Mine blots out the sun at mid-day, is all I'm saying.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Inspiration, how the bible was written...
- Thread starter IshChayil
- Start date
Mine blots out the sun at mid-day, is all I'm saying.
C
Cap
Guest
Apology accepted. And know that I have no judgement against Torah keepers or any other type of believer. Not my place. But I would like to participate but I have my views that fall mainly on the Grace side and that really has come about from age and all the attempts I have gone through to try and find peace with God. I will respect your interpretation and I hope you will respect mine.
And by the way, plural families are for everyone. My reference was more towards hoping we could talk more about that subject.
Sorry to stick all this in here after you comment @andrew. But I do understand you point and will refrain.
How I have envisioned the concept of 'God breathed' is that God gives visions to specific prophets and then guards their documenting of the vision from error. So when writing it down if they are about to write something incorrect the words suddenly escape them. This would mean that the men writing scripture are coming at it from their own perspectives but their writings are inerrant because God prevents errors from being written.
When it comes to scripture other than recorded visions what is stopping God from giving ideas, concepts, answers, and explanations in a similar way? He gives the author a concept instead of a vision and the author brings to write, coming at it from their own perspectives, but again their writings are inerrant because God prevents errors from being written.
This may be rather simplistic but this is how I have envisioned it.
When it comes to scripture other than recorded visions what is stopping God from giving ideas, concepts, answers, and explanations in a similar way? He gives the author a concept instead of a vision and the author brings to write, coming at it from their own perspectives, but again their writings are inerrant because God prevents errors from being written.
This may be rather simplistic but this is how I have envisioned it.
My view isn't substantially different than yours.
So @Cap we're interested to hear, how do you think the process of inspiration took place?
Foregoing @Slumberfreeze 's Obelisk,
I think @Kevin and @Mage have taken decent stabs at explaining how they think the process happened.
@andrew has hinted at the process and framed the discussion.
What are your thoughts on the process of inspiration? Grace and Law don't really have anything to do with it; those are just the end results of the expression right?
Thanks for chiming in and reeling it in. We're all on the same side over here
Hey Zec, it's not a redirection, it's a splitting of the topics. I think you wrote that before Andrew split off the head covering topic so we can still discuss that.
I'm not trying to side step the issue; I was merely inspired by the kinds of conflicts some of us have had here where it seems we really misunderstand each other.
You've thought that I'm a liberal in the past which is quite funny to me as I have liberal family members who won't speak to me because they are offended by my Conservatism.
I think if we can explore the issue of inspiration together, we will eliminate (possibly) much of the underlying misunderstandings regarding where each person is coming from.
Here, I'd like to really see you elaborate on the part I marked in Red above. I'm trying to challenge you to think about this aspect (marked in red) and share the results of that thinking with us here.
I think when we all understand the underlying presumptions we have concerning the process of inspiration (or processes), that will allow us to more clearly relate to each other.
This may also enable us all to hold a certain modicum of respect / decorum when relating to each other once this has been fleshed out; it can be the lense through which all other comments about the sacred text are filtered.
So I'm fishing for your thoughts on this process. Most people I think have never considered it for too long if at all.
Please don't respond with "it's all from G-d" "it's inerrant" "it's however He wants" or other such platitudes we all agree on that (I think).
I wanna know what you think was the method(s) He used to get the ideas He wanted down on animal skin.
PS - sorry if I offended you by intimating that the KJV was your favorite version; I must have recollected wrongly from previous posts (where I thought you said it was your go to version but sometimes you venture into other versions for clarity). Let's not go deep in that I'm just apologizing as it seemed to upset you.
shalom
I guess what I’m getting at is that the way it’s being discussed (at least at that point in the conversation) is that there are two options, G-d spoke from heaven or He just kinda used some guys who were writing stuff to kind of get His point across. I think there is a better option and one that i think comes from scripture.
John 1:1-4 KJV
[1] “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. [4] In him was life; and the life was the light of men.”
