• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What Does "Inspired" Mean, Relative to the Bible?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeshua you're repeating yourself.

Yeshua said:
Do yuo hold that then originals had no errors/mistakes regrading any thing that was addressed?
You just asked this and I answered you. Read it again.

Yeshua said:
... that all the names were correct, that all dates were correct, that there were NO mistakes in facts recorded down?
Take a look at Isaiah 38:8 in the King James Version and tell me. If you check the Hebrew words, you will find the KJV is dead on in the translations of the words. Go look and report back.
 
You need to read on the subjects

Yeshua said:
yes, but how can it be logocal and scientific to create theories like Global warming, billions of years old, evolutionary processes, when NONE of them can be verified and proven?
In fact, the age of the Universe being approximately 13.7 billion years old has been established quite well. The finding is based on the apparent size of the Universe - which gives a result, and the speed of expansion of the Universe, which gives a result in accord with the size.

Global warming? Partisan political garbage. Evolutionary processes? There's a lot of evidence for it; but it's by no means completely figured yet. But you - YOU - need to look at these matters on your own and not take someone else's word for it. God won't mind you looking and finding out things; it's not like you're going to discover some secret He's hiding behind the curtain.

Our God does NOT encourage ignorance and fear.
 
Gas?

Deacon said:
No problem Archie, through the grand filter of the internet it may seem like fresh air – but my wife tells me I'm passing gas.
Bless you, my son; on a good day, I could loft the Hindenburg.
Deacon said:
So...is the Bible is only "inspired in matters of faith and practice"?
You'll have to forgive me, but this sounds like one of those questions where the wording is given 'special meaning'; and a 'Yes' or 'No' can be misconstrued. But I'll answer your question as I mean it.

The Bible is absolutely reliable - correct, accurate, inspired and so forth - in terms of what it relates about God Himself, about the relationship between God and the Universe, between God and man, and about what God desires and accomplished to have the relationship between God and man on God's terms.

Further, the Bible is absolutely reliable - correct, accurate, inspired and so forth - in terms of historical events. With the one obvious gaffe in Isaiah 38:8 - which is completely understandable due to the ignorance of the time. There are also some questions about names of individuals along the way. (For instance, Moses' father in law is identified as Jethro, priest of Midian (Exodus 2 and 18); in Numbers 10 Moses' father in law is identified as Raguel (Reuel in modern translations) the Midianite. I suppose Moses could have had two fathers in law, but I've never heard that mentioned. Nor have I ever heard of Moses having more than one wife. In the O.T. history, there are several places where the same person is identified by more than one name. It is confusing to some degree, but the answer may be as simple as you are both "Deacon" and "Rob", depending on where one met you. And it does not compromise the main message a bit.

I must make a note here: The Bible's correctness, accurateness, inspiredness and so forthness DOES NOT mean man's understanding of all of it is correct. Blindingly obvious is the mistake between Galileo and the 'Bible says' faction. More immediately, I don't think ANYONE really understands all of Revelation and the "End Times". (Other than it will arrive when the Lord is ready.)

Do I subscribe to the idea that all the autographs are without any flaw by modern standards? I do not believe they have to be. They are 'perfect', which means 'complete'; all the message God wants us to have is there and available. As I've said in other places, it's a silly argument at best, because we do NOT have access to any 'original' manuscripts - autographs - of the Bible texts.

I know that offends some folks. That actually grieves me, but I find it more important to follow the directions of God than the dictates of men. This will offend some folks even more, but I've prayed over the matter on numerous occasions and the Lord hasn't seen fit to correct me - as He has in other matters. So even if I'm wrong, God continues to love me and use me in His service. And most of the Christian believers who know me - including my 'odd' ideas - tend to think I'm 'passable' at least.
 
You need to see this yourself

jbh28 said:
who's Ignorance?
Have you read the passage? (It takes up about five or six verses in Isaiah 38.) I think it to be remarkably self-evident, when viewed from a current perspective.

If you have read it, allow me to remind you God cannot ever be ignorant. Or surprised, for that matter.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Bless you, my son; on a good day, I could loft the Hindenburg.
You'll have to forgive me, but this sounds like one of those questions where the wording is given 'special meaning'; and a 'Yes' or 'No' can be misconstrued. But I'll answer your question as I mean it.

The Bible is absolutely reliable - correct, accurate, inspired and so forth - in terms of what it relates about God Himself, about the relationship between God and the Universe, between God and man, and about what God desires and accomplished to have the relationship between God and man on God's terms.

