Quote: Kosherboy ... From the commandments thread.
Who is fighting ? Lol
yes we must seek to reconcile all teachings, but the standard is Christ, we have to assume that Paul is Not God and no one outside God can change anything and even God will not change anything he has already establish, God is immutable and His word is final. That is why I said if there is a difference between what Jesus taught and what Paul taught and there is doubt then Go by what Jesus Said as he is God.
Paul was a subject for error as we all are, there are many things he wrote that seem counter productive and the Law was one of course he was mostly speaking to gentiles as he knew they would not fly with Jews.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This got me to thinking about how we really follow what the Apostles say, and they were as Kosherboy says, human and subject to error.
With this in mind, who would you all say was the Apostle who most closely followed the Words and teachings of Jesus Christ? Was Peter really favored because Jesus said upon this rock He was going to build His church .... Peter = Petros = rock.
Is there anyone who really somewhat strayed that we can tell?
I don't beleive the Bible contains any error. If I thought I saw one, then I would change what I believe toconform toGod's word.
Christ called the Truth that Peterhad just spoken the rock. Peter was no rock--remember who denied Christ three times? Christ's church was not founded upon a man.
__________________
"We can have no '50-50' allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all."-- Theodore Roosevelt
A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left. Ecclesiasties 10:2
The last four letters in American..........I Can
The last four letters in Republican........I Can
The last four letters in Democrats.........Rats
I don't believe God's inspired Word has any mistakes. I do believe that there are some few translational errors and places that could have been tanslated to be clearer . . .and some of the newer texts have done this. None of this however have anything to do with the writings of Paul. I have to say that Paul is not one of my favorite apostles. Mostley , I just don't care for his literary style. I personally seem to get more from the remaining books of the NT than I do from the epistles of Paul. Not to discredit Paul or his epistles . .it's still Bible.
I kinda agree with Alex . . .God just has a better way of putting things than all of his apostles.
__________________ And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
All scripture was given by inspiration of God.
Holy man of old spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
If these things be true, as I affirm that they are, God has taken the human error out of the equation. Whether it be David encouraging worship, Daniel speaking of things yet to come, Peter preaching salvation to the Jews, Samaritians, and Gentiles, or Paul writing to the Gentiles. These men were only vessels that God chose to use to deliever his word into men. God sent the message, these men were just the mail carriers.
I have never understood Matthew 16:18 to signify that the church was built on Peter for the following reason:
Mat 16:18 AndG1161 I say alsoG2504 G3004 unto thee,G4671 ThatG3754 thouG4771 artG1488 Peter,G4074 andG2532 uponG1909 thisG5026 rockG4073 I will buildG3618 myG3450 church;G1577 andG2532 the gatesG4439 of hellG86 shall notG3756 prevail againstG2729 it.G846
Christ said "you are Peter". The greek word for Peter is Petros - meaning a piece of rock. Then Christ said "upon this rock". The word rock used was Petra - meaning a mass of rock.
In my understanding, Christ was talking about Himself when He said "upon this rock I will build my church".
The Bible is full of scriptures that show that Christ is our Rock. We the church are built on him. The parable that talks about the foolish man building his house on the sand and the wise man building his house on the rock uses the same word for rock - petra.
Ephesians 2:19-20 shows further:
"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;".
And also there is 1 Corinthians 10:4:
"And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."
The word "Rock" used in this verse is the same one Christ used in Matthew - Petra. The church is built on Christ, the apostles being with Christ new the foundation and taught it in the letters they wrote.
As for which one which one I prefer, well people were doing that even in New Testament days: 1Co 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
Each one had their own style and their own audience that they were addressing. That's the way the body of Christ is. We all have our own gifts and talents given to us by God to use to further His kingdom. There is such a diverse world out there that no one certain style will work to reach them. The one important thing to remember is that there is only one way -- through Jesus Christ.
That's just my two cents worth....
__________________
"And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose." Romans 8:28
THE BIBLE"S CLAIMS FOR ITS INSPIRATION
Imagine, if you can, that somehow you could have access to every religious book that has ever been written. Imagine, further, that you could run those books through some sort of a sieve, to winnow out only those volumes that claim to be a creed book, by which you should pattern and live your life. That, admittedly, is a tough test"one, likely, that very few books could pass. Imagine further that you could take the books that passed this test, and run them through a second sieve. This time you would winnow out only those books that claim to be both a creed book to be used in regulating your life, andinspired of God. Interestingly, you could count that number on the fingers of a single hand!
