ChristiansUnite Forums

Define "inspired".


How did the church, down through the centuries, measure what is "inspired", and what isn't, to determine which mss(manuscripts) were "canonical" and which were not.

How does the church "know" that what we have in scripture is "inspired", and what is not included, as for instance, the Apocrypha(sp), is not "inspired".

Symph,

You DO like to stir things don't you!

I think that' s a very good quesiont, Symphony. As for the Apocrypha, it was destined not to be put into scripture or God would have changed the hearts of men to put it in scripture. Inspired is supposed to mean "What is from the Holy Spirit" or God. However, what happens on this earth is what God intends to happen or He wouldn't allow it. In other words, the world has to go exactly the way it is going for the end times to come.  If it isn't going the way He intends it, He will intervene. So even though most people are ruled by the "ruler of the air" (which is the devil), inspirations come from what is from the Holy Spirit. I do not think it is ALWAYS clear to any of us which is which. I use my "instincts" to discern which is which, but since i am human, I am prone to error.

There was a time I thought ‘inspired’ was like sitting down by the river and being ‘inspired’ to write a story on fishing.
Once while I was driving in Eastern Washington I heard a man on the radio explain 2Tim. 3:16.

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:

Those six words, is given by inspiration of God, come from one Greek word, theopneustos.
theos = God. It is where we get words like theology.
pneo = blow or to breath. It is where we get words like pneumonia.
The NIV actually does a better job of translating this.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

It is strange the NIV translators didn’t believe this. The NIV is considered a thought for thought translation. They felt it was important to learn what the thoughts were of the MEN who wrote the bible.
Since it is Gods word I believe He has protected it. While none of our translations are perfect we can always go deeper with the many tools we have available today.
God, I believe, was in complete control of which books were included. I think that when the printing press was invented God lead these men in their translation. That is just one reason why I feel the KJV is based on a more accurate text than some other translations are.

2 Peter 1:19 ¶ We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
2 Peter 1:20  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2 Peter 1:21  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

It is a very interesting quiestion.  How much do we really know about the processes behind selecting the books, or what their criteria really were or how they were applied?  Ultimately, we have to take it on trust that God inspired the men doing the selection just as much as he inspired the original writers.


I don't want to derail the thread, but a large proportion of the Church does have it in their scripture.

The Apocrypha was originally part of the Septuagint, which also included the Old and New Testaments which are in our Bible today. Much of the Apocrypha concerns historic events, as well as traditional legends that may, or may not, have occured. From what I've read (I may be wrong), the Apocryphal books were not originally a part of the Hebrew scriptures, but were included later in early Greek versions made for Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt. For this reason they were accepted by the early church, because their Bible was this Greek Bible.

I do not pretend to be familier with all the reasons our Bible today does not have the fifteen books (or parts) of the Apocrypha. Some translations do include these, but do not consider them "inspired" scripture. They were seperated on account of several factors, some of which include purity, origin, etc.

As I said, the Bible we use today is basically what was in the Hebrew canon; the Apocrypha was not part of this.

Most of it was certainly written later than the rest of the OT, and it is true that the history in some of the books is clearly inaccurate.

This has been the assumption for over a thousand years.  However, hebrew fragments of some of the books have now been found, indicating that at least some of them were part of the hebrew scriptures originally.


Since all the NT quotes from the OT that can be identified come from LXX (the Greek scriptures you refer to) this doesn't seem an unreasonable position for the early church to have taken.


Note that the RCC considers them to be Deuterocanoncial (second canon).  I.e. of lesser inspiration that the rest of the bible.  The 39 articles of the Anglican church say they are useful but should not be used in forming doctrine.

You were closer the first time. They were separated because they appear to originate in the LXX on the Hebrew scriptures (but this is now looking a bit suspect).  People (eg Luther) were then inclined to reject them altogether because, in a few places, they don't support a doctrinal position the rejector has taken up.

But this is now looking less likely to be true.

Also note, for anyone who hasn't actually looked at them, as well as including whole books of history and wisdom literature, it also includes missing sections of other books, esp. Daniel.