Further, the Bible is absolutely reliable - correct, accurate, inspired and so forth - in terms of historical events. With the one obvious gaffe in Isaiah 38:8 - which is completely understandable due to the ignorance of the time. There are also some questions about names of individuals along the way. (For instance, Moses' father in law is identified as Jethro, priest of Midian (Exodus 2 and 18); in Numbers 10 Moses' father in law is identified as Raguel (Reuel in modern translations) the Midianite. I suppose Moses could have had two fathers in law, but I've never heard that mentioned. Nor have I ever heard of Moses having more than one wife. In the O.T. history, there are several places where the same person is identified by more than one name. It is confusing to some degree, but the answer may be as simple as you are both "Deacon" and "Rob", depending on where one met you. And it does not compromise the main message a bit.

I must make a note here: The Bible's correctness, accurateness, inspiredness and so forthness DOES NOT mean man's understanding of all of it is correct. Blindingly obvious is the mistake between Galileo and the 'Bible says' faction. More immediately, I don't think ANYONE really understands all of Revelation and the "End Times". (Other than it will arrive when the Lord is ready.)

Do I subscribe to the idea that all the autographs are without any flaw by modern standards? I do not believe they have to be. They are 'perfect', which means 'complete'; all the message God wants us to have is there and available. As I've said in other places, it's a silly argument at best, because we do NOT have access to any 'original' manuscripts - autographs - of the Bible texts.

I know that offends some folks. That actually grieves me, but I find it more important to follow the directions of God than the dictates of men. This will offend some folks even more, but I've prayed over the matter on numerous occasions and the Lord hasn't seen fit to correct me - as He has in other matters. So even if I'm wrong, God continues to love me and use me in His service. And most of the Christian believers who know me - including my 'odd' ideas - tend to think I'm 'passable' at least.

So you are saying that the originals, and the Bible versions of today, are infallible in regards tospiritual mattres, but flawed in other areas?

That the Lord had no errors/mistakes in regrads to salvation issues and doctrines, but allowed for human error in areas of history and science then?
 
Yeshua1 said:
was demon possession and Jesus casting them out, and healings, and His resurrection due to "ignormance of their times?"

maybe red sea and plagues of Egypt also?
Yeshua, this comment was made regarding Isaiah 38 and nothing else.

If you don't want to read the passage and make meaningful commentary, then don't. But do try to pay attention to what is being discussed.

And try to understand this: I have answered your questions - your repeated and persistent questions - several times. I cannot enable you to comprehend. In other words, don't blame me if you cannot understand.
 

jbh28

Active Member
Have you read the passage? (It takes up about five or six verses in Isaiah 38.) I think it to be remarkably self-evident, when viewed from a current perspective.

If you have read it, allow me to remind you God cannot ever be ignorant. Or surprised, for that matter.

I'm not getting it, explain please.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeshua, this comment was made regarding Isaiah 38 and nothing else.

If you don't want to read the passage and make meaningful commentary, then don't. But do try to pay attention to what is being discussed.

And try to understand this: I have answered your questions - your repeated and persistent questions - several times. I cannot enable you to comprehend. In other words, don't blame me if you cannot understand.

maybe because it certainly seems that you say 'hold to no errors/mistakes", but counch that afterwards in terms that sound like you are saying the bible has mistakes/errors in the oringinal manuscrits, but still sufficient to have one read and see the Gospel in it!

Again, are you sayingthe bible is accurate enough in areas to have the truth of the Gospel and jesus presented, as God main intent was, but not in other areas such as history and dates/names etc!
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I'm not getting it, explain please.
I'm not getting it either. I can't see how you can explain the passage other than as a genuine miracle, with no logical or scientific errors possible in such a case, just God reaching down into nature and doing something incredible. Hopefully Archie will explain his point to us.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I'm not getting it either. I can't see how you can explain the passage other than as a genuine miracle, with no logical or scientific errors possible in such a case, just God reaching down into nature and doing something incredible. Hopefully Archie will explain his point to us.

he does seem evasive when asked if he sees all scripture as fully inspired and infallible, as keeps mentioned "yes, in a spiritual sense, accomplishes what God intends it to do!"
 
JBH28, John, others as interested...

who's Ignorance?
I should think it obvious, the ignorance of the writers regarding the organization of the solar system. And I suppose the same ignorance of the 'Bible said' faction following.

If one reads Isaiah 38:8(b) it says (KJV) "... So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down."

The Sun moved back - and that is what the Hebrew word translated 'returned' means, 'moved back'. This is - according to the 'the Bible says' group who arrested Galileo - proof positive the Sun orbits the Earth. The Bible says '... the sun returned...' That's a literal statement and understanding.

Another section which plays into this is Joshua 10 where the Bible records '... the sun stood still in the midst of heaven...' Well, obviously the Sun couldn't 'stand still' unless it was moving around the Earth, right? Again, proof positive the Sun orbits the Earth. At least according to the 'the Bible says' faction.