1 John 1:1 KJV
[1] “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;”
The Word of G-d is eternal, not just going forward, but in both directions (which isn’t linear at all, I know, so more like non-directional haha). Sometimes those who wrote knew they were writing The Word of G-d and some did not. I believe that every piece of history, G-d knew about before He created the universe. The men who wrote Scripture where predestined to do it from before the foundation of the world. G-d moved through them because that was the design from the beginning. They were each born at the exact appointed time and place and situation. When they picked up the pen, G-d was moving through them to put on paper His eternal, already existing Word. Their personal writing tendencies and personalities that shine through are not just something that G-d worked with, He created them that way for His purpose. I see prophecies spoken and fulfilled with such accuracy it is mind boggling. The details of places, people, and concepts are so complex and so intertwined that they defy the idea that they were not structured ahead of time (or more specifically, outside of time) There are zero coincidences! We are traveling through time from our perspective, but G-d sees all of time at the same time. Remember The Lamb who was slain BEFORE the foundation of the world?
C
Cap
Guest
FYI, every time you use the word WE or WE'RE the perception is a response needs to be given to a panel of judges. And since @Kevin has defined the members of that panel, it's really hard to be 'inspired' to contribute. But, since I understand a little more in regards to YOUR last post to @ZecAustin I'll try to continue.
It would seem to me that the inspiration to scripture is not in the writing of the scripture, although there is that to a certain degree, the real inspiration is in the interpretation of scripture. God's spirit was with the Old Testament writers and participants to a token degree, but WE (all of us) have been given the Holy Spirit to help us interpret the Word of God, WITH the life we have been given. And since we are all children in the sight of God, then He gives us much Grace and Mercy as we stumble along in trying to understand. The Bible was created for our use. And this falls more into the understanding of, or accepting what destiny is. The bible was created with its many levels of complexity, Hebrew, Greek, those cultures, certain mindsets, lots of things for us to try and figure out what was going on. And the thing is it's called a LIVING BIBLE, therefore how we interpret something today maybe seen differently in say 5, 10, 20 years as life has changed us. Understanding the choices we make is more important than the circumstances that brings it. And so, how it was interpreted many many years ago was from the inspiration they had and now the meaning has changed based on the information we have. Both are right. And it will more than likely change again in the future.
Here is another one, was the Earth created in 7,000 years? How come scientist can say there are dinosaurs over a billion years old? What if God created the dinosaurs to appear to be that old? What if, it appeared to tho old thinkers that sperm had something to do with hair?
Do YA'LL approve?
(That's a joke, really)
I think we have a similar perspective; what you're writing is similar to what I **currently** think.
Providence is more than just telling a guy exactly what to write with no wiggle room. Providence is as you said making sure he had the right influences in childhood, adulthood, etc.
I do think prophets have free will and can rebel (see Jonah) but of course when the full force of G-d comes on anyone, even Pharaoh would be forced to obey if not for G-d's assist in hardening His heart. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate. Are you a Calvinist or you are just applying predestination to prophets and the such?
I'd appreciate it if you'd drop your beef with @Kevin; it's unbecoming. He called you out for picking a grace vs. law fight, now we can play nice.
I've had a bad attitude about stuff too before and also have been called out for it by folks here and accepted the correction. This talk about "panel of judges" is not useful ok? let's play nice.
Well look, that sounds like an interesting topic, why don't you start a thread on it.I'll be sure to weigh in with my thoughts.
OK interesting, so please correct me if I'm wrong. You seem to be saying that G-d intentionally planned for adapting cultures, time period, and such so that the bible could be reinterpreted differently at different time periods and among different cultures right?
In essence, making it unnecessary to understand the underlying cultures, of the original audiences. Did I summarize correctly? I don't think I've ever heard that opinion before.
Last edited:
C
Cap
Guest
IshChayil, you have no idea how difficult you make this. Of you would read the fyi it wasn't about Kevin. I have no interest in sharing my view so you can pick it apart. They are my views just like yours are yours. Yours are not correct and neither are mine. You don't know the discussions I have had with Kevin or any one else. I will do you a favor and stop posting all together. The view here is more Jewish than I'm comfortable with anyway.
Cap, I hope you won't "stop posting all together", but this is IshChayil's thread, he's sounding some people out on what they think about this, and so far it looks like you're the only one who's having a hard time with it. If you do choose to share your thoughts on this subject, I don't think anyone's going to "pick it apart", but let's leave the whole Torah-observance question out of it.
