"Inspired"

[Symphony]

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".

[Corpus]

Symph,

You DO like to stir things don't you!

[Heidi]

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.

[Left Coast]

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.

[ebia]

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.

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.

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

[Willowbirch]

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.

[ebia]

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.

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.

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.

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.

For this reason they were accepted by the early church, because their Bible was this Greek Bible.

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.

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.

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.

They were seperated on account of several factors, some of which include purity, origin, etc.

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.

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

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.

[Willowbirch]

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.

Yes; some parts of the apocrypha were written in the Hebrew language, but were not a part of the Hebrew canon.

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.

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.)

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.

yes, that is also my personal opinion.

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.

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.

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.

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!  

[Willowbirch]

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.  

[ebia]

Yes; some parts of the apocrypha were written in the Hebrew language, but were not a part of the Hebrew canon.

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.

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.)

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 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.

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

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,

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.

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!  

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.

[Symphony]

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...

     
   

[Willowbirch]

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 would like to see your sources for this; not because I disagree, but I'd like to know where this came from.

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 didn't say that the quotations could not have been from the LXX; it would be silly to say that, because that was their Bible at the time.
Also, if you have the time, I would appreciate it if you could show me which verses refer to Tobit; I also would agree they could be amiguous, since several passages throughout the OT are similar.
Also: if they were quoted from Tobit, I certainly have no problem with that!  

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

yes, there might have been; but for the most part I agree with whatever was eventually decided upon.

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.

Yes. But it was considered one book.

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.

Yes; I would not disagree with you on that (aren't you amazed? LOL) but I do not believe them to be a part of the original book. But if they were, I wouldn't holler about it. I don't see much reason why they shouldn't be, if it came down to that.

Hmmm, maybe I'll go publish my own version of the Bible... j/k

[ebia]

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 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 say that the quotations could not have been from the LXX; it would be silly to say that, because that was their Bible at the time.

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

Also, if you have the time, I would appreciate it if you could show me which verses refer to Tobit; I also would agree they could be amiguous, since several passages throughout the OT are similar.

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.

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

yes, there might have been; but for the most part I agree with whatever was eventually decided upon.

Agreed on by whom? The protestant churches only?

[John the Baptist]

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".

*********

[Willowbirch]

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.

Oh okay. Well, that's all right!   I'd love to hear about what you've read on the subject. I haven't studied it as much as I ought to.

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.

I don't know about that; I think the Pharisees' story was more of a word problem rather than a specific reference to scripture, because after her seven husbands died, she finally died unmarried, so the question of her marital situation was left wide open.

Agreed on by whom? The protestant churches only?

Not sure what you mean there. I didn't say somebody else agreed on something; I said I did.  


P.S. what breed of horse is Sadie? (she IS yours, right??)