J
japhy
Guest
If the Holy Spirit dictated words to the human authors, then they (the authors) could in no way exercise freedom as true authors.
- Status
T
Tim_D
Guest
If that is so, then why are there two versions of the creation story in Genesis?
R
Reuben_J
Guest
The Bible is the word of God but verbatim is not the word to describe it. Inspired is.
A
Autumn_Smoke
Guest
Here’s a good answer which sees the 2 creation stories as complimentary, not as a contradiction to each other. biblestudyforcatholics.com/two-different-accounts-creation/
chapter 1 is an overview of creation, but chapter 2 details man’s creation and the importance and domination of man in the creation.
The scripture is indeed God-breathed: it is infused with His Spirit–which throughout the ages forever has the power to bring mankind to Him.
The correct response was quoted from the Catechism. No one’s opinion tops that.God didn’t dictate to the sacred authors as if they were secretaries taking dictation from their boss. Rather, God inspired them to write what he revealed to them, in their own words, which is why we need to understand their cultural background, their modes of speech, etc. We can be certain that everything in Scripture is from God and so reliable for instruction, living our lives in Christ, and bringing us to salvation. But we cannot claim that God dictated the Bible word for word because he didn’t do that.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”
The translations we have today are very accurate representations of what the original manuscripts said.
In contrast, Muslims believe that the Qur’an is a text dictated by God to Mohammad through the angel, Gabriel.
P
Pulvis
Guest
We (Baptists) believe that every word as given to the writers was inspired by God Almighty, verbal plenary inspiration. Now translations, that is another thing, but the scriptures, as recorded, are the inspired word of God.
P
Prayer_Warrior
Guest
Here is an inspired verse from 1 Corinthians 1. I find it hard to believe that it is God’s dictation to Paul because Paul has forgotten who he baptized. God would not have forgotten. Still, this along with the rest of Scripture, is inspired.
14* I am thankful * that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius; 15 lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name. 16* (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, *I do not know whether I baptized any one else.) *
14* I am thankful * that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius; 15 lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name. 16* (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, *I do not know whether I baptized any one else.) *
P
Pulvis
Guest
The context answers your doubt:
10 Now I beseech 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. AKJV
Paul is just being honest as he exhorts the Church at Corinth to heal division within the Church. I see no conflict with divine inspiration here.
P
Prayer_Warrior
Guest
I’m sorry if my post was not clear. I believe all Scripture, including the aforementioned verses, to be Divinely inspired. I think that we may have two different ideas of what that means. I believe that God primarily influenced the authors of Scripture to write His message of love and truth. He caused them to write down things they had seen and heard and even, as in the case of many prophets, things He had directly told to them. Inspiration means to cause, influence, guide, spur on, affect, etc. I believe He worked with their free will and He inspired them to tell the truth, but they did so using their own faculties. This is why, in my opinion, when you are well studied in Scripture, you know that different author’s have different styles. Matthew is different from John, Paul is different from Peter, etc. That being said, there are occasions when we can see more of a direct “dictation”, for example, in Revelation when the Lord says “write this”.
Although you are not Catholic, here is a part of the teaching of the Catholic Church which may further explain my position “106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.” At the same time our Church fully credits God as the Author of Scripture and acknowledges the need for the guidance of the Holy Spirit in it’s interpretation.
I suspect that you have dedicated yourself to the study of the Sacred Scriptures and please know that is my calling too. May God bless you abundantly through the study of His Word.
G
goout
Guest
What does that mean, “translations are another thing”?
P
Pulvis
Guest
Translations are the product of men. One needs be careful in selecting a Bible to insure that the translators did their best to give an accurate, word for word translation of the original manuscripts. Actually there are arguments as to which ancient texts are the most accurate to use for translation. That was my meaning.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
As are the verse numbering and chapter divisions…oh yeah…and the table of contents…all uninspired inventions of men.
G
goout
Guest
If God is the revealer and man is the receiver, we are communicating with God.
Since God is beyond language, and yet human beings communicate in human words, everything is “translation”.
As far as translations from the original goes…
I’m no expert in ancient languages, but it seems to me Jesus did not speak in Greek.
So I suspect the actual transmission of scripture is more troubling than translations of the original written documents. In the first place, the true originals consist of oral Tradition (aka storys) which are then written down in a different language.
So, I’m not sure where you would like to begin claiming “translations”.
In any case, since God’s Inspiration will not be bound by translation, the word of God will accomplish it’s purposes. Hopefully we can do the work of translating within the bounds of Tradition, which preceded the written word, and is inextricably bound up with it.