Yes; some parts of the apocrypha were written in the Hebrew language, but were not a part of the Hebrew canon.
The New Testament quotes you refer to, if I understand you correctly, did come from the Greek translation - BUT they were quoted from the parts which we now refer to today as the Old Testament, not the Apocrypha. (With the exception of Jude's quotation of the Book of Enoch, but Enoch is not a part of the Apocrypha, anyway.)

yes, that is also my personal opinion.

I am not sure I understand where you are coming from; if you are suggesting that some parts were rejected because of man's fallible opinions, I am inclined to disagree, although that could happen.
The "missing" sections of Daniel were not a part of the Daniel we have in our Old Testament today. Our "Daniel" is the story as it was found in the Hebrew canon, and it did not originally include the Apocryphal versions, which are the following:

Daniel, Bel, and the Snake
Daniel and Susanna
The Song of the Three

 They were placed alongside of Daniel because they were the same subject, not because they were a part of the book; but they're a great read anyway!  :D

P.S. Ebia, if you're arguing that the Apocrypha has been unfairly censored, by all means, read it! Many Bibles include it along with the Old and New Testament, and its common to find it in libraries etc. I can understand why it is considered a "lesser" inspired book, but that doesn't make it worthless nonsense. There's a lot of wisdom in it, which Christians could benefit from.  :)

There was no defined Hebrew canon until after the start of the rise of Christianity, so to use this to define what should be in our canon is to rely on the work of those who rejected Christ.

I did not mean to imply that any of the apocryphal were quoted, just that the LXX was, implying that it (as a whole) was the scripture used by the the apostles and NT authors.
Whether or not a book is quoted in the NT proves nothing, as many OT books are not quoted, and several books that no-one considers scriptural that are (like Enoch).  FWIW, there are places in the NT than can be seen as references to, for example, Tobit, but they are ambiguous.




I'm implying that there might have been a "conflict of interest" so to speak.

since some of Daniel is in Hebrew and some in Aramaic, it looks like its from more than one source put together at some point anyway.

In the LXX (and hence the RCC and Orthodox bibles) they come in the middle of the book of Daniel, not alongside it.  Hence, you'd have to at least consider them to be inserts into the book.

Okay.  I've read all the above posts.  Thank you.  Yes, God's in control of all of it, as Heidi, et.al., suggests;

I understand that Daniel and II Peter  have been highly controversial.  My previews to both of those books suggest, though, no real substantial reason to not include them.  And, of course, Jesus quotes from Daniel.

But on the inspired thing, then there are "levels" of inspiration.  The Apocrypha being secondary.  

Scholars stand in amazement of Shakespeare, still unsure today of exactly who he was--that it's phenomenal that some one author like that could have that kind of insight into the various temperaments, and wide variety, of human beings.  The implication being that Shakespeare was somehow "inspired".

I'm not into that really, except just to say that Shakespeare to me would be "inspired" in a negative sense--that is, his works seem to amplify human depravity.

So what makes scripture so "inspired" though, besides the pronouncements by itself that it "is"?

And, are other utterances by human beings ever "inspired"?

I mean, the NT repeats how we shall give answer to every word we utter.

Some time ago Whitehorse started a thread called "Words", outlining many verses re: the tongue, etc.

So maybe everything we utter "matters"; as if life itself, all that we see and hear--tangible and intangible, visiable and invisiable--is tied up in "words" or:  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..."

Hehe.  The plot thickens.   :-[

And so perhaps everything we utter, perhaps in that sense, is "inspired", especially since, as Heidi and several others here intimated, God's in control of all of it anyway.   But not only inspired positively--some of the things we utter might be "inspired" negatively--or that is, still loaded with meaning, but just loaded in a not so good way...

Everything we do in life really does essentially just turn on what we say or don't say--in our communication(s) with others...

      :-X
   

I would like to see your sources for this; not because I disagree, but I'd like to know where this came from.That's my understand of the situation from reading around the subject - I don't have a specific source I can quote for you, without doing a websearch or something, which is probably not what you are looking for.

I didn't think you were saying that - I was just trying to clarify.

I'm not talking about quotes, but places that could be aluding to stories from apocraphal books.  The idea I'm thinking of is saducees question about the woman who has had seven husbands who died - which will she be married to in heaven?  It has been suggested that this is a reference to Sarah in the book of Tobit.