The claim of inspiration at the hand of God is rare indeed. Sadly, misguided devotees of various religions clamor about, defending this book or that book as allegedly being "inspired of God," when, in fact, the books themselves do not even make such a claim. So, the first question that should be asked of any volume for which inspiration is touted is this: Does the book itself claim to be inspired?
When it comes to the Bible, that question can be answered easily in the affirmative. In his second letter to his coworker, Timothy, Paul stated: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Peter wrote: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20-21). When he wrote his first epistle to the Christians at Corinth, Paul reminded them:
[blockquote]But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in words which man"s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words (1 Corinthians 2:12-13).[/blockquote]
Furthermore, statements such as "God said..." or "these are the words of the Lord..." appear thousands of times in both the Old and New Testaments. Moses wrote in Exodus 20:1: "And God spake all these words...." The psalmist wrote in 119:89: "For ever, O Jehovah, Thy word is settled in heaven." In Matthew 22:31, the Lord asked: "Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God?" In fact, "There are 2,700 such statements in the Old Testament alone, all of which make direct claim that the Bible is the Word of God" (Ridenour, 1967, p. 2).
When the Bible claims to be "inspired," what is meant by that term? The English term, "inspiration," derives from the Latin inspirare, which means "to breathe upon or into something." The five English words , "given by inspiration of God," in the King James Version of 1611 actually are translated from the single Greek adjective, theopneustos, which is derived from two Greek root words (theos"God, pneo"to blow or breathe). Theologically, "inspiration" is used for the condition of being directly under divine influence. Thus, Paul"s point was that every scripture is "God breathed." [The word "scripture" in 2 Timothy 3:16 refers primarily to the Old Testament Scriptures. However, as the New Testament was written, it, too, was referred to as "scripture." Peter, for example, referred to Paul"s epistles as authoritative and "scripture" (2 Peter 3:15-16). Thus, "all scripture" refers to both testaments.]
In addition, when Peter wrote in 2 Peter 1:20-21 that "men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit," he employed the Greek word pheromenoi, which literally means "borne along." His point was that the Bible writers did not speak from themselves, but were "borne along" by God"s Holy Spirit to write what they did. The Bible writers never credited their words to mere human reason. Both Old and New Testament passages bear this out. In 2 Samuel 23:2 it is written: "The Spirit of Jehovah spake by me, And his word was upon my tongue." In Acts 1:16, Luke observed that "the Holy Spirit spake before by the mouth of David." Likely, however, the best explanatory passage regarding inspiration is Paul"s commentary in 1 Corinthians 2:12-13, wherein he affirmed that the information the Bible writers received came not from human wisdom, but directly from God. Further, that wisdom was not expressed in man"s choice of words, but via words guided by the Holy Spirit.
But exactly what form does inspiration take? In any discussion of the Bible"s inspiration, two words generally are used to amplify the meaning of the term: verbal and plenary. By "verbal," it is meant that every word in the Bible is there because God permitted it by the direction of the Holy Spirit. By "plenary" (from the Latin, plenus"full), it is meant that each and every part of the Bible is inspired, with nothing having been omitted.
In other words, by employing what we today call verbal (word-for-word), plenary (full) inspiration, God ensured that the writings were correct and consistent with His will. This view holds that men wrote exactly what God wanted them to write, without errors or mistakes, yet with their own individual characteristics in evidence in their writings. While the various books of the Bible reflect the writers" personalities as expressed in the human element that often is so evident (type of language used, fears expressed, prayers offered, etc.), it was only by verbal, plenary inspiration that God could convey, objectively and accurately, His Word to mankind.
There is compelling evidence from within the Bible itself about the nature of its own inspiration. In the midst of Jesus" discussion with the Sadducees about their denial of the resurrection of the dead (Matthew 22:23-33), Jesus referred Exodus 3:6 wherein God said to Moses: "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." When God spoke these words, Abraham had been dead some 400 years, yet He still said, "I am the God of Abraham." As Jesus correctly pointed out to the Sadducees, "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (Matthew 22:32). Thus, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob must have been living. The only way they could be living was if their spirits continued to survive the death of their bodies. That kind of conscious existence implies a future ressurection of the body"the very point Christ was attempting to make. Of interest is the fact that His entire argument rested on the tense of the verb!
