God's Inspiration of the Bible

[SavedByGrace]

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.


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."


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.

OK thanks for your time. Blessings

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

Its the very words of God penned down to us by Humans!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

That viewpoint would be the same as has been held by vast majority of conservative scholarship in Church history!

 

[Yeshua1]

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

We do understand the Greek Grammar well enough to know that God did not turn the Apostles into robots, or into going into trance writers as in the Occult!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Its describing to us where scriptures came from, the Who, but not as to the How!

 

[Yeshua1]

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!

No, John is saying that should consult also more modern sources for further insights!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.


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."


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.

All of the Greek is saying to us is that all scriptures came to us from God directly, but does NOT state was dictated to us mechanically!

 

[SavedByGrace]

No, John is saying that should consult also more modern sources for further insights!

In my years of study in the Greek text I have learned from experience that the older scholars are more reliable than Wallace etc

 

[SavedByGrace]

All of the Greek is saying to us is that all scriptures came to us from God directly, but does NOT state was dictated to us mechanically!

If you want to disagree with 2 Timothy 3.16 as being in the passive. There is no doubt that it is in the passage in 2 Peter. How do you explain this

 

[Yeshua1]

In my years of study in the Greek text I have learned from experience that the older scholars are more reliable than Wallace etc

Both older and newer sources should be consulted though!

 

[Yeshua1]

If you want to disagree with 2 Timothy 3.16 as being in the passive. There is no doubt that it is in the passage in 2 Peter. How do you explain this

One does not need to hold to mechanical dictation to see all scriptures inspired to us by God!

 

[SavedByGrace]

One does not need to hold to mechanical dictation to see all scriptures inspired to us by God!

We are going around in circles because you fail to see the force of the passive in the verse in 2 Peter. This makes Inspiration dictated by the Holy Spirit. If you think that this is wrong then show how

 

[Yeshua1]

We are going around in circles because you fail to see the force of the passive in the verse in 2 Peter. This makes Inspiration dictated by the Holy Spirit. If you think that this is wrong then show how

He made sure all that was recorded down was accurate, but did not put them into trances to write for God!

 

[SavedByGrace]

He made sure all that was recorded down was accurate, but did not put them into trances to write for God!

The words “under the control”, or as other translations have it, “moved”, etc, come from the Greek, “φερόμενοι”, which is a present passive participle, which is from the verb φέρω. A good example of this verb in the passive voice, can be found in Acts 27:15 and 17, “And when the ship was caught and could not face the wind, we gave way to it and were driven along (ἐφερόμεθα)… After hoisting it up, they used supports to undergird the ship. Then, fearing that they would run aground on the Syrtis, they lowered the gear, and thus they were driven along (ἐφέροντο)” In both cases the ship was “driven” by the wind. Likewise, the Writers of the Books of the Holy Bible, were “passive” in what they wrote, as they were “dictated” to by the Holy Spirit. Because the Words that they wrote, “came from God” (ἀπὸ θεοῦ)., with God being the “source” of what they wrote. They were "compelled" to write what they did. Like the ship, the Writers of the Holy Bible, simply "went along" with what the Holy Spirit told them to write. Exactly as John Trapp, in his commentary on 2 Peter 1:21, says, “As they were moved] φερομενοι. Forcibly moved, acted, carried out of themselves to say and do what God would have them”

This is pure dictation! Now show otherwise. Forget theology, it is what the Bible actually teaches that is important

 

[Yeshua1]

The words “under the control”, or as other translations have it, “moved”, etc, come from the Greek, “φερόμενοι”, which is a present passive participle, which is from the verb φέρω. A good example of this verb in the passive voice, can be found in Acts 27:15 and 17, “And when the ship was caught and could not face the wind, we gave way to it and were driven along (ἐφερόμεθα)… After hoisting it up, they used supports to undergird the ship. Then, fearing that they would run aground on the Syrtis, they lowered the gear, and thus they were driven along (ἐφέροντο)” In both cases the ship was “driven” by the wind. Likewise, the Writers of the Books of the Holy Bible, were “passive” in what they wrote, as they were “dictated” to by the Holy Spirit. Because the Words that they wrote, “came from God” (ἀπὸ θεοῦ)., with God being the “source” of what they wrote. They were "compelled" to write what they did. Like the ship, the Writers of the Holy Bible, simply "went along" with what the Holy Spirit told them to write. Exactly as John Trapp, in his commentary on 2 Peter 1:21, says, “As they were moved] φερομενοι. Forcibly moved, acted, carried out of themselves to say and do what God would have them”

This is pure dictation! Now show otherwise. Forget theology, it is what the Bible actually teaches that is important

The Holy Spirit moved upon and worked thru them to have recorded down exactly what he wanted, but they still wrote it in their own unique ways style and view! IF mechanical dictation, why not exact agreement among the 4 Gospel accounts then?

 

[rlvaughn]

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.

Thanks for sharing those thoughts. I am going to start a separate thread focusing specifically on dictation, since that was somewhat peripheral to what I thought was the focus of Bauder.

 

[rlvaughn]

I have created a second thread more specific to just the idea of dictation of Scripture.
Scripture dictation, mechanical or otherwise

One thing that intrigued me in Bauder’s articles I linked was his comment, “The word inspired is a result word, not a process word.” If I understand correctly, he is saying he believes “inspiration” does not cover the process that led to the result, but only refers to the result.