Agreed on by whom? The protestant churches only?

*********

I am not familiar with this story. Isn’t it possible that the Sadducees were familiar with, what would be simply a tale, and then asked the question.
Sort of like me asking if it was a sin if I let my children eat some old witches candy house.
There was a time 25 years or so ago when I read the “Lost and Forgotten Books of the Bible”. Fortunately I have forgotten what I read. It did alter my perception of the bible for several years. That is the problem with other books, they skew our perception.
I believe the true gospel is found in the bible and the bible alone, nothing more and nothing less. If we start adding to the bible, whether it is the Lost Books, The Book of Mormon, The Appocriphia, the visions of Ellen G. White, or speaking in tongues, then we have a wider authority than the bible alone.
My suggestion is stay away from them. Trust God. He has given and protected His word.  

I believe that one of the most important ways they canonized the OT was that they included books Jesus quoted from - which I believe is all of them, except Ezra(??).

Anyways, check out Josh McDowell's New Evidence That Demands a Verdict.  It takes you step by step through the whole canonization procedure for the OT and NT, and details why the Apocrypha was not included.  I would quote it, but I left it at my father's house when I moved to Houston.  :'(

I'm not claiming it proves anything.


Any worthwhile you read alters your perception, whether it's the Gospel According to St John, Tobit or The Lord of the Rings.

I thought we were debating whether or not these were part of the bible, and the basis on which this choice has been/is being made.  Remember, for the majority of the world's Christians, these books are, and always have been, part of the bible.  No-one thought otherwise until St Jerome noticed that the Jews didn't use them.

See above.

's not true.  There are several OT books that are not quoted in the NT at all (let alone by Jesus) and several non-inspired books that are.   Based on reference from the NT alone, some of the apocrapha would have a stronger claim to inclusion than quite a few mainstream OT books.

I have read it, and I didn't find it one of his more convincing sections.  He starts with too much conviction of which is the right answer, and sets out to prove it, rather than judge the issues on their own merit, I believe.  I no longer possess the book though, so I can't take it apart here.

Thanks, 5020, I'll keep an eye out for McDowell's book...

ebia,

While this first portion of your statement is true.



The rest of your  statement is nothing more than hot air, The fact is, this little argument has always been used by the papist institution, which includes some of the anglicans (Westcott & Hort to be precise) to bolster the Apocryphal book as inspired by those who desire to recognize what is uninspired to be canonical.

The term Apocrypha means "NONCANONICAL"Jerome (who translated the OT into Latin directly from the Hebrew) was one of the first to use the term Apocrypha to designate certain books which were included in the Septuagint and the Latin Old Testament versions but had never been part of the Hebrew Scriptures.

In Fact in his introduction to the translated version he begins it with the Prologus Galeatus ; this is what he writes about these spurious books.

"This prologue to the Scriptures may suit as a helmed preface to all the books which we have rendered from Hebrew into Latin, that we may know that whatever book is beyond these must be reckoned among the Apocrypha."

Ref: Prologus Galeatus - An Introduction To The Apocrypha, by Bruce M. Metzger, New York: Oxford University Press, 1957, p. 171.

The RCC, inspite of Jeromes Prologue adopted these spurios books as Inspired in answer to the reformations position in the 15th century. Their oficial Bible was this Latin Vulgate work of  Jerome, it is intersting that inspite of the prologue, they were bound and determined to force what is not of the Holy Spirit, to be their official version of the scriptures.

While it is true that the original KJV, had the apocryphical  writings sandwiched bet the OT and NT, it contained Jeromes Prologue Galeatus", since

What is ignored by those who use this argument,  is that the scriptures inform us, that;

"unto them (the Jews were committed the (lively) oracles of God. " (Acts 7:38, Rom 3:1-2)

Therefore if,  the Jews determined what was inspired of the OT writings, then that is what was delivered to them of the Holy Spirit. And we believe the Holy Spirit used them (inspite of their rejection of the Messiah) to list what He wanted us to receive as of God.