P
Pulvis
Guest
For Catholics, Orthodox and some other Liturgical Churches, yes, your traditions and institutions are important. For Us, the Bible is the basis for all worship, belief and doctrine.If God is the revealer and man is the receiver, we are communicating with God.
Since God is beyond language, and yet human beings communicate in human words, everything is “translation”.
I must disagree with this, since God has communicated with man since the creation of Adam.
As far as translations from the original goes…
I’m no expert in ancient languages, but it seems to me Jesus did not speak in Greek.
Jesus would know Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin from growing up in Judea. Of course since Jesus is God, he could communicate in any language he chose.
So I suspect the actual transmission of scripture is more troubling than translations of the original written documents. In the first place, the true originals consist of oral Tradition (aka storys) which are then written down in a different language.
Agreed, except for the “story” part.
So, I’m not sure where you would like to begin claiming “translations”.
In any case, since God’s Inspiration will not be bound by translation, the word of God will accomplish it’s purposes. Hopefully we can do the work of translating within the bounds of Tradition, which preceded the written word, and is inextricably bound up with it.
2 Timothy 3:16 King James Version (KJV)
“16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
This text was written by Paul in 66 A.D. right before he was martyred. It was one of his last epistles.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Right. And some of the gospels quote Jesus slightly different. The term verbatim is inappropriate to the context of the inspired word of God, in my opinion.
R
rcwitness
Guest
God is Spirit. He doesn’t necessarily “speak” as we do. But there are exceptions, of course. Jesus was God incarnate. He was God speaking verbatim. And God spoke to some with through an audible voice. But Scripture, in general, is “an inspired message” of what God delivered for His people to hear, know, understand and keep.
There is a difference. The authors were directed and guided, but through their personal understanding and way of articulating. Did God intend for them to write exactly what they wrote? Yes. Did He speak with an audible voice, as they copied down verbatim? No.
There is a difference. The authors were directed and guided, but through their personal understanding and way of articulating. Did God intend for them to write exactly what they wrote? Yes. Did He speak with an audible voice, as they copied down verbatim? No.
P
PJM
Guest
NO
The Bible is Inspired in full, BUT NOT dictated, which is WHY God in His brilliance choose to have Only One Church Teach HIS Faith beliefs:thumbsup:
GBY
R
rcwitness
Guest
Your Scripture quote does not support the statement “the Bible is the basis for all worship, belief and doctrine”. How did you conclude what books are Scripture? This takes extra-Biblical authority. And I know the sky didn’t open up and an audible voice from the Father tell you a Canon. Or your interpretations, which differ among every group claiming this, are not explicit in Scripture.
How do you know that when St Paul teaches about women wearing head coverings in Church its OK to not observe as a sacred Tradition?
P
Pulvis
Guest
R
rcwitness
Guest
I agree with his interpretation.
This also explains that interpretation, from Haydock’s commentary.
Ver. 3.The head of the woman is the man, &c. To have the head covered at public meetings, is, according to St. Paul, a mark of subjection: The man was created to be head over the woman, who was made subject to the man, being made of him, of his rib, and the woman made for him, not he for the woman. The man in a special manner, is the image of God, not only by his immortal soul, in which sense also the woman was made to God’s image, and likeness, but inasmuch as God gave him a power over all creatures, and so he is called, the glory of God. For these reasons, as well as from a received custom, St. Paul tells every woman, that in prayer or prophesying in public meetings, she must have her head veiled, and covered in testimony of her subjection to man, her head, otherwise she dishonours herself, and her head. This is what he tells her, (ver. 10.) that she ought to have a power over her head,[1] that is, to have a veil or covering, as a mark of man’s power over her: and because of the angels, that is, out of a respect to the angels there present. Some understand the priests and ministers of God, called angels, particularly in the Apocalypse. St. Paul adds, that nature[2] having given to women long hair, designed it to be as a natural veil. In fine, he appeals to them, to be judges, whether it be not unbecoming in women to pray without a veil. But he will have men to be uncovered, and not to bear such a mark of subjection, as a veil is, by which a man would dishonour his head, that is, himself, and Christ, who is his head, and who appointed him, when he created him, to be head over the woman. He looks upon it as a dishonour and a disgrace for men to nourish their hair, as women should do. He also calls God the head of Christ, that is, of Christ, as man. Lest he should seem to lessen the condition of women more than necessary, he adds, that the propagation of mankind now depends on the woman, as well as on the man, seeing every man is by the woman. (Witham)
I believe that Tradition (or in this case, the lack there of) gives a witness to how we can interpret this passage. The Church has never adopted this as a Sacred Tradition (in the literal and material sense of a physical head covering). Though, it has symbolically been practiced with material head coverings.
- Status