antepenult has the accent. Yet the passive form is not a matter of the accent. This proof is not conclusive. In such compounds the accent naturally shifts forward: τος is also naturally passive and is only a few times used with actives. We have much stronger evidence.
The proof lies in Θεός and in the verbs that are compounded with Θεός to form the verbals. Let the student take Liddell and Scott and examine the long list of “god” verbals in τος. Why are all these verbals plainly and necessarily passive? Because God alone can be the agent! In this multitude of verbals there appears θεόπνευστος, “God-inspired.” We find only two in which God is the object, and even one of these is passive: θεοδήλητος, “by which the gods are injured.” The other is active: θεοσύστατος, “praising God.” These exceptions are not due to the accent, which is still on the antepenult; they are due to the meaning of the two verbs involved. One of these verbs still leaves us a passive verbal, and only the lone other an active.

 

[SavedByGrace]

The view of "mechanical dictation" seems to be more akin as how Muslims see the interaction between Allah and Muhammed!

You and a few others on here need to understand Greek grammar. Then you can understand what the use of the passive means

 

[OnlyaSinner]

Hopefully, I'll not distract too far from the main subject of the thread. How would you explain the difference in mechanical dictation and how Brother Rice used the term dictation? Thanks.

To me, mechanical dictation was Epaphroditus scratching out the words as Paul dictated his letter to the church at Philippi. Ephaphroditus' input was merely penmanship, with none of his personality involved (assuming he was a faithful amanuensis). One can logically label as "dictation" the process by which Paul spoke that letter but it's not the same, as God utilized Paul's personality and experiences as part of inspiring the letter. We cannot know exactly how Paul perceived his role in the letter's composition, and IMO we cannot know whether all the human penholders knew they were being inspired by God as they recorded the words.

 

[John of Japan]

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges.

"given by inspiration of God] One word in the original, a passive verbal, occurring only here in N.T., and meaning ‘filled with the breath of God’ so as to be ‘living oracles,’ Act 7:38. Cf. 2Pe 1:21, ‘holy men of God moved by the Holy Spirit.’"

A very old (too old) resource, going back to 1882. Θεόπνευστος is not a "passive verbal" in modern thinking. This is not a usage of the adjective in modern grammars.

The New American Commentary

"Fourth, what is the meaning of the adjective “God-breathed”? Is it active in meaning, suggesting that all Scripture has an inspiring effect? Is it passive in meaning, suggesting that all Scripture has its origin in God, is the product of the breath of God? The Greek word (theopneustos) contains a suffix (tos), which frequently suggests a passive meaning (e.g., agapētos, “loved [by God],” Rom 1:7). The term in our text is passive in its meaning"

Again, θεόπνευστος is an adjective, just as the NAC says. As for a suffix -τος being passive in meaning, that's not the point. If one of my students parsed the word as "verb: pres. act. ind. 3rd sing." I would mark it wrong.

Richard Lenski

"The major question is one regarding the predicative θεόπνευστος, or call it the predicate if you prefer the translation “is inspired.” Is this verbal adjective passive or is it active? So assured is the passive sense that Wohlenberg is right when he says that this needs no proof. B.-P. 556 devotes only four short lines to establish the undoubted meaning: von Gott eingegeben, inspiriert.
The claim is often made that θεόπνευστος is active, “breathing God,” at least that it may be active and must not be passive. Why is this verbal passive beyond the shadow of a doubt? Stoeckhardt and Kretzmann collect examples of compound verbal adjectives in τος and think the passive is assured when the antepenult has the accent. Yet the passive form is not a matter of the accent. This proof is not conclusive. In such compounds the accent naturally shifts forward: τος is also naturally passive and is only a few times used with actives. We have much stronger evidence.
The proof lies in Θεός and in the verbs that are compounded with Θεός to form the verbals. Let the student take Liddell and Scott and examine the long list of “god” verbals in τος. Why are all these verbals plainly and necessarily passive? Because God alone can be the agent! In this multitude of verbals there appears θεόπνευστος, “God-inspired.” We find only two in which God is the object, and even one of these is passive: θεοδήλητος, “by which the gods are injured.” The other is active: θεοσύστατος, “praising God.” These exceptions are not due to the accent, which is still on the antepenult; they are due to the meaning of the two verbs involved. One of these verbs still leaves us a passive verbal, and only the lone other an active.

