Does the Bible say it is inspired by God?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 тра 2024
- I take a look at the word "theopneustos" in 2 Timothy 3:16 and ask how this word should be translated.
the book I mention in the video can be found here: www.amazon.com/Invention-Insp...
I don't understand what your point is. Are you saying the Bible is life- giving, but also has errors? Did I miss something?
My point in this video is asking “what does ‘theopneustos’ mean in its historical context?” This is the verse that we (the church) have used, since Origen, to point to the inspiration of the text… but should he have translated it that way? I’m also pointing out that the idea of inspiration was around even before that, and this proof text might be referring to that, but not in the way that we have come to define it. And one can hold to the inspiration of the text and still admit that there are inconsistencies in it (see Michael F.Bird’s take on inspiration or read “inspiration and incarnation” by Pete Enns) You cannot, however, hold to an inerrant position and do that.
Your failing to realize the meaning of 'given by inspiration of God' is 'God breathed' it goes both ways the translators are translating the meaning. The connecting verse to this is 2 Peter 1:21 which says holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. But in 2 Tim 3:16 the verse says all SCRIPture is given by inspiration of God [God breathed], the word script implies the written down part. Further verse 15 also implies that Timithoy had access to this God-breathed scripture and it wasn't any original autograph.
I’m not failing to realize anything. I know why they are using that. I am well schooled in this way of thinking. And, by the way, I hold to the inspiration of scripture, in case that was a question. That does not negate the fact that the word theopneustos was used in a very specific way during the first and second century. Words not only have meanings… but they have contextual meanings. Take the movie Back to the Future from the 80’s. Marty (the main character, I don’t want to assume you have seen it) goes from 1985 to 1955 and keeps using the slang term “heavy.” Doc Brown says to him “you keep using that word ‘heavy’, is there something wrong with the earth’s gravitational pull?” And that is only a 30 year difference using the same word. My point is this… I don’t think that Origen was wrong for using inspired… but what did the culture that 2 Timothy was written in know about the word/phrase theopneustos that helps us understand this in its historical context. That is what Poirier’s book helps us get at.
Who do you know scripture is inspired if the correct translation is not “inspired”?
@@justinjustin4605as I said in the video, the Hebrew Bible was already being viewed as “authoritative from God” and they viewed both the prophetic works and Torah as directly given from God. If we read 2 Timothy 3:16 as “inspired by God” this was not the origin of this thought. For Christian writing, however, Origen was the first one we know of to use this Greek word to explicitly mean inspired. And, as I said at the end of the video… God breathing life into the text is a form of inspiration. 2 Peter 1:21 is explicitly only speaking about the Holy Spirit’s role in the prophetic word. If we accept that Paul is the author (biblical scholars do not agree on this) then he is likely telling Timothy that the scripture he was taught as a child that made him wise for salvation is the same scripture that God has breathed life into to make him and those he leads wise for righteous living.
@@justinjustin4605I would also encourage you to watch my other two videos on 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as well as read my exegetical paper on my blog about 2 Timothy 3:16 and how we should translate this verse and how the context determines what this likely means.
Since some biblical scholars claim part of Paul's writings are forgeries, Does that not call into question this text is even scripture?
Maybe. But the church not only accepted it as Paul’s authorship, but agreed with the doctrine/theology in it… enough to canonize it. Authorship was likely only part of the reason for accepting something as a part of the canon.
@@sam_burke My understanding of the Church, Doctrine and Theology are completely different than yours. How do you validate what is the Church , Doctrine and Theology today given that no one agrees today and likewise many false teachings existed in the early church as well. I don't see how Sola scriptura works given it requires the church to define it. Should it not be everyone gets to decide what scripture is or isn't scripture based on their opinion as well?
@@dan_m7774it really depends on what we mean by “church.” Church as gathering or church as institution? The first church, in Acts, was constituted of a gathering of people called out from the “world” who confessed Jesus as savior and Lord, who gathered under the apostles teaching, broke bread together, etc… there wasn’t much institutional about that style. As the church spread in the first century, it was mostly autonomous, except for some doctrinal issues that the apostles needed to speak into. As time went on, and Christianity was adopted as the state religion of Rome… church as institution was in full swing…. So things like doctrine, dogma theology and practice were more centralized and organized and heresy was “handled” from a centrality. There were always offshoots, and then there was the great schism… and then there was the reformation… so, in some sense we all came from the same initial formation, but institutionally we see church and church doctrine very differently
@@dan_m7774determining what is scripture and what belongs in the canon has always been a process done by the church under the guidance of the spirit (hopefully)
@@sam_burke The church is the congregation, the authority, and the bride of Christ subject to what husbands and wives owe to each other. One flesh , displaying a continuation, extension and completion of Christ. Visible, singular, a sacramental, never ending and the body of Christ.
I am sure I forgot many other examples as well.
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Umm… ya, I know what the KJV says, but the New Testament, specifically 2 Timothy 1) wasn’t written in 1611 and 2) wasn’t written in English. The Greek words written in the first and second century CE had contextual meanings. Origen was the first one (almost 100/150 years (depending on authorship)) to translate the Greek word theopneustos as “inspired by God.” Did you not watch the video?
so the god decided to need theologians in order to explain what it meant, and the scholars have to DEBATE god's meaning.
God is a crap communicator.
so the god decided to need theologians in order to explain what it meant, and the scholars have to DEBATE god's meaning.
God is a crap communicator.
or... and hear me out on this... the divine being chose to have the creation tell the story... because a skeptical world REALLY wouldn't believe or accept that it just fell down from the skies... and because it was written down by people, words change over time and meanings can get lost in translation. So, if a divine being chooses to have someone write something down within a time frame, within a historical culture... we can assume that interpretation over time will be necessary. And that is a presupposition and an assumption, I get that.
Origen story. 😂
Life is so much easier when you understand that the Bible is NOT inerrant ... you don't have to make-up ludicrous hypotheticals to make everything seem "right" and thereby ruin the actual text.