Is Scripture "God-breathed"?

Is Scripture "God-breathed"?

That's what 2 Tim. 3:16 says: the word sometimes translated "inspired" or "given by inspiration" is theopneustos - God-breathed. The NIV translates it literally.

 

It doesn't matter if I believe it or not. My belief or lack thereof does not diminish the Truth of it. This is no different that the Deity of Christ or the existence of hell and its nature. These are all truths which Scripture asserts and my belief or lack of belief will not alter it.

Perhaps I misunderstood your purpose for the poll?

 

The problem with the terms inerrancy and infallibility is that a segment of the Christian community equates those terms with "verbal, plenary" inspiration. I believe that the Bible is without error in its record of God's revelation of himself to humans, and I believe the principles it teaches regarding a personal relationship with God, when contextually interpreted and consistently applied, are infallible. But I do not accept a verbal dictation theory, since the evidence clearly makes that an impossibility. As far as all of the content of scripture being inspired, I'd agree with that.

 

That's hardly a problem. That is, in fact, the biblical teaching on the matter.

That's good, because verbal dictation is not taught in Scripture. Hardly anyone believes that.

 

The problem with the terms inerrancy and infallibility is that a segment of the Christian community equates those terms with "verbal, plenary" inspiration.

You must be using some new definition of the word "problem" that hasn't made it this far yet.

 

I have read and agree with the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Until men like W.A. Criswell, Adrian Rogers, Jerry Vines, Paige Patterson, and Baily Smith came on the seen the inspriation of scripture was a controversy at least in the Southern Baptist realm.

Recently it appears that this is becomeing more and more a controversy once again.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works


Websters Dictionary defines the following as :

Inerrant: not erring; making no mistakes; infallable

Inerrancy: the state or quality of being inerrant

Verbal: literal; word for word; as, a verbal translation

Plenary: full; entire; complete; absolute


The Bible is clearly inerrant, God breathed, literal in all its meaning, and complete. No one needs to add to it and no one should take away from it. God did not just give man the general idea but he directed his exact thought through the personality that He gave his creation. No outside counsel is necessary. It is sufficient for all matters and for all men.

 

I was about to answer with the inerrant, infallible, inspired Word until I realized that this did not refer to the original mss. They WERE infallible, inerrant, etc. But, having been a translator myself (deaf to hearing), I know full well that translators/interpreters must make choices which can decrease the richness of the original meanings.

Inerrant, infallible in the originals, yes. Subject to some errors since, yes. However, God being God, the message has survived all our attempts to 'understand' it in our own terms and the basic message of man, sin, God, redemption, Christ, the crucifixion, the resurrection, the coming judgement and age, yes -- that's all there. The errors we have found are usually minor -- numbers and that sort of thing. There are a few which are really interesting, though. For instance, in the ancient Alexandrian LXX (as differentiated from later Greek translations which were taken from the Masoretic), it appears that Cain repented. Thus, if so, the 'mark of Cain' is a mark of forgiveness, not of judgment!

In the originals, in the message, in the basics -- infallible, inerrant, absolutely the Word of God. In our translations -- some errors, whether intentional or matters of the understanding of the interpreters and translators I do not have the expertise to know.

 

I think the scriptures themselves do not lend toward a complete literal or verbal view. Not only is it unnecessary for belief in a sufficient, infallible revelation, but it leads to distortions and a whole set of inconsistent interpretations and guesses at what something might have meant, when the principle is clear. I believe the text of the whole Bible is inspired, as Peter said, written by men who were carried along by the spirit, and is therefore infallible. Their experiences were historical, their conclusions consistent with God's intentions, their motivation moved by the Holy Spirit, their words, their own, as clearly evidenced by the varying styles of writing, except in the places where they clearly distinguish God's verbal instruction.

As Josh McDowell writes, the Bible itself will tell you how to interpret it. If that's what you mean by literal, according to the contexts that are clearly defined, then I'd agree with that.

Are you saying that when the men who wrote the scripture were in that process, they were themselves perfect and infallible?

 

Not at all. And there isnt anything in what I said that should lead anyone to believe that. Are the very individual words in scripture inspired by God? Absolutely! For if one word were to deviate from what God intended and were to distort Gods' intentions then God has the power to keep his words and intent true.

I think the argument that the bible is not literal in each and every word is unnecessary semantics. Can God say every word exactly as he desires and yet use the personality of the writer? Absolutely! He created each and every writer and while men are fallable God can work through a fallable man and write each and every word as He wants. No problem there.

Not only is the word of God literal in its wording but it is literal in its meaning. Each and every thought has a literal meaning.

2Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.


Bottom line is God is not hampered by man in completeing His will.

Both verbal and plenary are accurate terms to describe the living and powerful Word of God.

 

Inerrant and infallible are inseparable.

This is verbal inspiration. I am not sure why you say you don't believe in it, when you then give a pretty clear statement of it beginning with the words "I beleive."

Verbal inspiration is not dictation. Perhaps you are confusing some things here.

They were as they wrote Scripture or spoke from God. They were not guaranteed to be perfect and infallible in non-inspired moments of communication.

 

Are you talking about the initial books of the Bible as written by their authors or one of the currently available translations?

 

If the Bible, in the original manuscripts, is not inspired by God, infallible and inerrant, my salvation rests on hot air, and I should be of all men most miserable. That would be an horrible discovery in my late years.

Cheers,

Jim

 

2Pe 1:19 ¶ We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Joh 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Ps 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Who cares what man thinks about his word, God leaves us in no doubt what he thinks.

 

The poll titled:
#6 Bible Inerrancy Poll
which is located at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=30182&page=6

explores the variant meanings of 'inerrancy' that members
of the Baptist Board (BB) use.