I have been fortunate to have joined this church in 2004 and began leading the men's Sunday School class in 2005. I have experience teaching Bible Studies for over 15 years, having worked as a layperson with the Navigators in the 1980s and 90s. I was blessed to have attended Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for 2 full years.
Here are some of the theories: -Intuition Theory - "Bible is great religious literature reflecting the Hebrew people's spiritual experiences", "inspiration of the Bible writers was no different from that of other great religious and philosophical writers"
-Illumnination Theory - writers were influenced by the Holy Spirit to have "increased sensitivity and perceptivity with regard to spiritual matters"
-Dynamic Theory - "the Spirit of God works by directing the writer to the thoughts or concepts, and allowing the writer's own distinctive personality to come into play in the choice of words and expressions"
-Verbal Theory - "work of the Holy Spirit is so intense that each word is the exact word God wants used at that point to express the message", sometimes referred to as "Verbal Plenary" with plenary meaning "full"
-Dictation Theory - "God actually dictated the Bible to the writers"
Thanks for the definitions jonathan. My preference is for the Dynamic Theory. To me it best explains the inexactness of certain numbers and some of the personal notes.
1 Timothy 5:23 No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments. This reference, among others suggest an individual personality. The gospels are so different that they too suggest different personalities. Furthermore, this helps me to keep focused on understanding the concepts, and to avoid the specific wording. So when Jesus says that he is the Bread of Life. I think it is quite okay for another culture to interpret it to be the "Rice of Life." Because, for me it is the meaning, not the words that are inspired. And in this area, I disagree with Mohler who prefers Verbal Plenary.
Thanks for setting up the blog... I'm a plenary guy and believe some of the variety is due to the differing emphasis of the writers... One on another note...I used to struggle with some scripture, especially when I read it without understanding the passage’s context. I've come to realize that not all scripture is assertive, but may also be interrogative, subjunctive, or imperative (Erickson). Reading passages that are heavily subjunctive (or even sarcastic) out of context and without understanding its “mood” may lead to serious obstacles to believing the Bible is inerrant. I fully believe that the Bible is inerrant, but I also believe it is important to know the “mood” of the language to understand its application.
OK, first of all….this is really long, so sorry…the best part is the verses at the end…..
.thanks Steve for your comments which are very helpful when we are trying to interpret the Bible!
Jim, although you are voicing yourself as a “Dynamic Theory” (writers are inspired), I believe you are really a “Verbal Theory” (text is inspired….see 2 Timothy 3:16 below) guy…..I should have given a more in-depth explanation of the definitions….let me explain…..
The problem with dynamic theory is that it allows for error by the human authors and expresses that God only “directed the writers to the basic concepts of truth and left them to formulate the final expression of that truth.” It places humans as the ultimate authority as interpreters, which thus allows for error and poor interpretation in modern day.
Verbal theory acknowledges that the “the Bible is the product of a combination of divine and human elements as in the dynamic theory”. It is different in that it affirms that “the Holy Spirit actually controlled the selection of words used in conveying the message.” This approach expresses the inerrancy of Scripture without preventing the explanation for human personalities as you expressed in Paul’s comment to Timothy. There is no denial that the writers of the books and letters are humans, writing to humans. The ultimate author of Scripture is God and there cannot be varying levels of inspiration.
The “inexactness of certain numbers and some of the personal notes” are easily explained (in most cases, some can be difficult) by the culture, personalities, and relationships of those writings. God did not desire to suppress that, but rather to speak His truth through it….
Here are some great verses that help us to understand the inspiration of Scripture. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 16(A)All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that (B)the man of God may be adequate, (C)equipped for every good work. 1 Thessalonians 2:13 13For this reason we also constantly (A)thank God that when you received the (B)word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it (C)not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, (D)which also performs its work in you who believe.
2 Peter 1:20-21 20But (A)know this first of all, that (B)no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21for (C)no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men (D)moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Jeremiah 1:9 9Then the LORD stretched out His hand and (Q)touched my mouth, and the LORD said to me, "Behold, I have (R)put My words in your mouth.
Hebrews 1:1 1God, after He (A)spoke long ago to the fathers in (B)the prophets in many portions and (C)in many ways
Finally, Peter even says that Scripture is “hard to understand” and that people “distort” it through their interpretations. This further shows us the importance in understanding that Scripture, not the writers or the interpreters, are inspired.