The same kind of reliance on a single word was expressed by Paul (as he referred to Genesis 22:18) in Galatians 3:16: "Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ" (emp. added). The force of his argument rested on the number of the noun (singular, as opposed to plural). In John 8:58, Jesus said: "I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am." He was attempting to impress upon the Jews His eternal nature, and to do so, He once again based His entire argument on the tense of the verb. This kind of evidence regarding the verbal inspiration of God"s Word should not be overlooked.
We should note, however, that this inspiration process applied only to the original autographs of the sacred writings (i.e., the actual document as penned initially by the writer). While Bible writers were inspired, the scribes, translators, and others who followed were not. This does not mean, as some have suggested, that we do not have God"s Word in an accurate form today. The text of the Bible we possess can be trusted, and counted as reliable. The modernistic idea which suggests that the copying process through the ages has destroyed the essence of inspiration is a "theological scarecrow to frighten those who are not knowledgeable of the art of transmission of the Bible" (Dickson, 1997, p. 319). The copying process through the centuries was so meticulous, and the number of extant manuscripts available for comparison is so large, that the minute variations which do occur are detected easily. Further, these variations are insignificant in nature, and do not affect points of doctrine. Timothy, from his early years, had known the Old Testament "sacred writings" that were able to make him "wise unto salvation" (2 Timothy 3:15). Interestingly, those "sacred writings" were mere copies of the original Old Testament manuscripts, but had been preserved so faithfully through the centuries that the apostle Paul could affirm that their original design"making men wise unto salvation"remained intact.
Several other points should be clarified as well. First, there is an important difference between revelation and inspiration. Revelation represents the revealing of facts and truths by God to humans. Inspiration is the process by which God guided the writing down of those facts and truths. "Revelation is the body of truth which God desired men to possess; inspiration is the way in which He gave this body of truth to men" (Woods, n.d., p. 6). The whole Bible is the result of inspiration, but not all inspired material was revelatory in nature. Paul could quote pagan poets in Acts 17:28 and Titus 1:12 because he already had access to this information, and did not need revelation to employ it. But God inspired him to record these sayings, and to record them accurately. Thus, whether the Bible writer used information already available to him, his own eyewitness accounts, or revelation from God, inspiration guaranteed that it was placed in print in the form in which God desired.
Second, the fact that a person wrote by inspiration does not mean that he was free from personal sin in his life. Israel"s King David penned several Old Testament psalms. The apostle Peter acknowledged that "the Holy Spirit spake before by the mouth of David" (Acts 1:16). Yet this was the same king who committed adultery with Bathsheba, and had her husband, Uriah the Hittite, slain to cover his own sin. Peter himself presented some extremely powerful sermons (e.g., Acts 2:14ff.), and penned two New Testament epistles. Yet he played the hypocrite when he separated himself from the Gentiles to seek favor with the Jews, and received a public rebuke from Paul for it (Galatians 2:11ff.). Thus, while inspiration preserved the integrity of the writer"s words as he was "moved by the Holy Spirit," that process did not diminish his freedom of choice or compel him to live a sinful life.
Third, inspiration was not a twenty-four-hour-a-day process. A few months prior to His death, the Lord informed His disciples that He would shortly enter Jerusalem, where He would suffer and eventually die. Peter, however, rebuked the Lord and said: "Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall never be unto thee" (Matthew 16:22). Obviously, that impetuous utterance was not inspired. In Luke, the story is told of how a group of Samaritans refused aid and comfort to the Lord (9:51ff.). James and John bitterly suggested that the Lord enjoin a "heavenly barbecue" to consume these ill-tempered Samaritans. Their attempt at vengeance"for which they drew the Lord"s ire"hardly was inspired. The truth of the matter is that inspiration guided the writers in what they wrote and spoke from God as they were "borne along" by God"s Spirit"a process that was not active every minute of every day.
Fourth, inspiration extended to a variety of disparate subjects. Today, it is not uncommon to hear liberal theologians, and those sympathetic with them, suggest that the "spiritual" sections of Scripture are inspired, but that all other portions dealing with matters of history, science, geography, medicine, and the like are not. This concept, known as the doctrine of "partial inspiration," is false. Were it true, everyone who reads the text would have the personal responsibility of wading through the biblical documents to decide which matters are "spiritual" (thus, inspired) and which are not (thus, uninspired). On some occasions, therefore, God would have "breathed" truth, while on others He would have "breathed" error. But the question must be asked: If God cannot handle correctly trivial matters (such as geographical directions, or the name of an individual), why would anyone think that they could trust Him with something as critically important as the safety of their eternal soul and expect Him to handle it in a more appropriate fashion? The psalmist stated: "The sum of thy word is truth; And every one of thy righteous ordinances endureth for ever" (Psalm 119:160; emp. added). The concept of partial inspiration impugns the integrity of God, conflicts with the evidences for inspiration, and should be rejected.
Fifth, not only did the Bible writers view each others" works as inspired, but no Bible writer ever criticized another. Today, it is not at all unusual for one religious writer to take issue with another, even when they share the same religious views, or are members of the same religious group. But the Bible writers do not fall into that category"even when one might expect them to do so. For example, as mentioned above, Paul rebuked Peter publicly for his dissimulation (Galatians 2:11ff.). Yet Peter never avenged himself by denigrating Paul"s writings. In fact, Peter wrote:
[blockquote]And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction (2 Peter 3:15-16, emp. added). [/blockquote]
Note especially that Peter referred to Paul"s writings as being classified by the same kind of inspiration as the "other scriptures." Additionally, in defending the right of elders to receive remuneration from the church treasury for their work, Paul quoted both Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7, classifying them both as "scripture" (1 Timothy 5:18). It is clear that the Bible writers considered each others" works to be inspired"a view we today would do well to entertain.
EVIDENCE FOR THE BIBLE"S INSPIRATION
Evidence to substantiate the Bible"s claim for its own inspiration can be drawn from two general sources. External evidences for inspiration include such things as historical documentation of biblical people, places, and events, or archaeological artifacts that corroborate biblical statements or circumstances. Internal evidences are part of the warp and woof of the actual biblical fabric itself. These are self-authenticating phenomena from within the Sacred Volume that bear singular testimony to the fact that the very existence of the Holy Scriptures cannot be explained in any other way except to acknowledge that they are the result of an overriding, superintending, guiding Mind.
Critics, of course, have objected to the use of the Bible as a witness to its own inspiration. Dickson has pointed out correctly, however, that
[blockquote]...this contention is really unjust. One does not have a right to deny the authenticity of a document without considering the document itself. We would not deny Shakespeare"s authorship of the Shakespearean plays without first considering their text. The Bible should at least be treated as just another book. Nevertheless, even this right is rejected by the prejudiced minds of some (1997, p. 328).[/blockquote]
When the evidences for the Bible"s inspiration are allowed to speak for themselves, however, the story they tell is totally in accord with the Bible"s claim of inspiration. Consider, for example, the following.
I have never understood Matthew 16:18 to signify that the church was built on Peter for the following reason:
Mat 16:18 AndG1161 I say alsoG2504 G3004 unto thee,G4671 ThatG3754 thouG4771 artG1488 Peter,G4074 andG2532 uponG1909 thisG5026 rockG4073 I will buildG3618 myG3450 church;G1577 andG2532 the gatesG4439 of hellG86 shall notG3756 prevail againstG2729 it.G846
Christ said "you are Peter". The greek word for Peter is Petros - meaning a piece of rock. Then Christ said "upon this rock". The word rock used was Petra - meaning a mass of rock.
In my understanding, Christ was talking about Himself when He said "upon this rock I will build my church".
The Bible is full of scriptures that show that Christ is our Rock. We the church are built on him. The parable that talks about the foolish man building his house on the sand and the wise man building his house on the rock uses the same word for rock - petra.
Ephesians 2:19-20 shows further:
"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;".
And also there is 1 Corinthians 10:4:
"And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."
The word "Rock" used in this verse is the same one Christ used in Matthew - Petra. The church is built on Christ, the apostles being with Christ new the foundation and taught it in the letters they wrote.
As for which one which one I prefer, well people were doing that even in New Testament days: 1Co 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
Each one had their own style and their own audience that they were addressing. That's the way the body of Christ is. We all have our own gifts and talents given to us by God to use to further His kingdom. There is such a diverse world out there that no one certain style will work to reach them. The one important thing to remember is that there is only one way -- through Jesus Christ.
That's just my two cents worth....
Good word Mrs. lizzie ... Thank You. I think I got more than 2 cents worth out of that....
THE BIBLE"S CLAIMS FOR ITS INSPIRATION
Imagine, if you can, that somehow you could have access to every religious book that has ever been written. Imagine, further, that you could run those books through some sort of a sieve, to winnow out only those volumes that claim to be a creed book, by which you should pattern and live your life. That, admittedly, is a tough test"one, likely, that very few books could pass. Imagine further that you could take the books that passed this test, and run them through a second sieve. This time you would winnow out only those books that claim to be both a creed book to be used in regulating your life, andinspired of God. Interestingly, you could count that number on the fingers of a single hand!
The claim of inspiration at the hand of God is rare indeed. Sadly, misguided devotees of various religions clamor about, defending this book or that book as allegedly being "inspired of God," when, in fact, the books themselves do not even make such a claim. So, the first question that should be asked of any volume for which inspiration is touted is this: Does the book itself claim to be inspired?
When it comes to the Bible, that question can be answered easily in the affirmative. In his second letter to his coworker, Timothy, Paul stated: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Peter wrote: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20-21). When he wrote his first epistle to the Christians at Corinth, Paul reminded them:
[blockquote]But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in words which man"s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words (1 Corinthians 2:12-13).[/blockquote]
Furthermore, statements such as "God said..." or "these are the words of the Lord..." appear thousands of times in both the Old and New Testaments. Moses wrote in Exodus 20:1: "And God spake all these words...." The psalmist wrote in 119:89: "For ever, O Jehovah, Thy word is settled in heaven." In Matthew 22:31, the Lord asked: "Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God?" In fact, "There are 2,700 such statements in the Old Testament alone, all of which make direct claim that the Bible is the Word of God" (Ridenour, 1967, p. 2).
When the Bible claims to be "inspired," what is meant by that term? The English term, "inspiration," derives from the Latin inspirare, which means "to breathe upon or into something." The five English words , "given by inspiration of God," in the King James Version of 1611 actually are translated from the single Greek adjective, theopneustos, which is derived from two Greek root words (theos"God, pneo"to blow or breathe). Theologically, "inspiration" is used for the condition of being directly under divine influence. Thus, Paul"s point was that every scripture is "God breathed." [The word "scripture" in 2 Timothy 3:16 refers primarily to the Old Testament Scriptures. However, as the New Testament was written, it, too, was referred to as "scripture." Peter, for example, referred to Paul"s epistles as authoritative and "scripture" (2 Peter 3:15-16). Thus, "all scripture" refers to both testaments.]
In addition, when Peter wrote in 2 Peter 1:20-21 that "men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit," he employed the Greek word pheromenoi, which literally means "borne along." His point was that the Bible writers did not speak from themselves, but were "borne along" by God"s Holy Spirit to write what they did. The Bible writers never credited their words to mere human reason. Both Old and New Testament passages bear this out. In 2 Samuel 23:2 it is written: "The Spirit of Jehovah spake by me, And his word was upon my tongue." In Acts 1:16, Luke observed that "the Holy Spirit spake before by the mouth of David." Likely, however, the best explanatory passage regarding inspiration is Paul"s commentary in 1 Corinthians 2:12-13, wherein he affirmed that the information the Bible writers received came not from human wisdom, but directly from God. Further, that wisdom was not expressed in man"s choice of words, but via words guided by the Holy Spirit.
But exactly what form does inspiration take? In any discussion of the Bible"s inspiration, two words generally are used to amplify the meaning of the term: verbal and plenary. By "verbal," it is meant that every word in the Bible is there because God permitted it by the direction of the Holy Spirit. By "plenary" (from the Latin, plenus"full), it is meant that each and every part of the Bible is inspired, with nothing having been omitted.
In other words, by employing what we today call verbal (word-for-word), plenary (full) inspiration, God ensured that the writings were correct and consistent with His will. This view holds that men wrote exactly what God wanted them to write, without errors or mistakes, yet with their own individual characteristics in evidence in their writings. While the various books of the Bible reflect the writers" personalities as expressed in the human element that often is so evident (type of language used, fears expressed, prayers offered, etc.), it was only by verbal, plenary inspiration that God could convey, objectively and accurately, His Word to mankind.
There is compelling evidence from within the Bible itself about the nature of its own inspiration. In the midst of Jesus" discussion with the Sadducees about their denial of the resurrection of the dead (Matthew 22:23-33), Jesus referred Exodus 3:6 wherein God said to Moses: "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." When God spoke these words, Abraham had been dead some 400 years, yet He still said, "I am the God of Abraham." As Jesus correctly pointed out to the Sadducees, "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (Matthew 22:32). Thus, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob must have been living. The only way they could be living was if their spirits continued to survive the death of their bodies. That kind of conscious existence implies a future ressurection of the body"the very point Christ was attempting to make. Of interest is the fact that His entire argument rested on the tense of the verb!
The same kind of reliance on a single word was expressed by Paul (as he referred to Genesis 22:18) in Galatians 3:16: "Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ" (emp. added). The force of his argument rested on the number of the noun (singular, as opposed to plural). In John 8:58, Jesus said: "I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am." He was attempting to impress upon the Jews His eternal nature, and to do so, He once again based His entire argument on the tense of the verb. This kind of evidence regarding the verbal inspiration of God"s Word should not be overlooked.
We should note, however, that this inspiration process applied only to the original autographs of the sacred writings (i.e., the actual document as penned initially by the writer). While Bible writers were inspired, the scribes, translators, and others who followed were not. This does not mean, as some have suggested, that we do not have God"s Word in an accurate form today. The text of the Bible we possess can be trusted, and counted as reliable. The modernistic idea which suggests that the copying process through the ages has destroyed the essence of inspiration is a "theological scarecrow to frighten those who are not knowledgeable of the art of transmission of the Bible" (Dickson, 1997, p. 319). The copying process through the centuries was so meticulous, and the number of extant manuscripts available for comparison is so large, that the minute variations which do occur are detected easily. Further, these variations are insignificant in nature, and do not affect points of doctrine. Timothy, from his early years, had known the Old Testament "sacred writings" that were able to make him "wise unto salvation" (2 Timothy 3:15). Interestingly, those "sacred writings" were mere copies of the original Old Testament manuscripts, but had been preserved so faithfully through the centuries that the apostle Paul could affirm that their original design"making men wise unto salvation"remained intact.
Several other points should be clarified as well. First, there is an important difference between revelation and inspiration. Revelation represents the revealing of facts and truths by God to humans. Inspiration is the process by which God guided the writing down of those facts and truths. "Revelation is the body of truth which God desired men to possess; inspiration is the way in which He gave this body of truth to men" (Woods, n.d., p. 6). The whole Bible is the result of inspiration, but not all inspired material was revelatory in nature. Paul could quote pagan poets in Acts 17:28 and Titus 1:12 because he already had access to this information, and did not need revelation to employ it. But God inspired him to record these sayings, and to record them accurately. Thus, whether the Bible writer used information already available to him, his own eyewitness accounts, or revelation from God, inspiration guaranteed that it was placed in print in the form in which God desired.
Second, the fact that a person wrote by inspiration does not mean that he was free from personal sin in his life. Israel"s King David penned several Old Testament psalms. The apostle Peter acknowledged that "the Holy Spirit spake before by the mouth of David" (Acts 1:16). Yet this was the same king who committed adultery with Bathsheba, and had her husband, Uriah the Hittite, slain to cover his own sin. Peter himself presented some extremely powerful sermons (e.g., Acts 2:14ff.), and penned two New Testament epistles. Yet he played the hypocrite when he separated himself from the Gentiles to seek favor with the Jews, and received a public rebuke from Paul for it (Galatians 2:11ff.). Thus, while inspiration preserved the integrity of the writer"s words as he was "moved by the Holy Spirit," that process did not diminish his freedom of choice or compel him to live a sinful life.
Third, inspiration was not a twenty-four-hour-a-day process. A few months prior to His death, the Lord informed His disciples that He would shortly enter Jerusalem, where He would suffer and eventually die. Peter, however, rebuked the Lord and said: "Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall never be unto thee" (Matthew 16:22). Obviously, that impetuous utterance was not inspired. In Luke, the story is told of how a group of Samaritans refused aid and comfort to the Lord (9:51ff.). James and John bitterly suggested that the Lord enjoin a "heavenly barbecue" to consume these ill-tempered Samaritans. Their attempt at vengeance"for which they drew the Lord"s ire"hardly was inspired. The truth of the matter is that inspiration guided the writers in what they wrote and spoke from God as they were "borne along" by God"s Spirit"a process that was not active every minute of every day.