And this was settled at the council of Jamnia (Jamma) around 90 AD) the rest which are considered pseudopedigraphical (false writings), deautorocanonical books were considered spurios by them and the early church, and history clearly proves that by the year 367, 39 OT and 27 NT books where accepted as the Inspired Scriptures by the early church, the fate of all other writings, were sealed at that .. by the years 390 Ad (approx), the western roman church had accepted the Apocryphal writings as inspired and do so to this date.

The earliest list of the entire cannon was compiled by Anathasius Bishop of Alexanderia.

Anyone can verify this letter just use your search engine by typing in:     Anathasius Festal Letter 39 to the Egyptian Chruches..

Anathasius Bishop of Alexandria's - Easter Festal Letter 39
"As the heretics are quoting apocryphal writings, an evil which was rife even as early as when St. Luke wrote his gospel, therefore I have thought good to set forth clearly what books have been received by us through tradition as belonging to the Canon, and which we believe to be divine. For there are in all twenty-two books of the Old Testament. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. After this comes Joshua, and Judges, and Ruth. The four books of the Kings, counted as two. Then Chronicles, counted the two as one. Then First and Second Esdras [i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah]. After these Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Cantica. To these follow Job, and the Twelve Prophets, counted as one book. Then Isaiah, Jeremiah together with the Epistle of Baruch, the Lamentations, Ezekiel, and Daniel. Of the New Testament these are the books [then follows the complete list ending with "the Apocalypse of John"]. These are the fountains of salvation, that whoso thirsteth, may be satisfied by the eloquence which is in them. In them alone (en toutois monois) is set forth the doctrine of piety. Let no one add to them, nor take aught therefrom.
I also add for further accuracy that there are certain other books, not edited in the Canon, but established by the Fathers, to be read by those who have just come to us and wish to be instructed in the doctrine of piety. The Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the Doctrine (Didakh) of the Apostles and the Pastor. And let none of the Apocrypha of the heretics be read among you."
Ref:  (An excerpt from from the XXXIX Festal Epistle of Athanasius, translated in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV (2d series, pp. 551 and 552.)


This pretty much settles this argument, the Apocryphgal books are (not inspired) noncanonical ....................period.

Here is  information of the development of the NT cannon;

http://www.themage.net/Bible/New%20Testament%20Cannon.htm
By the way this is taken from a Catholic website, at least they depict the historical significance of the matter truthfully.

Note: 1546 AD, RCC At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirms once and for all the full list of 27 books as traditionally accepted.

Someone a while back, made the ridiculous assertion that the protestant church removed the Apocryphal books from the Bible, it is clear from the study of the history of the NT Cannon, it was the RCC who insists on adding the apocryphal (noncanonical) writings to the scriptures.

I trust this has been informative to those who are perhaps not well versed on this little bit of history.

Blessings,

Petro

ebia,
Why?

Pure rhetoric, and not very good rhetoric.

I use the label apocrypha (which actually means hidden, not non-canonical) here as it is widely understood.  I prefer to refer to these books as deuterocanonical.


That tells us nothing of what St Jerome actually thought of them.  Neither does it prove much - plenty of other Christian Fathers have disagreed with him over these books, St. Athanasius and Augustine included.. Also, we have access to information regarding them and the LXX that he did not have.

The RCC, and (more importantly in my opinion) the Othodox Churces, have always considered these books [deutero]canonical, not withstanding St Jerome.  The council of Trent changed nothing - it mearly clarified the existing situation.

You've cut this about so much it's not clear which bits are your words, which Jerome's and which come from the pen of others.  Perhaps you could clarify.

I'm sorry, but I don't consider decisions made by Jewish councils after 33AD to be particularly inspired.

What is quite clear is that the early church debated the matter, and virtually the entire church, East (Orthodox) and West (RCC) accepted the deuterocanonical books as valuable.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

(To be continued )

So you want to accept this as the definitive list of OT books?  Did you bother to read it, or just cut and paste it from somewhere?
Athanasius includes one Deuterocanonical book (Baruch) and leaves out Esther.


Here we have a list of most of the other deuterocanoncial books as being at least useful (NB including Esther as well).
That only leaves Maccabees unaccounted for, if I've not missed one.

Athanasius clearly isn't referring to these books as apocrypha.

Which bit(s) of the above would you like to back-track on.

I don't see much argument in this thread about the NT canon.