2 Peter 3:16 (Peter affirming that Paul’s writings are part of Scripture) 16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of (AS)these things, (AT)in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and (AU)unstable distort, as they do also (AV)the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Quotes from definitions at: http://www.apttoteach.org/Theology/02The_Bible/206_Inspiration.doc
Great point Jonathan! It is so good to finally get a chance to look at this BLOG. I have clients the rest of the day, so I can not stay long, but I look forward to learning more in the future.
I really think this BLOG will help us grow in Christ together.
Jim if you need me to share the Gosphel with you after small group I would love to have the oppurtunity. (just joking!!)
When I distinguish between dynamic and verbal I focus on the last part of the definition. Using your definitions, "each word is the exact word God wants used at that point." The problem with that is I cannot figure why God would want to use inexact places, times and figures unless He was more concerned about inspiring the thoughts and concepts. This is a little picky, and I realize that. But it affects how we deal with translations as well. So when I look at translations I am far more interested that the translators got the meaning right, than the words. And going back to something I said earlier. If someone wants to translate Jesus statement, "I am the bread of life" to "I am the rice of life" to address the cultural understanding I am okay with that. A verbal plenary translation would require using "bread", because that it closer to the word in the original text, although the meaning would be lost. And to me the meaning is crucial, not the words.
Jim, what are some of the problem areas of inexactness that bother you? I know lots of people who use these against Christians...let's look at these areas that appear to be conflict and see if we can figure them out...
Also, I disagree with the idea that the meaning would be lost by not allowing liberality in translating verses such as "bread of life" to "rice of life". I get the point that you are making, but the meaning can still be communicated through explaining what bread is. We are not going to tell people that Pharoah chased the Moses and the Israelites on bicycles just to help people grasp the concept. We are going to explain what chariots are if people do not know what they are.
What do people think about Bible translations such as the Message?
By inexactness I mean things like estimations in numbers of people, or times and places. Verbal plenary folks usually argue "well that kind of estimations was acceptable in those times." This is despite the fact that the figures are usually listed, and not written as "about" or "around". Which leads me to ask, if the Holy Spirit supernaturally inspired every word, than why not be exact and precise. Another place where this inexactness occurs in the gospels, where Jesus words are quoted differently. And since I follow the dynamic model, this makes sense to me. It is the meaning that is the message, not the words. But a verbal plenary interpretation does not have a good explanation why the Holy Spirit who inspired every word did not get Jesus words exactly right.
Not real lsure where I end on the list. I tend to ignore labels, but Dynamic looks pretty close. It's obvious that each writer shows their personalities, etc, but we need to know it's from God. The ones God calls righteous are the ones that follow Him, even on their own. Job and Jonah are examples. God inspired these writers with the concepts He wanted to pass on, knowing they would use the words He wanted used. Make sense?
Also the inexactness of some things - Seems to me the exact details simply were not important, or they would have been included. John closes his gospel with
Joh 21:25 Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
I think pragmatism, properly defined is something that we need to avoid as it allows us to establish meaning instead of "pulling out" the meaning from the text (exegesis and espository preaching).
Definition of 'pragmatism': http://www.babylon.com/definition/Pragmatism/English
Here is a good reference to a proper approach to difficult passages in Scripture: "If you read the Bible, at face value, without a preconceived bias for finding errors – you will find it to be a coherent, consistent, and relatively easy-to-understand book. Yes, there are difficult passages. Yes, there are verses that appear to contradict each other. We must remember that the Bible was written by approximately 40 different authors over a period of around 1500 years. Each writer wrote from a different perspective, to a different audience, for a different purpose. We should expect some differences! However, a difference is not a contradiction or an error. It is only an error if there is absolutely no conceivable manner in which the verses or passages can be reconciled. Even if we do not have the answer right now, that does not mean the answer does not exist. Many have found a supposed error in the Bible in relation to history or geography only to find out that the Bible is correct once further archaeological evidence is discovered."
Jim, As for differences you mentioned above, can you think of any specific ones that present contradiction or errors?
Quote above is from: http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-errors.html
So far every response that I have seen on this website is Biblically-based. www.gotquestions.org is a REALLY good resource for answering some of the questions we may have.