All of us have to wrestle with what it means to each of us that scripture is God-inspired (or God-blown, or θεοπνευστος). It's a good conversation to have among those who can stay on topic and not make this thread something it's not. Do what you gotta do, but I hope you'll stick around.
All of us have to wrestle with what it means to each of us that scripture is God-inspired (or God-blown, or θεοπνευστος). It's a good conversation to have among those who can stay on topic and not make this thread something it's not. Do what you gotta do, but I hope you'll stick around.
When I wrote that I figured someone would ask me that, haha. No, I am not a Calvinist. I see predestination very clearly in Scripture, but I also see free will clearly in Scripture. I believe in both. I don’t understand it, but both are there, and apparently are not mutually exclusive... somehow. I’m quite alright with not understanding it. If I could easily wrap my mind around and completely understand everything in Scripture I’d be a little nervous that human beings came up with the whole thing, haha!
YHWH gave Moses the big Ten carved in stone. We can pretty much trust that it was word-for-word exactly as He wanted it.
It would be so easy to believe that the rest of our Bible is perfectly written and perfectly translated. After all, legalism is easy.
But the translations don’t match perfectly. So, did He give us a perfect first edition somewhere back in the bowels of history and we lost it? So hey, we’re just screwed?
In spite of revelations like the fact that rabbits chew a cud, which nobody believed until it was discovered in the 1960’s, did no one’s misunderstandings get put into the script ever? Is it possible that YHWH allowed Paul to mistakenly use common medical knowledge from that day to support the teachings of the practice of head coverings, knowing that what Paul was drawing from was going to make His Scripture look bogus to some?
I have long said that had I been in charge, things would have been clearer and more idiot-proof. And that would have given room for much more legalism. As it stands we have to focus more on the relationship than on our understanding because He has allowed this to be a bit too ambiguous.
So yeah, legalism is easy. Just figure out what it has to mean and start a new denomination on that belief.
“.....see through a glass darkly....” be damned.
It would be so easy to believe that the rest of our Bible is perfectly written and perfectly translated. After all, legalism is easy.
But the translations don’t match perfectly. So, did He give us a perfect first edition somewhere back in the bowels of history and we lost it? So hey, we’re just screwed?
In spite of revelations like the fact that rabbits chew a cud, which nobody believed until it was discovered in the 1960’s, did no one’s misunderstandings get put into the script ever? Is it possible that YHWH allowed Paul to mistakenly use common medical knowledge from that day to support the teachings of the practice of head coverings, knowing that what Paul was drawing from was going to make His Scripture look bogus to some?
I have long said that had I been in charge, things would have been clearer and more idiot-proof. And that would have given room for much more legalism. As it stands we have to focus more on the relationship than on our understanding because He has allowed this to be a bit too ambiguous.
So yeah, legalism is easy. Just figure out what it has to mean and start a new denomination on that belief.
“.....see through a glass darkly....” be damned.
I think I fall somewhere in the mix, and where I am momentarily is not guaranteed to be where I’ll be in 6 months. I definitely am not where I was 10 years ago, and though that might cause some to look at me funny, I wouldn’t trade where I am for where I was for anything.
I like Steve’s mention of the Big Ten. That was obviously God speaking from the mount where everyone could hear it. Then you have the rest of Torah that God gave to Moses as well as whatever it was that God gave Moses that he uttered in “dark speeches”. Obviously, some of Scripture is simply a historical record of events requiring limited inspiration? while others parts are “Thus sayeth the Lord” and are more along the lines of “holy men of old, spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost”.
How the Scriptures came to be written is important to know, but is ultimately secondary in importance. The primary importance is that what we have is what we’ve been given, evidently by Divine providence, and will be the measure by which we are Judged. This is why we must study, to show ourselves approved. Not to man, but to the Father himself.
I like Steve’s mention of the Big Ten. That was obviously God speaking from the mount where everyone could hear it. Then you have the rest of Torah that God gave to Moses as well as whatever it was that God gave Moses that he uttered in “dark speeches”. Obviously, some of Scripture is simply a historical record of events requiring limited inspiration? while others parts are “Thus sayeth the Lord” and are more along the lines of “holy men of old, spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost”.