Lenski is simply wrong, in modern Greek grammatical thinking. That's because he's very old school (1864-1936). Greek semantics has progressed much since his day so that, for example, Liddell & Scott is often not relevant, being a classical lexicon. Also, Greek grammar has progressed a lot since Lenski's day. I believe you would be helped by a more modern grammar such as Wallace, Black, Blass & DeBrunner, or even Robertson, though his grammar is older (but a classic).

Again, in modern grammar the word is an adjective, not a "verbal adjective." Verbal adjectives in Greek grammar are participles. "The participle is a declinable verbal adjective" (Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 613). "The participle is a verbal adjective" (David Alan Black, It's Still Greek to Me, 121). And you can check any number of other standard grammars. Robertson also calls the participle a "verbal adjective," by the way, in his massive 1934 grammar (p. 372).

Now there is a predicate usage to the adjective, in addition to the substantival or attributive usage, and that is what is in play here. But that does not make the adjective a verb, but simply means you can translate with the "to be" verb in English. So the most literal translation would be, "All Scripture is God-breathed."

Forgive me for sounding pedantic, but that's what I do. I'm a Greek professor.

 

[SavedByGrace]

A very old (too old) resource, going back to 1882. Θεόπνευστος is not a "passive verbal" in modern thinking. This is not a usage of the adjective in modern grammars.


Again, θεόπνευστος is an adjective, just as the NAC says. As for a suffix -τος being passive in meaning, that's not the point. If one of my students parsed the word as "verb: pres. act. ind. 3rd sing." I would mark it wrong.


Lenski is simply wrong, in modern Greek grammatical thinking. That's because he's very old school (1864-1936). Greek semantics has progressed much since his day so that, for example, Liddell & Scott is often not relevant, being a classical lexicon. Also, Greek grammar has progressed a lot since Lenski's day. I believe you would be helped by a more modern grammar such as Wallace, Black, Blass & DeBrunner, or even Robertson, though his grammar is older (but a classic).

Again, in modern grammar the word is an adjective, not a "verbal adjective." Verbal adjectives in Greek grammar are participles. "The participle is a declinable verbal adjective" (Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 613). "The participle is a verbal adjective" (David Alan Black, It's Still Greek to Me, 121). And you can check any number of other standard grammars. Robertson also calls the participle a "verbal adjective," by the way, in his massive 1934 grammar (p. 372).

Now there is a predicate usage to the adjective, in addition to the substantival or attributive usage, and that is what is in play here. But that does not make the adjective a verb, but simply means you can translate with the "to be" verb in English. So the most literal translation would be, "All Scripture is God-breathed."

Forgive me for sounding pedantic, but that's what I do. I'm a Greek professor.

the older scholars are wrong, and the new right? yeah! You probably also think that Greek scholars like Trench, Lightfoot, Hort, Westcott, Ellicott, are outdated? Thanks, not, no thanks. For you to say that Lenski is "simply wrong", say a lot!

 

[SavedByGrace]

I'm a Greek professor

indeed, and the same one that I showed to be wrong the last time when we were discussing ανδρες αδελφοι

 

[John of Japan]

the older scholars are wrong, and the new right? yeah! You probably also think that Greek scholars like Trench, Lightfoot, Hort, Westcott, Ellicott, are outdated? Thanks, not, no thanks. For you to that Lenski is "simply wrong", say a lot!

I have Trench and have occasionally consulted it, but yes, his 1880 work is outdated, because he takes a "word study" approach. Greek lexical semantics was revolutionized by James Barr's book, The Semantics of Biblical Language (1961), followed by Moises Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning (1983).

Lightfoot is still helpful, if you are referring to J. B. Lightfoot, whose commentaries are classic and still consulted. I also have his translation of The Apostolic Fathers, and it is very good. Westcott was good, but is rarely consulted nowadays in the area of Greek, unless you are doing textual criticism, where his work with Hort must be addressed. (I have the two volume American edition of 1886.)

Ellicott (1819-1905) is outdated in the area of Greek, but I'm sure is a blessing in other areas. I don't have it and don't need it, though I understand it is available online.