As far as "contradiction" I do not necessarily see any contradiction in the Bible either. But in general, when I read quotes from Jesus that were taken from the same exact events, but have different wording I have to assume that the meaning is inspired not the exact words. Because, otherwise, why would the Holy Spirit alter the words that Jesus stated if the words themselves are so sacrosanct??? And there are places in the history books that mention numbers of men who fought, and there are minor alterations in them. (I heard and read about them in Southern). The verbal plenarists argue that estimation was acceptable in those times, therefore it is accurate within the historical context. Again, if every word is so inerrant, how can you say that when the estimations are inexact. I have no question to the Scriptures being without error and infallible if we focus on the meaning. But when we get to the exact words, it will be problematic to defend. In addition there are passages ie The Adulterous woman in John and the ending of Mark that are in question. Are they inspired?? We obviously cannot say without certaintly and scholars tend to debate them. But my confidence in the Scriptures is unshakable because the meaning of those passages is consistent with the rest of the Biblical text and the meaning is clearly inspired.
I have not spent much time on the below website yet, so I cannot vouch for its credibility....but it seems (from the below two articles) to be a good resource for the compilation or research on tough questions regarding some of the difficult passages/etc.
Jim, I found the below two articles helpful.....do you have the addresses to the historical book estimations and number differences?
In reference to the end of Mark: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/markend.html
In reference to the woman caught in adultery: http://www.tektonics.org/af/adulterypericope.html
This article speaks of the "original text" vs. some of what are referred to copyist errors (very limited occurrences)
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-inerrancy.html
1Kings4:26 and 2Chronicles9:25 is an example of what is probably a copyist error (4,000 vs. 40,000 stalls)
Here is a good article regarding copyist errors (comparing the above mentioned with a secular textual comparison) and how it does not affect the inerrancy of the original text.
http://www.tektonics.org/af/copyisterrors.html
This falls under the category of textual criticism and is not considered part of hermeneutics, but early in the process (after acklowledging the canon) of providing proper translations. Most Bibles today should provide a footnote explaining differences such as the above (again few and far between).
16 comments:
Here are some of the theories:
-Intuition Theory - "Bible is great religious literature reflecting the Hebrew people's spiritual experiences", "inspiration of the Bible writers was no different from that of other great religious and philosophical writers"
-Illumnination Theory - writers were influenced by the Holy Spirit to have "increased sensitivity and perceptivity with regard to spiritual matters"
-Dynamic Theory - "the Spirit of God works by directing the writer to the thoughts or concepts, and allowing the writer's own distinctive personality to come into play in the choice of words and expressions"
-Verbal Theory - "work of the Holy Spirit is so intense that each word is the exact word God wants used at that point to express the message", sometimes referred to as "Verbal Plenary" with plenary meaning "full"
-Dictation Theory - "God actually dictated the Bible to the writers"
Quotes are from Erickson's "Christian Theology"
Thanks for the definitions jonathan. My preference is for the Dynamic Theory. To me it best explains the inexactness of certain numbers and some of the personal notes.
1 Timothy 5:23 No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.
This reference, among others suggest an individual personality. The gospels are so different that they too suggest different personalities. Furthermore, this helps me to keep focused on understanding the concepts, and to avoid the specific wording. So when Jesus says that he is the Bread of Life. I think it is quite okay for another culture to interpret it to be the "Rice of Life." Because, for me it is the meaning, not the words that are inspired. And in this area, I disagree with Mohler who prefers Verbal Plenary.
Thanks for setting up the blog... I'm a plenary guy and believe some of the variety is due to the differing emphasis of the writers... One on another note...I used to struggle with some scripture, especially when I read it without understanding the passage’s context. I've come to realize that not all scripture is assertive, but may also be interrogative, subjunctive, or imperative (Erickson). Reading passages that are heavily subjunctive (or even sarcastic) out of context and without understanding its “mood” may lead to serious obstacles to believing the Bible is inerrant. I fully believe that the Bible is inerrant, but I also believe it is important to know the “mood” of the language to understand its application.
OK, first of all….this is really long, so sorry…the best part is the verses at the end…..
.thanks Steve for your comments which are very helpful when we are trying to interpret the Bible!
