The nature of inspiration
I thought a comment by abtruth in one of our threads had a lot in it which would add to some of our discussions here:
If there’s good evidence the Bible can be trusted, then the issue of man’s involvement is moot. A simple question illustrates this: “Are you suggesting with this objection that if God does exist, He’s not capable of writing what He wants through imperfect men?” This is hard to affirm. If the answer is “No,” then the objection vanishes. If the answer is yes, then ask, “Did you ever own a dog? Could you get your dog to sit? If you can get a dumb dog to sit, what makes you think an all-powerful God can’t get a man to write just what He wants him to?” …
If you first establish that the Biblical record can be trusted, then the second problem—human involvement is irrelevant. If God inspires it then it doesn’t matter if men or monkeys did the writing; they’ll still write exactly what God intends.
Some think getting a word from God is a substitute for careful Bible study. But it’s bad advice to pray for the Holy Spirit to give you the right interpretation of a text.
Paul said “All scripture is god-breathed,” (2 Tim 3:16), graphe in Greek. The writings are inspired and authoritative, not the interpretation we think the Holy Spirit is giving us. This is why the words should be our focus, not our feelings.
If you think God is telling you something through Scripture that is not connected to the meaning of the words in their context, it can’t be of God because God chose to communicate through language, not around it.
I like this comparison, even if I don’t agree with it totally.
To me it creates a new perspective on how to approach the bible which centres around the nature of inspiration. The flaw with the logic above in my view is that it assumes that God wanted or intended for everything in the bible to be written exactly (word for word) as he wanted. Maybe he did, but in order for the above logic to be true, then you rely on a belief that this is the way that God chooses to express his inspiration. The same argument is often used to raise questions about the nature of an interventionist God - (memorably by Terry Lane) you ask whether you believe God has the power to intervene (eg to miraculously heal people). If you believe that he has the power to intervene but doesn’t always actually do it, then you must consider that God on occasions chooses not to intervene.
The problem that both of these examples circle around is the inherent assumption that if we believe God can act, then we believe he would act in the way that we assume that he should act. For mine, it is a conundrum which is an expression of assuming that we are able to know God in an all encompassing sense.
The second question I think is picked up in the latter half of abtruth’s comment (and I don’t mean to suggest that abtruth doesn’t answer these questions in his comment, at least for his opinion). That is, what does it mean to say that God is able to inspire people to write things exactly how he wanted? You need to consider what God would weigh up in exercising such inspiration - do I want to make the maximum impact on the people who are reading this right now, or on the people who might be reading it in the future or who? Abtruth rightly comments that God exercises his inspiration through people and language, but there are some who would argue that the God-breathedness of the bible means that the text embodies truths both now and forever not just in their intent but in the actual words.
Finally, one last thought. How does the above idea reconcile with the fact that God, at least insofar as he was represented in Jesus, has an established track record for wanting to reveal different things to different people. Remember all the “those that have ears let them hear” stuff? Well Jesus at various times in his ministry shared some things with his disciples, some things with his broader group of followers, some things with the public and some with those that sought to oppose them. And it is apparent that part of the guardedness of what he was revealing to whom was deliberate. So does anyone else think that God, in exercising his inspiration of the bible would have wanted to do the same thing? And how?
Discuss. Using examples where necessary (but preferably new ones).
September 14th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
“assumes that God wanted or intended for everything in the bible to be written exactly (word for word) as he wanted.”
i didn’t quite mean ‘word for word’ but that the words would convey his exact intention.
if scripture is really ‘God breathed’ then all the writers of the Bible, with their own idiosyncracies and vernacular would have written exactly what God intended them to write. Therefore saying that the Bible is written by fallible men and to be treated with suspicion is not a criticism of the Bible or the writers but on the ‘all powerful’ God who though the creator of everything, can’t get his message across straight in a simple book!
as i said on the other string
i believe that God did say it in the bible and i believe it but the question that is begged is ‘what exactly did he say?’ ‘who to’ and ‘why’
then we will have a better (dare i say accurate?) understanding of the Bible
September 15th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Reading an golden oldie at present by EJ Young Thy Word is Truth.
He makes the valid point that the Christian position demands one to be completely subject to God himself. If God is the creator and man a creature there is no way in which man can set himself up as a judge of what God has revealed. There is no independent standard which man can drag in which he can pass judgement upon the reasonableness of god’s revelation.
I might add most criticisms of the inspiration of the Bible are a criticism of the doctrine of god namely his very attributes.
September 15th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Abtruth, i am not criticising at all. As I said, I really liked that image and perspective. I do think that it is a fine balance to read the text within its context and language, but also to consider that it would have expressed exactly what God wanted.
I remember having a discussion with a guy during a class at bible college who was arguing against gender inclusive language in biblical translation. He said “if it says ‘he’, then I want it translated as ‘he’”. This argument for direct translation of words divorced of any consideration of meaning would, if taken to its logical extent, render an english translation incomprehensible. He would have said that God intended word for word what was written and that those words ought to be directly translated.
September 15th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Oh boy, do I get to be the one to ask if we think Paul wrote 2 Tim?
Reading the Bible in terms of “all truth is fact” kind of reduces us to dead letters, rather than living experience…
(runs, ducking for cover)
September 15th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
The Versions KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV etal all seem to be able to do it Dan!
September 15th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
They don;t do literal word for word tranlsations Homer - from the greek if it was done literally it would read incomprehensibly - Dan is correct. Reading out loud from a greek newtestament makes you sound like yoda! It is life wanting you be. Climbed tree he did.
September 15th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Oh dear and they ALL say they do literal word for word translation.
September 16th, 2006 at 12:47 am
Greg, will you be completing your New Yoda Version of the bible? Where may we purchase this? Do you think Zondervan will pick it up?
Hello by the way. I recognise some names here from philbaker days, but I can’t remember what my username was there. Jasenotjason maybe?
I think that assuming to know God in totum is an arrogance that as imperfect humans we can’t afford. likewise, while what God breathed may have been perfect truth, what humans passed on and eventually wrote down, probably wasn’t.
Thomas Paine wrote:
For my own part, my belief in the perfection of the Deity will not permit me to believe that a book so manifestly obscure, disorderly, and contradictory can be His work
That might be a little harsh, but the core of the idea to me is valid.
September 17th, 2006 at 8:43 am
If I consider that Michelangelo was inspired when he painted the Sistine Chapel, must I therefore conclude that the ceiling is exactly as God intended it? (And that God is a pale skinned, white bearded human-looking being?) I heard a sermon not that long ago which was definitely inspired - what attributes ought I associate with it on account of its inspiration?
Sometimes the argument of inspiration is used to negate the human factor in scripture, but I find that a difficult argument to accept, as though scripture being inspired means that it is no longer subject to the other influences and attributes which are normally encountered in human endeavours. If this is true, then it seems only true of the inspiration of the bible - not other examples of inspired human work throughout the centuries, which leaves us with a type of special inspiration at work in the scriptures, as opposed to an ordinary inspiration at work elsewhere. And to my mind, we’re back at square one, where we argue that the bible is special because we already believe that the bible is special.
Don’t get me wrong here, I believe that the bible is inspired. I just think that it’s flawed logic to go from a) the bible is inspired, to b) therefore human involvement in the bible is moot. I think our experience of inspiration today and down through the centuries should warn us of the fallacy of giving too much clout to what inspiration can account for. I find it easier to work with the notion that God has been trustworthy to people since before he was a boy, and that the bible reflects numerous inspired authors or communities relating their experiences of his faithfulness and character as best they can; and that strikes me as something useful (for teaching, rebuking, correcting, training…).
Oh btw, I am totally against gender-inclusive bibles. I would prefer that all readers were forced to engage with the fact that the scriptures were written in times and cultures where one would address a letter ‘Brothers’ and not ‘Brothers and Sisters’ because I hope that the reader would then have those times and cultures in mind when they read, for example, ‘women should not speak in church.’
September 17th, 2006 at 8:44 am
oops, forgot closing em tag. definitely not inspired.
September 17th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
does this mean the daws are closed?
September 17th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Hi Dan.. no i didn’t think that you were critisising but thought i’s be better with a clarification.
Ross Daws
If I consider that Michelangelo was inspired when he painted the Sistine Chapel, must I therefore conclude that the ceiling is exactly as God intended it?
if it was truly the holy spirit that inspired and guided him for a specific purpose then i guess you could conclude that
September 18th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
How do we determine the type of inspiration? With anything how do we know if it is divine inspiration or human inspiration or to the worst kind the devil made me do it?
September 19th, 2006 at 11:00 am
with divine inspiration it must be consistent with God’s word ie the Bible.
If it ain’t consistent then Satan is using you. As Jesus shows us you need to understnd your bible to combat him.