You seem a bit confused, the deuterocanoncal books are part of the OT, not the NT.

Well, hopefully it might inspire a few people to go and read up on it for themselves.

ebia,

You ask..........


Because I said so..

Pure rhetoric, and not very good rhetoric.
I called it hot air, pure gas...


It makes no different Jerome (345-420) came on the seen after Anathasius (293-373), he was a young man, when Anathasius compiled the list of books.

It was not;

"until 386 AD the Jerome settled in Bethlehem and began his writing ministeries "

"He was carefull of his sources of information. He knew and used extensively early versions and manuscripts of the Bible no longer extant.   Operating on the principle that only the eriginal text of the Scriptures is free from error, he engaged in considerable manuscript study  in order to detrmine what, among variant readings should be considered the original and true text.  Out of these efforts came the wordk for ehich he is best known for  the Vulgate."

Ref:  The Chruch in Its Early Development Exploring Chruch History P.22, Howard F. Voss, Nelson

If these little facts are  accurate, one can get a very good glimpses of this mans interigity, and the mere distinction between what he consideredto be apocryphal (non-canonical) and what He didn't make the point distinctly, between that that was held by him to be inspired and what was not inspired, and clearly this is the point he makes in his prologue.

Here you can inform yourself, mo betta;

. http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=apocrypha

"The Apocrypha, whose name comes from a Greek work meaning 'hidden', are the set of 14 books of unknown authenticity that have been included in the canonized Old Testament at one point or another through the history of Christianity. The Jewish community has never accepted these books as inspired, and they are not present in the Protestant canon.

St. Augustine was the only significant figure to hold the apocrypha to be divinely inspired, but his voice on the matter was consistently undermined by that of St. Jerome, a considerably more talented linguist and prominent translator. Upon the death of Pope Damascus in 384AD, however, Jerome's influence was recuced drastically. Jerome was the chief secretary to the pope, and aimed ot be his successor. When Siricius was elected, however, Jerome moved to Bethlehem, a rather remote section of the Roman Empire, to finish his work on translating the Hebrew Old Testament into Latin Slang. This opened Augustine's opportunity for influence on the councils, and in 393 and 397AD, the councils of Hippo and Carthage finally accepted the apocrypha into the canon. The Syrian Church didn't accept them until the next century.

Most define the apocrypha in terms of the books 'left out' of the Old testament by the Protestants, however, I believe it's important to note that these books had no place in the Jewish canon and were never added to the Christian canon until St. Augustine used the Roman Catholic Church to do so. His efforts in this effect were fought vehemently, but in 450 AD (after 70 years of debating the issue), Augustine finally won out.

Of the reasons to reject the apocrypha as Christian canon:
No book claims to be the inspired word of God.
Some books contain serious historical inaccuracies 1, while others promote concepts contradictory to what is dominant in scripture 2.
Jesus, nor the apostles ever quote from the apocrypha in the New Testament. They allude to them twice 3, but never as authoritative scripture.
There are no original Hebrew copies of any apocryphal book -- the Greek is all that's available "


Catholics always claim the term apocrypha was coined by protestants,  but as you can see this is false, Jerome their own writer of their own Latin version of the OT, whom you claim where books cannonized by unbelievers, lists the same number of  OT books as inspired.



Your opinion is merely an opinion, the history record speaks for itself.

Besides you can call them hideen, but the early church fathers said nothing ot the kind, they are u8ninspired writings, having some value, in living and worship, nothing more than that.


I know my writings look like scripture to you, but when I quote scripture, I always reference it.


It matters little what you do or don't consider to be true from others, clearly these early church fathers, believed the 39 books to be the inspired versions, the rest are spurious.


Now you are saying they are valuable, that is a long way from being inspired..isn't it..??

Me thinks, you like to argue just,  for the sake of arguing........


Not hardly, in 393 and 397AD at the councils of Hippo and Cathage, Augustine who was a proponent of the apocryphical books, won out and had the apocrypha was added into the Roman Catholic church cannon of books, by this time there had been a rise of errors and effects on the development of doctrines within the Roman Catholic institution, that this began the rift between east and west, which eventually lead to the split.

You really should familiarize your self  with a little church history, befor you enter these discusssions..