Jim, although you are voicing yourself as a “Dynamic Theory” (writers are inspired), I believe you are really a “Verbal Theory” (text is inspired….see 2 Timothy 3:16 below) guy…..I should have given a more in-depth explanation of the definitions….let me explain…..
The problem with dynamic theory is that it allows for error by the human authors and expresses that God only “directed the writers to the basic concepts of truth and left them to formulate the final expression of that truth.” It places humans as the ultimate authority as interpreters, which thus allows for error and poor interpretation in modern day.
Verbal theory acknowledges that the “the Bible is the product of a combination of divine and human elements as in the dynamic theory”. It is different in that it affirms that “the Holy Spirit actually controlled the selection of words used in conveying the message.” This approach expresses the inerrancy of Scripture without preventing the explanation for human personalities as you expressed in Paul’s comment to Timothy. There is no denial that the writers of the books and letters are humans, writing to humans. The ultimate author of Scripture is God and there cannot be varying levels of inspiration.
The “inexactness of certain numbers and some of the personal notes” are easily explained (in most cases, some can be difficult) by the culture, personalities, and relationships of those writings. God did not desire to suppress that, but rather to speak His truth through it….
Here are some great verses that help us to understand the inspiration of Scripture.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16(A)All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that (B)the man of God may be adequate, (C)equipped for every good work.
1 Thessalonians 2:13
13For this reason we also constantly (A)thank God that when you received the (B)word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it (C)not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, (D)which also performs its work in you who believe.
2 Peter 1:20-21
20But (A)know this first of all, that (B)no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21for (C)no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men (D)moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Jeremiah 1:9
9Then the LORD stretched out His hand and (Q)touched my mouth, and the LORD said to me, "Behold, I have (R)put My words in your mouth.
Hebrews 1:1
1God, after He (A)spoke long ago to the fathers in (B)the prophets in many portions and (C)in many ways
Finally, Peter even says that Scripture is “hard to understand” and that people “distort” it through their interpretations. This further shows us the importance in understanding that Scripture, not the writers or the interpreters, are inspired.
2 Peter 3:16 (Peter affirming that Paul’s writings are part of Scripture)
16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of (AS)these things, (AT)in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and (AU)unstable distort, as they do also (AV)the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Quotes from definitions at: http://www.apttoteach.org/Theology/02The_Bible/206_Inspiration.doc
Great point Jonathan! It is so good to finally get a chance to look at this BLOG. I have clients the rest of the day, so I can not stay long, but I look forward to learning more in the future.
I really think this BLOG will help us grow in Christ together.
Jim if you need me to share the Gosphel with you after small group I would love to have the oppurtunity. (just joking!!)
See you guys tonight
When I distinguish between dynamic and verbal I focus on the last part of the definition. Using your definitions, "each word is the exact word God wants used at that point." The problem with that is I cannot figure why God would want to use inexact places, times and figures unless He was more concerned about inspiring the thoughts and concepts. This is a little picky, and I realize that. But it affects how we deal with translations as well. So when I look at translations I am far more interested that the translators got the meaning right, than the words. And going back to something I said earlier. If someone wants to translate Jesus statement, "I am the bread of life" to "I am the rice of life" to address the cultural understanding I am okay with that. A verbal plenary translation would require using "bread", because that it closer to the word in the original text, although the meaning would be lost. And to me the meaning is crucial, not the words.
Jim, what are some of the problem areas of inexactness that bother you? I know lots of people who use these against Christians...let's look at these areas that appear to be conflict and see if we can figure them out...
Also, I disagree with the idea that the meaning would be lost by not allowing liberality in translating verses such as "bread of life" to "rice of life". I get the point that you are making, but the meaning can still be communicated through explaining what bread is. We are not going to tell people that Pharoah chased the Moses and the Israelites on bicycles just to help people grasp the concept. We are going to explain what chariots are if people do not know what they are.
What do people think about Bible translations such as the Message?
By inexactness I mean things like estimations in numbers of people, or times and places. Verbal plenary folks usually argue "well that kind of estimations was acceptable in those times." This is despite the fact that the figures are usually listed, and not written as "about" or "around". Which leads me to ask, if the Holy Spirit supernaturally inspired every word, than why not be exact and precise. Another place where this inexactness occurs in the gospels, where Jesus words are quoted differently. And since I follow the dynamic model, this makes sense to me. It is the meaning that is the message, not the words. But a verbal plenary interpretation does not have a good explanation why the Holy Spirit who inspired every word did not get Jesus words exactly right.