 

[John of Japan]

indeed, and the same one that I showed to be wrong the last time when we were discussing ανδρες αδελφοι

You da man!

 

[SavedByGrace]

I have Trench and have occasionally consulted it, but yes, his 1880 work is outdated, because he takes a "word study" approach. Greek lexical semantics was revolutionized by James Barr's book, The Semantics of Biblical Language (1961), followed by Moises Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning (1983).

Lightfoot is still helpful, if you are referring to J. B. Lightfoot, whose commentaries are classic and still consulted. I also have his translation of The Apostolic Fathers, and it is very good. Westcott was good, but is rarely consulted nowadays in the area of Greek, unless you are doing textual criticism, where his work with Hort must be addressed. (I have the two volume American edition of 1886.)

Ellicott (1819-1905) is outdated in the area of Greek, but I'm sure is a blessing in other areas. I don't have it and don't need it, though I understand it is available online.

we clearly have different approaches. I have more faith in the older works, like Winer, Buttman, Green Robinson, etc, then Wallace, who I have seen to be wrong in a number of places, like his mentor Meztger was. Thanks for your input.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I have Trench and have occasionally consulted it, but yes, his 1880 work is outdated, because he takes a "word study" approach. Greek lexical semantics was revolutionized by James Barr's book, The Semantics of Biblical Language (1961), followed by Moises Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning (1983).

Lightfoot is still helpful, if you are referring to J. B. Lightfoot, whose commentaries are classic and still consulted. I also have his translation of The Apostolic Fathers, and it is very good. Westcott was good, but is rarely consulted nowadays in the area of Greek, unless you are doing textual criticism, where his work with Hort must be addressed. (I have the two volume American edition of 1886.)

Ellicott (1819-1905) is outdated in the area of Greek, but I'm sure is a blessing in other areas. I don't have it and don't need it, though I understand it is available online.

Recent works

"The significance of θεόπνευστος (vg. divinitus inspirata). The form is passive and has the sense ‘God-breathed’.


Marshall, I. H., & Towner, P. H. (2004). A critical and exegetical commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (793). London; New York: T&T Clark International.

θεόπνευστος (a biblical hapax) is a compound of the word for God, θεός, and the verb “breathe,” πνέω, using the first aorist stem πνευς-, with the verbal adjective ending -τος. The word may be properly rendered “God-breathed,” though under the influence of Vulgate inspirata the more common, but somewhat less accurate, English rendering has been “inspired by God” (cf. 2 Pet. 1:21). If this is a passive verbal form, it indicates that scripture’s source is the breath of God, i.e., that scripture itself is a result of that action. If it is active, it indicates that scripture is filled with God’s breath and that it breathes out the Spirit of God. The latter was argued by Cremer in a later edition of his Lexicon (cf. pp. 730–32 in contrast with the other position, p. 282).
But Warfield demonstrates that in patristic literature the word bears “a uniformly passive significance, rooted in the idea of the creative breath of God” (Inspiration and Authority, 275; see further 245–96). He further indicates that this conclusion is confirmed by “the consideration that compounds of verbals in -τος with θεός normally express an effect produced by God’s activity” (281; see 281f. for a list of more than seventy-five such compounds; cf., e.g., θεοδίδακτος, “instructed by God,” 1 Thes. 4:9). He notes that this is in accord with “the Hebraic conviction that God produces all that He would bring into being by a mere breath” (286). Warfield’s study has proved to be so convincing that BAGD list only his work in its bibliographic note on θεόπνευστος. all occurrences of the word or phrase in the New Testament are listed or it is identified as a New Testament hapax legomenon

Knight, G. W. (1992). The Pastoral Epistles : A commentary on the Greek text (446). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press.