Petro

Don't get me wrong - I've got heaps of respect for St Jerome.  I just don't think he's the last word on the matter, and neither did the Church of his time.

Am I debating with you, or with websites you can cut and paste from - I could, after all, sit here and paste stuff from RCC, Othodox and similar sites?


Neither do quite a few books that are undisputed.


Perfectly true.  Of course, many Christians don't believe all of the undisputed OT is historically accurate.

When taken at face value, yes.  But the same is true for many places in the rest of scripture if you take them at face value.


Very few OT books are quoted in a way that demands them to be authoritative scripture.

Untrue or out of date.   There are no complete Hebrew copies to the best of my knowledge, but fragments have been discoved.

In the end, none of those stands up to scrutiny, so you have to judge whether to go with the OT used by the apostles (the LXX, which included them) or that defined by the Jews after33AD which doesn't.  Personally, I think the founders of the CofE (the church that produced your beloved Authorised Version, don't forget) got it about right when they wrote the 39 Articles, but I am open to other possibilities on the issue.

Even Catholics can be wrong sometimes  ;)

My opinion is, indeed, only an opinion, and I would encourage anyone interested to read up on it themselves.  Preferably in reliable historical sources.  I would also encourage them to read the books concerned (and the Didache).  God Breathed or not, theres good stuff in them.

Apocrapha means hidden.  Take that how you will.


I wasn't refering to your scripture quotes but your quotes from St Jerome, other websites, the KJV notes or whatever, verses your own words.

Clearly St Jerome did.  St Athanathius and St Augustine (and Origen, FWIW) had slightly different ideas.  Most never commented on it in writings that have survived, so we will never know.   When alls said and done, you're putting a heck of a lot of faith in one great but fallable man - St Jerome.

That was badly phrased on my part, since both the RCC and the Orthodox church do accept them as inspired.  Personally, I'm still undecided on their level of inspiration.  Like I said, I like the phrasing of article VI, which rates them as useful, places them clearly on a different footing to the "mainstream" books, and leaves open the question of their inspiration.

No, but I think people should make up their own mind clear of (or at least fully understanding) the propaganda of both sides.  And not be put off from reading the books concerned.

After all, this thread was started to discuss how the canon was arrived at, and that's what we are doing.

So you think the church went from being the font of all knowledge under St Jerome, to a corrupt monster, in the space of about 25 years?  You put too much weight on the importance of two individuals.

How much personal abuse should I take from someone who can't even spell the topic under discussion?

Well, by all means please do post some evidence to back your opinions and feelings, which are not credible, since they do not have any basis except that they are your own thoughts of what you think is the way it is.


To late!

If Jerome was here you'd be arguing with him..proposing you speak for the church of his time.. Hah!

You do take the cake...

I got to hand to you...


Your blowing smoke again.

Please give us the facts.  Don't keep us in ignorance..


Not when Jerome spoke of it..his prologue was written in Latin..


I have written what I meant to write!  If you recognize something similar to scripture in what I have written good for you..if it does not have the verse quoted next to it, you won't find in scripture.


I can't spell apoyrcpha but you know what I am syaing, and I really don't care whether I spell it write for you or not,  Anyhow,  I noticed you mispelled the word  yourself herein, but I am to polite to mention it, You obviously don't know church history although you think you do., your math skills are questionable and your english isn't anything to write home about.

What more can I say...

The rest of your post isn't even worth wasting time on..

Petro

Does it not define as "God breathed"? Does not God and His Holy Spirit assign some protection to it down through the times? Even though the compilers may have applied it to their lives in an adulterated form of it's truth?

 "Inspira'tion   From: Easton's Bible Dictionary.

Text:  that extraordinary or supernatural divine influence vouchsafed to those who wrote the Holy Scriptures, rendering their writings infallible.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (R.V., "Every scripture inspired of God"), 2 Tim. 3:16. This is true of all the "sacred writings," not in the sense of their being works of genius or of supernatural insight, but as "theopneustic," i.e., "breathed into by God" in such a sense that the writers were supernaturally guided to express exactly what God intended them to express as a revelation of his mind and will.