Great discussion so far.
Not real lsure where I end on the list. I tend to ignore labels, but Dynamic looks pretty close. It's obvious that each writer shows their personalities, etc, but we need to know it's from God. The ones God calls righteous are the ones that follow Him, even on their own. Job and Jonah are examples. God inspired these writers with the concepts He wanted to pass on, knowing they would use the words He wanted used. Make sense?
Also the inexactness of some things - Seems to me the exact details simply were not important, or they would have been included. John closes his gospel with
Joh 21:25 Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
I think God allows for some pragmatism.
--Dennis Large
I think pragmatism, properly defined is something that we need to avoid as it allows us to establish meaning instead of "pulling out" the meaning from the text (exegesis and espository preaching).
Definition of 'pragmatism':
http://www.babylon.com/definition/Pragmatism/English
Here is a good reference to a proper approach to difficult passages in Scripture:
"If you read the Bible, at face value, without a preconceived bias for finding errors – you will find it to be a coherent, consistent, and relatively easy-to-understand book. Yes, there are difficult passages. Yes, there are verses that appear to contradict each other. We must remember that the Bible was written by approximately 40 different authors over a period of around 1500 years. Each writer wrote from a different perspective, to a different audience, for a different purpose. We should expect some differences! However, a difference is not a contradiction or an error. It is only an error if there is absolutely no conceivable manner in which the verses or passages can be reconciled. Even if we do not have the answer right now, that does not mean the answer does not exist. Many have found a supposed error in the Bible in relation to history or geography only to find out that the Bible is correct once further archaeological evidence is discovered."
Jim, As for differences you mentioned above, can you think of any specific ones that present contradiction or errors?
Quote above is from:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-errors.html
So far every response that I have seen on this website is Biblically-based. www.gotquestions.org is a REALLY good resource for answering some of the questions we may have.
As far as "contradiction" I do not necessarily see any contradiction in the Bible either. But in general, when I read quotes from Jesus that were taken from the same exact events, but have different wording I have to assume that the meaning is inspired not the exact words. Because, otherwise, why would the Holy Spirit alter the words that Jesus stated if the words themselves are so sacrosanct??? And there are places in the history books that mention numbers of men who fought, and there are minor alterations in them. (I heard and read about them in Southern). The verbal plenarists argue that estimation was acceptable in those times, therefore it is accurate within the historical context. Again, if every word is so inerrant, how can you say that when the estimations are inexact. I have no question to the Scriptures being without error and infallible if we focus on the meaning. But when we get to the exact words, it will be problematic to defend. In addition there are passages ie The Adulterous woman in John and the ending of Mark that are in question. Are they inspired?? We obviously cannot say without certaintly and scholars tend to debate them. But my confidence in the Scriptures is unshakable because the meaning of those passages is consistent with the rest of the Biblical text and the meaning is clearly inspired.
I have not spent much time on the below website yet, so I cannot vouch for its credibility....but it seems (from the below two articles) to be a good resource for the compilation or research on tough questions regarding some of the difficult passages/etc.
Jim, I found the below two articles helpful.....do you have the addresses to the historical book estimations and number differences?
In reference to the end of Mark:
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/markend.html
In reference to the woman caught in adultery:
http://www.tektonics.org/af/adulterypericope.html
This article speaks of the "original text" vs. some of what are referred to copyist errors (very limited occurrences)
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-inerrancy.html
1Kings4:26 and 2Chronicles9:25 is an example of what is probably a copyist error (4,000 vs. 40,000 stalls)
Here is a good article regarding copyist errors (comparing the above mentioned with a secular textual comparison) and how it does not affect the inerrancy of the original text.
http://www.tektonics.org/af/copyisterrors.html
This falls under the category of textual criticism and is not considered part of hermeneutics, but early in the process (after acklowledging the canon) of providing proper translations. Most Bibles today should provide a footnote explaining differences such as the above (again few and far between).
A great reference for understanding how we got the translations that we have today is:
"The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible" by Paul D. Wegner
Post a Comment