If the Lord inspired, revealed and directed this be recorded, we may safely believe it is NOT a fraudulent episode or fairy tale. However, when the people writing it recorded it, they did so by writing exactly what they saw, colored by their limited understanding of how the solar system works. So let no one mistake this, I am not suggesting for a moment these witnessed events did not take place. Yeshua, read that sentence several times, I will not answer any questions from you about it. I am stating the obvious, the Sun does not orbit the Earth.

What I am saying is these passages gave rise to some serious misunderstanding later, as the 'Bible said' faction read them 'literally' and concluded - as they already thought - the Sun orbits the Earth. From that, Nikky the Pollack and Galileo were both heretics as they denied the 'literal' words of the Bible. QED.

With that, consider these questions and answer them at least to yourself:

1. Does the Sun orbit the Earth, or the Earth orbit the Sun?
2. Has that arrangement changed since the writing of Joshua and Isaiah?
3. If the Sun does not orbit the Earth, why did God allow the Bible to read that way? (This is the important question.)
 

jbh28

Active Member
I should think it obvious, the ignorance of the writers regarding the organization of the solar system. And I suppose the same ignorance of the 'Bible said' faction following.

If one reads Isaiah 38:8(b) it says (KJV) "... So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down."

The Sun moved back - and that is what the Hebrew word translated 'returned' means, 'moved back'. This is - according to the 'the Bible says' group who arrested Galileo - proof positive the Sun orbits the Earth. The Bible says '... the sun returned...' That's a literal statement and understanding.

Another section which plays into this is Joshua 10 where the Bible records '... the sun stood still in the midst of heaven...' Well, obviously the Sun couldn't 'stand still' unless it was moving around the Earth, right? Again, proof positive the Sun orbits the Earth. At least according to the 'the Bible says' faction.
Have you ever looked at a sunset or a sunrise? Well, I guess technically no since the sun isn't revolving around the earth. Language is rich. The language here is from our perspective. From our perspective, this is what happened. No error here at all. You would never read anything else like this, so why read the Bible this way?

If the Lord inspired, revealed and directed this be recorded, we may safely believe it is NOT a fraudulent episode or fairy tale. However, when the people writing it recorded it, they did so by writing exactly what they saw, colored by their limited understanding of how the solar system works. So let no one mistake this, I am not suggesting for a moment these witnessed events did not take place. Yeshua, read that sentence several times, I will not answer any questions from you about it. I am stating the obvious, the Sun does not orbit the Earth.

What I am saying is these passages gave rise to some serious misunderstanding later, as the 'Bible said' faction read them 'literally' and concluded - as they already thought - the Sun orbits the Earth. From that, Nikky the Pollack and Galileo were both heretics as they denied the 'literal' words of the Bible. QED.

With that, consider these questions and answer them at least to yourself:

1. Does the Sun orbit the Earth, or the Earth orbit the Sun?
2. Has that arrangement changed since the writing of Joshua and Isaiah?
3. If the Sun does not orbit the Earth, why did God allow the Bible to read that way? (This is the important question.)
We take the Bible literarily. No one takes the Bible literally 100% of the time. Because someone misinterprets something isn't God's fault. All the words of the Bible are "God breathed" and are without error. Someone mistranslating or misinterpreting these words doesn't make God's words error.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I should think it obvious, the ignorance of the writers regarding the organization of the solar system. And I suppose the same ignorance of the 'Bible said' faction following.

If one reads Isaiah 38:8(b) it says (KJV) "... So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down."
Isaiah was not ignorant. The problem here is that we shouldn't rely on exegetes as incompetent as the ones who opposed Galileo! That's a non-starter. Modern exegetes have no problem with this passage. (I read a bunch of them when I was teaching through this book in a Japanese Bible school.) Before believing such passages to be evidence of errors in the Bible, I suggest you get some good, conservative, modern commentaries. This passage may easily be interpreted literally even considering modern science. Isaiah made no errors.

Here is Keil & Delitzsch easily solving the problem:

"'Steps of Ahaz' was the name given to a sun-dial erected by him. As ma‛ălâh may signify either one of a flight of steps or a degree (syn. madrigâh), we might suppose the reference to be to a dial-plate with a gnomon; but, in the first place, the expression points to an actual succession of steps, that is to say, to an obelisk upon a square or circular elevation ascended by steps, which threw the shadow of its highest point at noon upon the highest steps, and in the morning and evening upon the lowest either on the one side or the other, so that the obelisk itself served as a gnomon. It is in this sense that the Targum on 2Ki_9:13 renders gerem hamma‛ălōth by derag shâ‛ayyâ', step (flight of steps) of the sun-dial; and the obelisk of Augustus, on the Field of Mars at Rome, was one of this kind, which served as a sun-dial. The going forward, going down, or declining of the shadow, and its going back, were regulated by the meridian line, and under certain circumstances the same might be said of a vertical dial, i.e., of a sun-dial with a vertical dial-plate; but it applies more strictly to a step-dial, i.e., to a sun-dial in which the degrees that measure definite periods of time are really gradus. The step-dial of Ahaz may have consisted of twenty steps or more, which measured the time of day by half-hours, or even quarters. If the sign was given an hour before sunset, the shadow, by going back ten steps of half-an-hour each, would return to the point at which it stood at twelve o'clock. But how was this effected? Certainly not by giving an opposite direction to the revolution of the earth upon its axis, which would have been followed by the most terrible convulsions over the entire globe; and in all probability not even by an apparently retrograde motion of the sun (in which case the miracle would be optical rather than cosmical); but as the intention was to give a sign that should serve as a pledge, and therefore had not need whatever to be supernatural, it may have been simply through a phenomenon of refraction, since all that was required was that the shadow which was down at the bottom in the afternoon should be carried upwards by a sudden and unexpected refraction. Hamma‛ălōth (the steps) in Isa_38:8 does not stand in a genitive relation to tsēl (the shadow), as the accents would make it appear, but is an accusative of measure, equivalent to בַּמַּעַלוֹת in the sum of the steps (2Ki_20:11). To this accusative of measure there is appended the relative clause: quos (gradus) descendit (יָרָדָהְ; צֵל being used as a feminine) in scala Ahasi per solem, i.e., through the onward motion of the sun. When it is stated that “the sun returned,” this does not mean the sun in the heaven, but the sun upon the sun-dial, upon which the illuminated surface moved upwards as the shadow retreated; for when the shadow moved back, the sun moved back as well. The event is intended to be represented as a miracle; and a miracle it really was. The force of will proved itself to be a power superior to all natural law; the phenomenon followed upon the prophet's prayer as an extraordinary result of divine power, not effected through his astronomical learning, but simply through that faith which can move mountains, because it can set in motion the omnipotence of God" (accessed through e-Sword software).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I should think it obvious, the ignorance of the writers regarding the organization of the solar system. And I suppose the same ignorance of the 'Bible said' faction following.

If one reads Isaiah 38:8(b) it says (KJV) "... So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down."

The Sun moved back - and that is what the Hebrew word translated 'returned' means, 'moved back'. This is - according to the 'the Bible says' group who arrested Galileo - proof positive the Sun orbits the Earth. The Bible says '... the sun returned...' That's a literal statement and understanding.

Another section which plays into this is Joshua 10 where the Bible records '... the sun stood still in the midst of heaven...' Well, obviously the Sun couldn't 'stand still' unless it was moving around the Earth, right? Again, proof positive the Sun orbits the Earth. At least according to the 'the Bible says' faction.

If the Lord inspired, revealed and directed this be recorded, we may safely believe it is NOT a fraudulent episode or fairy tale. However, when the people writing it recorded it, they did so by writing exactly what they saw, colored by their limited understanding of how the solar system works. So let no one mistake this, I am not suggesting for a moment these witnessed events did not take place. Yeshua, read that sentence several times, I will not answer any questions from you about it. I am stating the obvious, the Sun does not orbit the Earth.

What I am saying is these passages gave rise to some serious misunderstanding later, as the 'Bible said' faction read them 'literally' and concluded - as they already thought - the Sun orbits the Earth. From that, Nikky the Pollack and Galileo were both heretics as they denied the 'literal' words of the Bible. QED.

With that, consider these questions and answer them at least to yourself:

1. Does the Sun orbit the Earth, or the Earth orbit the Sun?
2. Has that arrangement changed since the writing of Joshua and Isaiah?
3. If the Sun does not orbit the Earth, why did God allow the Bible to read that way? (This is the important question.)

So you would agree that the red sea was parted, that there were 10 plaugues in Egypt, and that in NT, there were actual demon possessions and healings?
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Have you ever looked at a sunset or a sunrise? Well, I guess technically no since the sun isn't revolving around the earth. Language is rich. The language here is from our perspective. From our perspective, this is what happened. No error here at all. You would never read anything else like this, so why read the Bible this way?

We take the Bible literarily. No one takes the Bible literally 100% of the time. Because someone misinterprets something isn't God's fault. All the words of the Bible are "God breathed" and are without error. Someone mistranslating or misinterpreting these words doesn't make God's words error.

Sometimes the Lord might also have chosen to use natural items like earthquake, volcanos, storms etc to have his will done, as he controlled when/where those irems hit!
 
Sorry I brought it up.

Anything I might say from here would simply be taken as offensive. I pointed it out, but I cannot force understanding. I'm done with it.
 
Other miracles

Yeshua1 said:
So you would agree that the red sea was parted, that there were 10 plaugues in Egypt, and that in NT, there were actual demon possessions and healings?
Yes, I do.

There are several 'scientific' explanations for some of these events - ranging from the plausible to the ridiculous. Since God is the one who designed and established all laws of nature, I do not find the idea that God used 'nature' in His dealings with man to be either impossible, unlikely or heretical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top