"Inspired"

[Willowbirch]

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)

[Left Coast]

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.  

[ebia]

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.

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.

[ebia]

But misspelling is not a indication that there is of lack of intelligence.
I agree - I rarely pick someone up on spelling in on-line forums, and when I do it's for a very particular point.

[ollie]

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.

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.

[ebia]

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.

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.

[Petro]

Concerning the word Inspired

posted by ollie as reply #29
 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.

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

[Willowbirch]

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.

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.