How the Scriptures came to be written is important to know, but is ultimately secondary in importance. The primary importance is that what we have is what we’ve been given, evidently by Divine providence, and will be the measure by which we are Judged. This is why we must study, to show ourselves approved. Not to man, but to the Father himself.
I don't want to disturb anybody here, but I'd like to know if anyone has a credible explanation for the following that is better than mine.
At the close of his gospel, Matthew describes the miserable end of Judas:
I'll tell you what I think: This doesn't concern me a bit. One of the things they taught us in law school is that minor errors in recollection in testimony actually support the veracity of that testimony, because that's what people who are telling the truth do. And you don't have to go to law school to have enough dealings with people to understand the wisdom of that. Real people telling the truth as they understand it and remember it are subject to ordinary glitches of memory or perspective; a story that is too polished starts to ring false.
So one credible explanation is that Matthew was just doing what truth-tellers do: Writing down his story as he recalled it and accidentally misremembering a chapter-and-verse citation because he relied on his memory instead of pulling out a scroll and fact-checking his essay before he published it. Nothing to see here, move along. If somebody's got a better explanation, I'm all ears (or all eyes, in this context). Or as they say on social media these days, "Prove me wrong".
What this has to do with IC's inquiry is that I see the Holy Spirit working around me all the time, through ordinary people ("treasure in earthen vessels"), and I see God at work in and through the foibles and failings of the people he has to work with. Sometimes that's experienced as a direct word from the Lord (but there's still the issue of getting the language right as that person retells whatever the word was), sometimes it's just a matter of saying what's on one's heart (or as John Osteen (not Joel) used to say, "preaching out of the overflow"), trusting that God has brought everybody to that point in time on purpose and is moving in the situation. I believe 100% that "all scripture is God-blown" and "profitable" for our use. I think the "how" of that varies with the context—for example, the obvious difference between a prophet or apostle saying "thus saith the Lord" and any writer simply chronicling historical events—but I don't see any reason to distinguish the way we think of "inspiration" now from the way we think "inspiration" might have happened back then.
At the close of his gospel, Matthew describes the miserable end of Judas:
A well-known story, with a catch: Jeremiah doesn't say anything of the sort—Matthew is citing Zechariah 11:12-13:Matthew said:
Zechariah said:
I'll tell you what I think: This doesn't concern me a bit. One of the things they taught us in law school is that minor errors in recollection in testimony actually support the veracity of that testimony, because that's what people who are telling the truth do. And you don't have to go to law school to have enough dealings with people to understand the wisdom of that. Real people telling the truth as they understand it and remember it are subject to ordinary glitches of memory or perspective; a story that is too polished starts to ring false.
So one credible explanation is that Matthew was just doing what truth-tellers do: Writing down his story as he recalled it and accidentally misremembering a chapter-and-verse citation because he relied on his memory instead of pulling out a scroll and fact-checking his essay before he published it. Nothing to see here, move along. If somebody's got a better explanation, I'm all ears (or all eyes, in this context). Or as they say on social media these days, "Prove me wrong".
What this has to do with IC's inquiry is that I see the Holy Spirit working around me all the time, through ordinary people ("treasure in earthen vessels"), and I see God at work in and through the foibles and failings of the people he has to work with. Sometimes that's experienced as a direct word from the Lord (but there's still the issue of getting the language right as that person retells whatever the word was), sometimes it's just a matter of saying what's on one's heart (or as John Osteen (not Joel) used to say, "preaching out of the overflow"), trusting that God has brought everybody to that point in time on purpose and is moving in the situation. I believe 100% that "all scripture is God-blown" and "profitable" for our use. I think the "how" of that varies with the context—for example, the obvious difference between a prophet or apostle saying "thus saith the Lord" and any writer simply chronicling historical events—but I don't see any reason to distinguish the way we think of "inspiration" now from the way we think "inspiration" might have happened back then.
I don't know if this is better.
I had always seen Zechariah 11:12-13 and Jeremiah 32:6-10 as 2 telling of the same prophesy like the Synoptic Gospels are multiple telling of Yeshua's Ministry and Sacrifice. Both are needed to get the whole picture but Jermiah is more important to the narative of redemption.