Fourth, inspiration extended to a variety of disparate subjects. Today, it is not uncommon to hear liberal theologians, and those sympathetic with them, suggest that the "spiritual" sections of Scripture are inspired, but that all other portions dealing with matters of history, science, geography, medicine, and the like are not. This concept, known as the doctrine of "partial inspiration," is false. Were it true, everyone who reads the text would have the personal responsibility of wading through the biblical documents to decide which matters are "spiritual" (thus, inspired) and which are not (thus, uninspired). On some occasions, therefore, God would have "breathed" truth, while on others He would have "breathed" error. But the question must be asked: If God cannot handle correctly trivial matters (such as geographical directions, or the name of an individual), why would anyone think that they could trust Him with something as critically important as the safety of their eternal soul and expect Him to handle it in a more appropriate fashion? The psalmist stated: "The sum of thy word is truth; And every one of thy righteous ordinances endureth for ever" (Psalm 119:160; emp. added). The concept of partial inspiration impugns the integrity of God, conflicts with the evidences for inspiration, and should be rejected.
Fifth, not only did the Bible writers view each others" works as inspired, but no Bible writer ever criticized another. Today, it is not at all unusual for one religious writer to take issue with another, even when they share the same religious views, or are members of the same religious group. But the Bible writers do not fall into that category"even when one might expect them to do so. For example, as mentioned above, Paul rebuked Peter publicly for his dissimulation (Galatians 2:11ff.). Yet Peter never avenged himself by denigrating Paul"s writings. In fact, Peter wrote:
[blockquote]And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction (2 Peter 3:15-16, emp. added). [/blockquote]
Note especially that Peter referred to Paul"s writings as being classified by the same kind of inspiration as the "other scriptures." Additionally, in defending the right of elders to receive remuneration from the church treasury for their work, Paul quoted both Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7, classifying them both as "scripture" (1 Timothy 5:18). It is clear that the Bible writers considered each others" works to be inspired"a view we today would do well to entertain.
EVIDENCE FOR THE BIBLE"S INSPIRATION
Evidence to substantiate the Bible"s claim for its own inspiration can be drawn from two general sources. External evidences for inspiration include such things as historical documentation of biblical people, places, and events, or archaeological artifacts that corroborate biblical statements or circumstances. Internal evidences are part of the warp and woof of the actual biblical fabric itself. These are self-authenticating phenomena from within the Sacred Volume that bear singular testimony to the fact that the very existence of the Holy Scriptures cannot be explained in any other way except to acknowledge that they are the result of an overriding, superintending, guiding Mind.
Critics, of course, have objected to the use of the Bible as a witness to its own inspiration. Dickson has pointed out correctly, however, that
[blockquote]...this contention is really unjust. One does not have a right to deny the authenticity of a document without considering the document itself. We would not deny Shakespeare"s authorship of the Shakespearean plays without first considering their text. The Bible should at least be treated as just another book. Nevertheless, even this right is rejected by the prejudiced minds of some (1997, p. 328).[/blockquote]
When the evidences for the Bible"s inspiration are allowed to speak for themselves, however, the story they tell is totally in accord with the Bible"s claim of inspiration. Consider, for example, the following.
TF thanks for the post... I started reading it, and I must admit that my tired is really hanging out so I am going to bed,..... but I will finish it in the morning....
Lizzie says....As for which one which one I prefer, well people were doing that even in New Testament days: 1Co 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
Each one had their own style and their own audience that they were addressing. That's the way the body of Christ is. We all have our own gifts and talents given to us by God to use to further His kingdom. There is such a diverse world out there that no one certain style will work to reach them. The one important thing to remember is that there is only one way -- through Jesus Christ.
[10] Now I beseech/Beg you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
[11] For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
[12] Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
[13] Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
[14] I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
[15] Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
[16] And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
[17] For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
[18] For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
I believe we MUST teach the Truth. I believe the Bible Points out their is ONLY ONE Way.
With ALL Due respect Mrs. Lizzie Paul was not Patting them on the back. He was Admonishing them to Speak the same thinTF
Which One was most favored or correct?
None of this however have anything to do with the writings of Paul. I have to say that Paul is not one of my favorite apostles. Mostley , I just don't care for his literary style. I personally seem to get more from the remaining books of the NT than I do from the epistles of Paul. Not to discredit Paul or his epistles . .it's still Bible.