The testimony of the sacred writers themselves abundantly demonstrates this truth; and if they are infallible as teachers of doctrine, then the doctrine of plenary inspiration must be accepted. There are no errors in the Bible as it came from God none have been proved to exist. Difficulties and phenomena we cannot explain are not errors. All these books of the Old and New Testaments are inspired. We do not say that they contain, but that they are, the Word of God.

The gift of inspiration rendered the writers the organs of God, for the infallible communication of his mind and will, in the very manner and words in which it was originally given. As to the nature of inspiration we have no information. This only we know, it rendered the writers infallible. They were all equally inspired, and are all equally infallible. The inspiration of the sacred writers did not change their characters. They retained all their individual peculiarities as thinkers or writers.
(See BIBLE; WORD OF GOD.)"

 Strong's Number: 2315
Transliterated: theopneustos
Phonetic: theh-op'-nyoo-stos

Text:  from 2316 and a presumed derivative of 4154; divinely breathed in: --given by inspiration of God.


2 Timothy3:16.  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, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 1 Peter 1:23.  Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
 24.  For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
 25.  But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Thank you, Ollie.  :)

P.S. Although I think the Apocryphal books are valuable and should not be totally ignored by today's Christians, my personal view on the final decisions to seperate Apocryphal books from the OT is this: it was a one-time inspiration by God for His church. I believe he guided the minds and hearts of those who did the work. Just as certain miracles and "gifts" were given in the church's early days, so the final version of our Bible was also given.

I believe that men such as Jerome etc. and their knowledge of the historical writings were greatly influential; but God was behind this, otherwise it would not have happened.

(I think I've just invited attack, lol)

I admit I know very little about the Acopoocria (I misspelled that on principle). I also have difficulty understanding misspelled words. But misspelling is not a indication that there is of lack of intelligence.
My father was the smartest person I have ever known in my life, I am afraid he sucked up the entire family brain pool. He was an engineer and a professor. The man was smart, the man couldn’t spell. The man had a secretary.
I inherited this from him, add to that - fat and uncoordinated fingers, slight ydslexia, and a mind that is a few words ahead of my fingers, and that spells disaster. :'(
To make it legible I put it in a word processor first then copy and paste.
Lets please not criticize someone’s spelling ability. >:(
It seems to me most everyone agrees that the 66 books came from God, where I think it becomes dangerous is when we add to that. Whether it is writings, or dreams, or visions, or historical records, if we feel it adds to Gods word somehow by giving us understanding we are no longer trusting in God.  

Doesn't that just amount to saying "God inspired my half of the church rather than the other half"?   Not that the RCC / Othodox position is substantially different in reverse, but an argument that amounts to each side saying "we know God is on our side, so we are right and you are wrong" isn't terribly convincing.

It isn't convincing to say God is on our side. We are the created, God is the creator. We are to be on His side not Him on ours.

Ok, I'll rephrase it if it make you happy:
Doesn't that just amount to saying "God inspired my half of the church rather than the other half"?   Not that the RCC / Othodox position is substantially different in reverse, but an argument that amounts to each side saying "we know we are on the side of God, so we are right and you are wrong" isn't terribly convincing.

Concerning the word Inspired

Ollie,

Excellent point, note the proof text, you  put forth;

2 Tim 3
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, throughly furnished unto all good works

Now. focus on the word scripture; translated from one of two words of the greek as; the word used in this text is the  word graphe;

Strongs #1124  graphe, gra-ay'; a document, i.e. Holy Writ (or its contents or a statement):- scripture.

The other greek word translated scripture pertains to a mere writings of man, i.e. a letter, note, epistle, book, etc.: plur. learning:

Strongs #1121 gramma, gram'mah; bill, learning, scripture (script), writing, written.

The apocrypha falls under the second word  gramma translated scripture as in wrtings by men used to teach, and edify in living, and practice, comment, or explain, but are not considered Holy Writ.

Quite a difference..

The apostle Paul quoted the poets while discoursing at Mar's hill in Athens, but just because he quotes them, he doesn't equate their words to Holy Writ scripture.  (Acts 17:28)

No one has been arguing that the apocrypha is not able to impart some wisdom and truths to the readers of it, but, is is a far cry from the wisdom revealed in the Inspired Word of the Living God.

Blessings,

Petro

;)