Word Bible Commentary on 2 Timothy 3:16

“θεόπνευστος, “God-breathed,” occurs only here in the Greek Bible, being found rarely in pre-Christian literature (MM, 287; E. Schweizer, TDNT 6:453–55). It has generally been translated “inspired” (Vulgate, inspirate), but the niv translation “God-breathed” accurately reflects the etymology of the compound word (θεός, “God” + πνειν [aorist *πνευ(ς )-], “to breathe” + verbal adjectival ending -τος) and its meaning as asserting the divine origin of Scripture. It denotes not the manner of the inspiration of Scripture but rather its source. Typical of words formed with -τος, it is passive (“Scripture is God-breathed”) and not active (“Scripture emits God’s breath,” i.e., is inspiring; Robertson, Grammar, 157–58, 1095; Moulton, Grammar 1:222)”

 

[John of Japan]

Recent works

"The significance of θεόπνευστος (vg. divinitus inspirata). The form is passive and has the sense ‘God-breathed’.

Marshall, I. H., & Towner, P. H. (2004). A critical and exegetical commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (793). London; New York: T&T Clark International.

This is flat out wrong. It's an adjective, and Greek adjectives cannot have voice, either active or middle or passive. (Japanese adjectives can take on a past tense suffix, but not Greek.) Surely you learned this in your self-study of koine Greek.

θεόπνευστος (a biblical hapax) is a compound of the word for God, θεός, and the verb “breathe,” πνέω, using the first aorist stem πνευς-, with the verbal adjective ending -τος. The word may be properly rendered “God-breathed,” though under the influence of Vulgate inspirata the more common, but somewhat less accurate, English rendering has been “inspired by God” (cf. 2 Pet. 1:21). If this is a passive verbal form, it indicates that scripture’s source is the breath of God, i.e., that scripture itself is a result of that action. If it is active, it indicates that scripture is filled with God’s breath and that it breathes out the Spirit of God. The latter was argued by Cremer in a later edition of his Lexicon (cf. pp. 730–32 in contrast with the other position, p. 282).
But Warfield demonstrates that in patristic literature the word bears “a uniformly passive significance, rooted in the idea of the creative breath of God” (Inspiration and Authority, 275; see further 245–96). He further indicates that this conclusion is confirmed by “the consideration that compounds of verbals in -τος with θεός normally express an effect produced by God’s activity” (281; see 281f. for a list of more than seventy-five such compounds; cf., e.g., θεοδίδακτος, “instructed by God,” 1 Thes. 4:9). He notes that this is in accord with “the Hebraic conviction that God produces all that He would bring into being by a mere breath” (286). Warfield’s study has proved to be so convincing that BAGD list only his work in its bibliographic note on θεόπνευστος. all occurrences of the word or phrase in the New Testament are listed or it is identified as a New Testament hapax legomenon

Knight, G. W. (1992). The Pastoral Epistles : A commentary on the Greek text (446). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press.

Okay, fair enough. Welcome to the 20th century.

But frankly, there is little significance in the fact that BAGD lists only Warfield. It's a very short entry and a very rare word. At any rate, it is one thing to say it is passive (which you did), and another to say it has "passive significance" (which Warfield did). If you are simply trying to prove yourself correct, then I'll bow out and say, "God bless."

Word Bible Commentary on 2 Timothy 3:16

“θεόπνευστος, “God-breathed,” occurs only here in the Greek Bible, being found rarely in pre-Christian literature (MM, 287; E. Schweizer, TDNT 6:453–55). It has generally been translated “inspired” (Vulgate, inspirate), but the niv translation “God-breathed” accurately reflects the etymology of the compound word (θεός, “God” + πνειν [aorist *πνευ(ς )-], “to breathe” + verbal adjectival ending -τος) and its meaning as asserting the divine origin of Scripture. It denotes not the manner of the inspiration of Scripture but rather its source. Typical of words formed with -τος, it is passive (“Scripture is God-breathed”) and not active (“Scripture emits God’s breath,” i.e., is inspiring; Robertson, Grammar, 157–58, 1095; Moulton, Grammar 1:222)”

I have TDNT, and it says on p. 454 that θέοπνευστος is "used attributively to describe γραφή. A Greek word can only be used attributively if it is an adjective or a participle. Friberg's Anlex calls it an adjective. I'm pretty sure other analytical lexicons do the same.

I have Robertson, and checked the pages listed, but he does not list theopneustos there, nor does he call it a verbal in the two places in his massive grammar where he mentions it. He certainly does not call it passive. Again, it's an adjective, not a participle.

I'm bowing out now. God bless.