Jeremiah 32:6-10
6 So Jeremiah said: “The word of Adonai came to me, saying: 7 ‘Hanamel, son of Shallum your uncle, will soon come to you saying: ‘Buy for yourself my field in Anathoth, for the right of redemption is yours to buy it.’” 8 So my uncle’s son Hanamel came to me in the court of the guard as was the word of Adonai, and said to me: “Buy my field, please, which is in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin; for the right of inheritance is yours and the redemption is yours; buy it for yourself.” Then I knew that this was the word of Adonai. 9 So I bought the field that was in Anathoth from the son of my uncle Hanamel, and weighed him the money—seventeen shekels of silver. 10 I signed and sealed the deed, called in witnesses, and weighed the money on the scales.
I've read but haven't been able to truth check that 17 shekels of silver in the time of Jerimiah was the equivalent of 30 peices of In Yeshuas time.
After @Cap brought up divine interpretation it got me thinking and @IshChayil and I were just talking about "what if" G-d used some of the writer's to clarify the truths (not change them) written by earlier. I see this could be the case if 17 shekels of silver in Jermiah is the same as 30 peices of silver in Yeshuas time. If I'm not mistaken Jerimiahs a was spoken prophecy until someone else wrote it and Zechariahs was said to be a retelling omitting what was already said in Jermiah. Don't quote me on that I'm going to reread the History of the Prophets to double check that.
Last edited:
Kevin, that passage has close comparisons, but is not the same prophetically or contextually as the Zechariah or Matthew account. I’ve done some studying on it and due to the dates etc, believe that it is a redemption payment of property that was probably owned by Jeremiah or his father and “sold off” to another (the brother or uncle) to pay off debts probably. To my knowledge, this is the only scriptural account of a property redemption with a title deed that foreshadows Rev. 5. I have found another instance recording where Jacob records a similar transaction with a title deed but it is not in the canon.
The dates of this transaction would be no earlier than 589 BC as Nebuchadnezzar is in route or soon to be in route. This gives you 17 years til the next Jubilee in 572 BC. In Lev. 25 it stipulates that the price for leasing out the land is to be counted till the Jubilee and repaid by counting the number of the years of the fruits till the Jubilee.
There is a mention of pottery, but this is not a potters field.
There’s a bit more to this particular story, but I’ll let that suffice for now. This is a great passage for understanding the idea of the title deed though, especially the scroll written within and without.
Like I said I don't know if it's any better, I've just read a few writings connecting the Jerimiah and Zechariah passages. Here's how a few of them connect.
Jeremiah 19:1-4 gives a more precise placement of the potter’s field, outside the Potsherd Gate of Jerusalem, and the catastrophe that will happen there. The verse mentions that Israel has forsaken G-d here, and mentions the blood of innocents there too—Christ’s even being the ultimate innocent blood.
Jeremiah 19:1-4
19 Thus saith the L-rd, Go and get a potter's earthen bottle, and take of the ancients of the people, and of the ancients of the priests;
2 And go forth unto the valley of the son of Hinnom, which is by the entry of the east gate, and proclaim there the words that I shall tell thee,
3 And say, Hear ye the word of the L-rd, O kings of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem; Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the G-d of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle.
4 Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents;
Then, of course, Jeremiah 32:9-12 discusses the land and purchase agreements. Although the first quotation in Matthew 27:9-10 is somewhat similar to the passage in Zechariah, the second quotation—“and gave them for the potter’s field, as the L-rd directed me”—alludes to Jeremiah 32:6-9, which refers to the potter’s field.
So, these three aspects are Jeremiah’s, and Zechariah seems to build on them. In that respect, it is not an error to refer to the prophet Jeremiah at the point, as the whole passage—including the allusion to Zechariah (30 pieces of silver)—is in the context of the potter’s field, as related in Jeremiah.
Is was also common to when quoting multiple prophets to mention the better known Prophet. We have a good reference in Mark 1:2-3. Mark cites both Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3, but Mark does not mention Malachi. He uses the better known prophet only. This appears to be a common literary practice of that era. IMO the only fit from Zechariah is the 30 peices of silver. That's my take anyway. I see no contradiction there. To each their own. Looking back I see I should have said Jeremiah 19 & 32 from the start.
@andrew I concede that unlike you and Vv76 prophecy is not my strong point besides it's been 2 months we're due for a disagreement.
Last edited: