"God-breathed" is a term from a book which has been pulled out and applied willy nilly here.
So we've pulled a phrase from one book, applying it to another book, then rejecting the second book base on the phrase, and claiming that this process should now work on the first book?
I tended to use PFAL's definitions of the characteristics of God-breathed scripture, as they were the only ones for which we all had a common frame of reference. Whether a scripture can be "God-breathed" and not have those characteristics is a whole other issue.
I think if anyone is going to make a case that a work is God-breathed, it's incumbent on that person to define it in a way that's falsifiable. You don't get to just say "It's God-breathed and you can't prove it's not." You have to prove it IS. That's how burden of proof works. If you make an affirmative claim, the burden is on you to prove it.
Give PFAL credit for defining the characteristics of the God-breathed word, even if you don't agree with it. PFAL does not live up to those characteristics. Neither does the Bible.
If you have an alternate set of characteristics, I'm happy to entertain them. If you have a definition of God-breathed we can explore, I'm happy to explore it.
Yes, agreed. I don't know how to prove it other than believing faith and seeing those results (if/when) they came, and the results are the proof. If there are no results, there is no proof. Now that is faith. Also, we have no proof of the hereafter... but that is Hope.
"God-breathed" is a term from a book which has been pulled out and applied willy nilly here.
So we've pulled a phrase from one book, applying it to another book, then rejecting the second book base on the phrase, and claiming that this process should now work on the first book?
Sorry that's just nonsense.
Do I believe the Bible is God-Breathed?
Do I believe the Little Engine could?
I swear guys, I tried.
But the utterly moronic arguments are too much to suffer through.
Yes, agreed. I don't know how to prove it other than believing faith and seeing those results (if/when) they came, and the results are the proof. If there are no results, there is no proof. Now that is faith. Also, we have no proof of the hereafter... but that is Hope.
That is a whole other level of discussion. Thanks for the contribution.
You can reject PFAL as God-breathed without rejecting PFAL. I dare say many of us found ourselves in that position most of the time. I certainly did. I thought PFAL was quite valuable in attempting to understand the Bible and God. But I never thought it was God-breathed, and certainly not by its own "definition."
So yes, there is an enormous difference between "rejecting PFAL as God-breathed" and "rejecting PFAL."
In this thread I am specifically focusing on the idea that PFAL is God-breathed, and the basis on which we reject that thesis.
Do we have to define God-breathed to continue the conversation? Sort of. If you're going to accept one document as God-breathed and reject another, then it's axiomatic that you are using some criterion (or criteria) to make that assessment, some standard that you apply to both documents to find one worthy and the other wanting.
You, for example, do not consider either "God-breathed" in any sense defined by PFAL. You do find the Bible historically valuable in a way that you do not find PFAL. I could go through your posts and explain how you inadvertently proved my point more than once.
Do you believe in a being called God? Do you believe He is a person, or an idea? Do you believe in Him as Creator? A Father of Jesus Christ? Do you believe He inspired the writing of the Bible? If so, what does "inspired" mean to you? Do you reject PFAL as similarly "inspired"? Why?
History does nothing to address the question because the Quran shaped history. The Iliad and the Odyssey shaped history. Lots of books shaped history. The claim that the Bible is inspired by God has to do with its origin and integrity, not its role in history. The Magna Carta had a profound effect on history. No one is arguing that it's therefore God-breathed or inspired of God.
My position: If you are going to reject PFAL as "inspired of God" or "God-breathed," and you are going to say the Bible is uniquely inspired of God, I submit it's incumbent on you to explain the basis of your reasoning. And I submit that if you apply the same scrutiny to the Bible that you apply to PFAL, you would be compelled to some to the conclusion that neither is God-breathed, however you define it.
Do YOU believe the Bible is God-breathed? If not, there is nothing to discuss. If so, how do YOU define God-breathed? And on what basis do you reject PFAL?
With all due respect, Nathan, how many times and in how many ways do I have to explain how we are using God-breathed in this conversation?
And roping in the Magna Carta and the Little Engine that Could: you think that's an attempt at exploring the nuances of the topic?
It's not cryptic. It's attention-seeking bulls hit designed to shut down the conversation, not contribute to it.
Everyone who has participated in this thread has been able to see exactly the point that was being made. You asked multiple questions that demonstrated a firm grasp of the issues being raised.
Bolshevik wants you to think "theopneustos" is a word VPW made up and there's something nefarious about applying it to the Bible as countless denominations do.
If you'd like mebto expand on the opening post, again, I will.
If you believe PFAL is not theopneustos, ask yourself why you've reached that conclusion. [Imperfections, errors and contradictions were ONE MANNER of exploring that issue, but if your definition of theopneustos does not connote or denote "perfection," then identifying imperfections does nothing.
Fine. What DOES theopneustos mean TO YOU? Why does PFAL not qualify?
I submit that whatever criteria you use to disqualify PFAL as theopneustos, the same criteria will end up disqualifying the Bible as theopneustos.
Errors? Check. Contradictions? Check. Self-serving accounts of personal encounters with God? Check. [Read Jonah again one of these days. It's remarkable in its utter shamelessness. Makes VPW's snow on the gas pumps look like it was better documented than the Kennedy assassination].
I spent years tearing Mike's thesis on PFAL to shreds only to come to realize his idolatrous adoration of PFAL was no different from my "healthy respect" for the Bible. The only difference was time.
With all due respect, Nathan, how many times and in how many ways do I have to explain how we are using God-breathed in this conversation?
And roping in the Magna Carta and the Little Engine that Could: you think that's an attempt at exploring the nuances of the topic?
It's not cryptic. It's attention-seeking bulls hit designed to shut down the conversation, not contribute to it.
Everyone who has participated in this thread has been able to see exactly the point that was being made. You asked multiple questions that demonstrated a firm grasp of the issues being raised.
Bolshevik wants you to think "theopneustos" is a word VPW made up and there's something nefarious about applying it to the Bible as countless denominations do.
If you'd like mebto expand on the opening post, again, I will.
If you believe PFAL is not theopneustos, ask yourself why you've reached that conclusion. [Imperfections, errors and contradictions were ONE MANNER of exploring that issue, but if your definition of theopneustos does not connote or denote "perfection," then identifying imperfections does nothing.
Fine. What DOES theopneustos mean TO YOU? Why does PFAL not qualify?
I submit that whatever criteria you use to disqualify PFAL as theopneustos, the same criteria will end up disqualifying the Bible as theopneustos.
Errors? Check. Contradictions? Check. Self-serving accounts of personal encounters with God? Check. [Read Jonah again one of these days. It's remarkable in its utter shamelessness. Makes VPW's snow on the gas pumps look like it was better documented than the Kennedy assassination].
I spent years tearing Mike's thesis on PFAL to shreds only to come to realize his idolatrous adoration of PFAL was no different from my "healthy respect" for the Bible. The only difference was time.
Did that answer your question?
I'll go with theopneustos = divine inspiration, divinely inspired.
A human's work that is thospneustos will reflect the qualities of God, which, I suppose does mean perfect: perfectly accurate, perfectly beautiful, etc. (This leads to my earlier question: What is God?)
I've witnessed athletic feats that I could only describe as divinely-inspired. And the athlete, when asked, can't explain how he/she did it, rendering the reporter's question, "What were you thinking when...?", to be utterly stupid.
I recently heard Bob Dylan admit in an interview that he could never write songs like he did in the 1960s. The interviewer was shocked, but Bob was nonchalant and matter-of-fact and humble. It was a magical time, he said. He doesn't understand it himself.
Certain literature, poetry, scripture so profoundly affects me, I'm moved to tears of joy. I've heard writers admit that sometimes the sentences or verses seem to write themselves -- there is no effort or work involved, they can't explain it, they humbly admit.
Same goes for art, architecture, photography, any creative endeavor.
It seems to me anything in nature or any human achievement that I might call divinely-inspired is NOT so because someone claims it to be so. Self-proclaimed works as theopneustos are surely not.
Are sacred texts from around the world theopneustos? Sometimes. That is, sometimes for ALL scripture, not just Judeo-Christian scripture.
Is PFAL theopneustos? No. It's bullshonta.
I suppose I know it when I see it, but I would be cautious to label it theopneustos, probably because I would be too overcome with wonder and awe. The effort to label it as such seems foolish.
Just my opinion. I could be wrong. And I'm perfectly ok with that.
Yes, agreed. I don't know how to prove it other than believing faith and seeing those results (if/when) they came, and the results are the proof. If there are no results, there is no proof. Now that is faith. Also, we have no proof of the hereafter... but that is Hope.
Awesome answer and very well thought through. Thanks!
The challenge for me, now, is to reply to Oldiesman and Nathan without being disrespectful of their faith.
I will do my best.
Oldiesman: You did not present a set of criteria that includes the Bible as theopneustos while excluding PFAL. I would go a step further and suggest, based on your post and our prior interactions, that you do not necessarily exclude PFAL as theopneustos, though I suspect you agree that it falls short of its own "perfect without a preposition out of place" criteria.
I'm not clear on how you DEFINE theopneustos, but it doesn't really matter because the issue I'm raising in this thread only applies if you accept one as theopneustos and reject the other. You appear to accept both, each in its own way. It'sca whole different discussion.
Nathan presents us with a more subjective approach, which is fine. I could answer that someone could subjectively accept PFAL as theopnuestos and declare that they know theopneustos when they see it and that they see it in PFAL.
If you can't agree on a common frame of reference [for example, a set of criteria against which you can weigh a claim of divine inspiration], then you can't persuade each other using reason. So PFAL is bullshonta. So is Job! Satan asking for God's permission to kill innocent people and God granting that permission to win a dollar bet? Please.
Oh, but Job is different! No, really, it's not. Neither is the story of Noah, which didn't happen. And Babel, which didn't happen. And Exodus, which didn't happen. It's all bullshonta. Bulls hit. [Great name for a bar, I just realized].
See, once you go down the path of explaining why PFAL is NOT theopneustos, you automatically establish criteria against which the Bible can also be judged.
Still, there's a quality to the Bible, its imperfections aside, that leads you to accept at least part of the Bible as theopneustos. No one said it's perfect. A cowpie doesn't disqualify grass on the other side of the pasture.
OK. But why can't the same be said for PFAL?
As Capt. America would say, I could do this all day.
Nathan presents us with a more subjective approach, which is fine. I could answer that someone could subjectively accept PFAL as theopnuestos and declare that they know theopneustos when they see it and that they see it in PFAL.
If you can't agree on a common frame of reference [for example, a set of criteria against which you can weigh a claim of divine inspiration], then you can't persuade each other using reason. So PFAL is bullshonta. So is Job! Satan asking for God's permission to kill innocent people and God granting that permission to win a dollar bet? Please.
Oh, but Job is different! No, really, it's not. Neither is the story of Noah, which didn't happen. And Babel, which didn't happen. And Exodus, which didn't happen. It's all bullshonta. Bulls hit. [Great name for a bar, I just realized].
See, once you go down the path of explaining why PFAL is NOT theopneustos, you automatically establish criteria against which the Bible can also be judged.
Still, there's a quality to the Bible, its imperfections aside, that leads you to accept at least part of the Bible as theopneustos. No one said it's perfect. A cowpie doesn't disqualify grass on the other side of the pasture.
OK. But why can't the same be said for PFAL?
As Capt. America would say, I could do this all day.
Without agreeing with me, do you see my point?
I see your point and I agree with you. You left out Yahweh telling Abraham to murder his own innocent son. That's about as f'd as it gets for me. But, but, but... Right, we could do this all day.
I see the Bible as Mythos, allegory, poetry, propaganda. Man's attempt at explaining the unexplainable. And just man telling stories. And man writing poetry. And man writing propaganda. Some of the stories are based on historical fact. Jesus was a real man. Paul was real. There are lessons to be learned about ourselves in these stories.
I do not believe God writes literature, scripture, instruction books. I do not believe God tells tells anyone what to write. I don't believe God requires binoculars, as Mike believes. Again, this is awkward to articulate, because it really depends on what one means by "Theopneustos" and "God."
Ultimately, I can't make a logical argument for or against the theopneustos of any book, to your point.
But it doesn't matter, because no holy book is required for one to understand Truth, Love, Principle... God.
Ahh...yes....reason. We have been taught since grade school to revere reason above all else. Well, our founding fathers essentially reasoned God out of the equation. Reason is a cult in it's own right and during the french revolution deists made an idol to the goddess of reason. Its not conspiracy, it's history. Anywho: Here's a link for those interested. Peace!
"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?"
"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?"
Obviously, you haven't watched the video or even googled what I am talking about.
Because this is the first time I've encountered this proposition.
It's a silly, desperate attempt by religious people to equate faith and reason as values. It's the same "atheism is a religion" argument that religious people make to show that people who reject religion are just as religious as people who embrace it.
"Reason is a cult" is the kind of absurd statement that sounds clever but actually requires a certain suspension of critical thinking skills to embrace. It's like when VPW said there's no such thing as an atheist because atheists belueve in nothing, but that's a belief, so they believe in something after all! Checkmate, atheists!
Hardy-har-har. If it were not such a stupid argument it would be brilliant.
Trying to decide which is a more absurd tangent to derail the thread: The Little Engine That Could or an exploration of a clan of anti-religious zealots during the French Revolution with a view toward discrediting reason as common ground on which to stand while having a conversation or debate about a particular topic in the 21st century.
Do I now get to use the Spanish Inquisition to discredit faith as a reliable indicator of morality?
"Reason is a cult" is the kind of absurd statement that sounds clever but actually requires a certain suspension of critical thinking skills to embrace.
No, it would require reading history during the french revolution. Your criteria that the Bible is a cow patty is based on reason alone is it not?
So I am endeavoring to show that reason alone is not the supreme answer. But none of that matters to you because being objective likely isnt in the cards. You have a point to prove so go ahead and prove it. It certainly doesnt require my participation. This is your dog and pony show, im just passing through my friend. Peace!
Thereis no basisfor rejecting PFAL asGod-breathed that does not apply equally to scriptures that have beenconsidered God-breathed since there was a canon.
On 2/16/2023 at 3:06 PM, Raf said:
I tended to use PFAL's definitions of the characteristics of God-breathed scripture, as they were the only ones for which we all had a common frame of reference. Whether a scripture can be "God-breathed" and not have those characteristics is a whole other issue.
I think if anyone is going to make a case that a work is God-breathed, it's incumbent on that person to define it in a way that's falsifiable. You don't get to just say "It's God-breathed and you can't prove it's not." You have to prove it IS. That's how burden of proof works. If you make an affirmative claim, the burden is on you to prove it.
Give PFAL credit for defining the characteristics of the God-breathed word, even if you don't agree with it. PFAL does not live up to those characteristics. Neither does the Bible.
If you have an alternate set of characteristics, I'm happy to entertain them. If you have a definition of God-breathed we can explore, I'm happy to explore it.
6 hours ago, Raf said:
Nathan presents us with a more subjective approach, which is fine. I could answer that someone could subjectively accept PFAL as theopnuestos and declare that they know theopneustos when they see it and that they see it in PFAL.
If you can't agree on a common frame of reference [for example, a set of criteria against which you can weigh a claim of divine inspiration], then you can't persuade each other using reason. So PFAL is bullshonta. So is Job! Satan asking for God's permission to kill innocent people and God granting that permission to win a dollar bet? Please.
Oh, but Job is different! No, really, it's not. Neither is the story of Noah, which didn't happen. And Babel, which didn't happen. And Exodus, which didn't happen. It's all bullshonta. Bulls hit. [Great name for a bar, I just realized].
See, once you go down the path of explaining why PFAL is NOT theopneustos, you automatically establish criteria against which the Bible can also be judged.
Still, there's a quality to the Bible, its imperfections aside, that leads you to accept at least part of the Bible as theopneustos. No one said it's perfect. A cowpie doesn't disqualify grass on the other side of the pasture.
OK. But why can't the same be said for PFAL?
As Capt. America would say, I could do this all day.
Without agreeing with me, do you see my point?
yeah, I think there’s a compound problem – In PFAL it is evident wierwille subscribes to the plenary verbal inspiration theory and posits other dubious theories (like the law of believing) derived from mostly a fundamentalist’s or strict literal interpretation of the Bible.
On another thread, my 2nd wave post: 4 most common inspiration theories postulated by scholars, the plenary verbal inspiration theory claims the Holy Spirit interacted with the writers to produce the Bible but goes a step further and asserts that God’s inspiration extends to ALL of Scripture – WHICH INCLUDES when the writers recorded any historical, physical science and life science details – which really means God’s stimulation – or however you want to describe the divine / human interactionextends to THE VERY WORDS the writers ‘chose’. The writers could have chosen other words, and God often allowed them the freedom to express their own personalities as they wrote – but the Holy Spirit still guided the process so that the finished product faithfully conveyed God’s message.
I’m of the opinion that the way one thinks the Bible was written will influence the way one interprets the Bible.
There are only a few accounts in Scripture that indicate God communicated a word-for-word message like in Deuteronomy 4:13andDeuteronomy 9:10 …but assuming God is also the creator of the cosmos – with superlative attributes like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.- and the fact that we find historical errors as well as erroneous concepts of physical sciences and ancient cultural worldviews - rules out this inspiration theory for me. Of course, that’s just my opinion – I could be wrong.
I lean toward the limited inspiration theory which holds that God inspired the thoughts of the biblical writers, but not necessarily the words they chose. God guided the thoughts of the writers, but he gave them freedom to express those thoughts in their own style. Having that freedom along with the limitations of drawing upon the fund of knowledge thus far (knowledge and skills derived from family and cultural background. The concept is based on the premise that knowledge is cumulative and culturally developed. Some of this accrued knowledge is essential for survival.).
~ ~ ~ ~
I don’t view the Bible as a user manual for this thing called life. I think that’s the way PFAL portrays it. I don’t even think it was meant to be a book on theology. It is a record of God interacting with humans in a variety of ways. As Luke 1 says
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
Note the word compile - assemble information collected from other sources. This is reflected in Wikipedia’s definition of the Bible:
The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, 'the books') is a collection of religious texts or scriptures that are held to be sacred in Christianity, Judaism, Samaritanism, and many other religions.
The Bible is an anthology – a compilation of texts of a variety of forms – originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. These texts include instructions, stories, poetry, and prophecies, among other genres. The collection of materials that are accepted as part of the Bible by a particular religious tradition or community is called a biblical canon. Believers in the Bible generally consider it to be a product of divine inspiration, but the way they understand what that means and interpret the text can vary.
The religious texts were compiled by different religious communities into various official collections. The earliest contained the first five books of the Bible. It is called the Torah in Hebrew and the Pentateuch (meaning five books) in Greek; the second oldest part was a collection of narrative histories and prophecies (the Nevi'im); the third collection (the Ketuvim) contains psalms, proverbs, and narrative histories. "Tanakh" is an alternate term for the Hebrew Bible composed of the first letters of those three parts of the Hebrew scriptures: the Torah ("Teaching"), the Nevi'im ("Prophets"), and the Ketuvim ("Writings"). The Masoretic Text is the medieval version of the Tanakh, in Hebrew and Aramaic, that is considered the authoritative text of the Hebrew Bible by modern Rabbinic Judaism. The Septuagint (meaning the Translation of the Seventy) is a Koine Greek translation of the Tanakh from the third and second centuries BCE (Before Common Era); it largely overlaps with the Hebrew Bible.
Christianity began as an outgrowth of Judaism, using the Septuagint as the basis of the Old Testament. The early Church continued the Jewish tradition of writing and incorporating what it saw as inspired, authoritative religious books. The gospels, Pauline epistles and other texts quickly coalesced into the New Testament.
Circling back to my point of contrasting inspiration theories - plenary verbal inspiration theory versuslimited inspiration theory –look at the difference in understanding a passage.
Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done.Matthew 21:21
In PFAL wierwille used passages like this to teach about the law of believing. What’s funny to me is that wierwille - who plagiarized so much from Bullinger (and not that Bullinger was correct on everything he wrote about either) – either overlooked or deliberately ignored Bullinger’s comments on that verse. In The Companion Bible Bullinger notes on page 1357 by Matthew 21: 21:
Be thou removed, &c. It was a common proverb to say of a great teacher, who removed difficulties, that he was “a rooter up of mountains”.
Say to this mountain. Some later sources suggest that “moving mountains” was a Jewish figure of speech for doing what was considered impossible.
~ ~ ~ ~
Apparently, the plenary verbal inspiration theory was behind wierwille’s thinking to deem the passage as literal - as one of the bylaws for true believers. Whereas I subscribe to thelimited inspiration theory – and see it as suggesting one should adopt a common cultural approach of that time – being determined and persistent when and where others might give up…well anyway – this is just one example of the compound problem in PFAL doctrine based on the plenary verbal inspiration theory …I have addressed this on other threads – see my post on another thread commonplace believing vs religious faith
~ ~ ~ ~
A summary of my thoughts. I believe the Bible is God-breathed, but there is no way to prove that the Bible is God-breathed. I accept the metaphysical truths in faith and hope the things the Bible promises will happen.
PFAL is NOT God-breathed, though it often uses the plenary verbal inspiration theory as a basisto supportdubious ideas like the law of believing.As a grad of PFAL and devoted follower of TWI for 12 years I acknowledge that my faith and hope in PFAL-doctrine is destroyed due to lack of evidence any of it works – other than as a ‘great’ indoctrination tool for a harmful and controlling cult.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
80
37
25
33
Popular Days
Feb 17
51
Feb 16
36
Feb 27
26
Mar 10
24
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 80 posts
Bolshevik 37 posts
chockfull 25 posts
OldSkool 33 posts
Popular Days
Feb 17 2023
51 posts
Feb 16 2023
36 posts
Feb 27 2023
26 posts
Mar 10 2023
24 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
I can certainly see and appreciate the parallells. The way you sound to me...the way Mike sounds to me...you guys both sound like me. Ive stumbled at wierwille's doctrines and was blinded from scriptu
waysider
The Bible declares itself to be God breathed. Therefore, it must be because the Bible says so and it's God Breathed... That's about as circular as you can get. There is no outside evidence to suggest
sirguessalot
Indeed. Seems Adam-ness alone was incapable of generating much more than feral children. Re: the original topic of reasonable bases for rejecting written things as God-breathed… Most of us m
Bolshevik
"God-breathed" is a term from a book which has been pulled out and applied willy nilly here.
So we've pulled a phrase from one book, applying it to another book, then rejecting the second book base on the phrase, and claiming that this process should now work on the first book?
Sorry that's just nonsense.
Do I believe the Bible is God-Breathed?
Do I believe the Little Engine could?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Yes, agreed. I don't know how to prove it other than believing faith and seeing those results (if/when) they came, and the results are the proof. If there are no results, there is no proof. Now that is faith. Also, we have no proof of the hereafter... but that is Hope.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I swear guys, I tried.
But the utterly moronic arguments are too much to suffer through.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Well the topic is On God-breathed Scripture — rather broad in scope. And your opening post is a declarative statement.
I’ve asked questions in an attempt to focus the topic, but I’m not really sure what that is anymore.
Though I sometimes find Bolshevik’s posts to be cryptic, I don’t think he’s off topic here.
Raf, what do you want to discuss? Is there a question?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
That is a whole other level of discussion. Thanks for the contribution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
With all due respect, Nathan, how many times and in how many ways do I have to explain how we are using God-breathed in this conversation?
And roping in the Magna Carta and the Little Engine that Could: you think that's an attempt at exploring the nuances of the topic?
It's not cryptic. It's attention-seeking bulls hit designed to shut down the conversation, not contribute to it.
Everyone who has participated in this thread has been able to see exactly the point that was being made. You asked multiple questions that demonstrated a firm grasp of the issues being raised.
Bolshevik wants you to think "theopneustos" is a word VPW made up and there's something nefarious about applying it to the Bible as countless denominations do.
If you'd like mebto expand on the opening post, again, I will.
If you believe PFAL is not theopneustos, ask yourself why you've reached that conclusion. [Imperfections, errors and contradictions were ONE MANNER of exploring that issue, but if your definition of theopneustos does not connote or denote "perfection," then identifying imperfections does nothing.
Fine. What DOES theopneustos mean TO YOU? Why does PFAL not qualify?
I submit that whatever criteria you use to disqualify PFAL as theopneustos, the same criteria will end up disqualifying the Bible as theopneustos.
Errors? Check. Contradictions? Check. Self-serving accounts of personal encounters with God? Check. [Read Jonah again one of these days. It's remarkable in its utter shamelessness. Makes VPW's snow on the gas pumps look like it was better documented than the Kennedy assassination].
I spent years tearing Mike's thesis on PFAL to shreds only to come to realize his idolatrous adoration of PFAL was no different from my "healthy respect" for the Bible. The only difference was time.
Did that answer your question?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
For those wondering what's taking place here, the term is Sea Lioning, and this is a textbook example.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I'll go with theopneustos = divine inspiration, divinely inspired.
A human's work that is thospneustos will reflect the qualities of God, which, I suppose does mean perfect: perfectly accurate, perfectly beautiful, etc. (This leads to my earlier question: What is God?)
I've witnessed athletic feats that I could only describe as divinely-inspired. And the athlete, when asked, can't explain how he/she did it, rendering the reporter's question, "What were you thinking when...?", to be utterly stupid.
I recently heard Bob Dylan admit in an interview that he could never write songs like he did in the 1960s. The interviewer was shocked, but Bob was nonchalant and matter-of-fact and humble. It was a magical time, he said. He doesn't understand it himself.
Certain literature, poetry, scripture so profoundly affects me, I'm moved to tears of joy. I've heard writers admit that sometimes the sentences or verses seem to write themselves -- there is no effort or work involved, they can't explain it, they humbly admit.
Same goes for art, architecture, photography, any creative endeavor.
It seems to me anything in nature or any human achievement that I might call divinely-inspired is NOT so because someone claims it to be so. Self-proclaimed works as theopneustos are surely not.
Are sacred texts from around the world theopneustos? Sometimes. That is, sometimes for ALL scripture, not just Judeo-Christian scripture.
Is PFAL theopneustos? No. It's bullshonta.
I suppose I know it when I see it, but I would be cautious to label it theopneustos, probably because I would be too overcome with wonder and awe. The effort to label it as such seems foolish.
Just my opinion. I could be wrong. And I'm perfectly ok with that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I like how Raf put it: it's bulls hit!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Hot and steamy.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
When Louis Armstrong was asked, "What is jazz?"
He said, "If you have to ask, you'll never know."
Somehow this seems relevant.
Edited by Nathan_JrIs "Kind of Blue" theopneustos?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Awesome answer and very well thought through. Thanks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The challenge for me, now, is to reply to Oldiesman and Nathan without being disrespectful of their faith.
I will do my best.
Oldiesman: You did not present a set of criteria that includes the Bible as theopneustos while excluding PFAL. I would go a step further and suggest, based on your post and our prior interactions, that you do not necessarily exclude PFAL as theopneustos, though I suspect you agree that it falls short of its own "perfect without a preposition out of place" criteria.
I'm not clear on how you DEFINE theopneustos, but it doesn't really matter because the issue I'm raising in this thread only applies if you accept one as theopneustos and reject the other. You appear to accept both, each in its own way. It'sca whole different discussion.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Nathan presents us with a more subjective approach, which is fine. I could answer that someone could subjectively accept PFAL as theopnuestos and declare that they know theopneustos when they see it and that they see it in PFAL.
If you can't agree on a common frame of reference [for example, a set of criteria against which you can weigh a claim of divine inspiration], then you can't persuade each other using reason. So PFAL is bullshonta. So is Job! Satan asking for God's permission to kill innocent people and God granting that permission to win a dollar bet? Please.
Oh, but Job is different! No, really, it's not. Neither is the story of Noah, which didn't happen. And Babel, which didn't happen. And Exodus, which didn't happen. It's all bullshonta. Bulls hit. [Great name for a bar, I just realized].
See, once you go down the path of explaining why PFAL is NOT theopneustos, you automatically establish criteria against which the Bible can also be judged.
Still, there's a quality to the Bible, its imperfections aside, that leads you to accept at least part of the Bible as theopneustos. No one said it's perfect. A cowpie doesn't disqualify grass on the other side of the pasture.
OK. But why can't the same be said for PFAL?
As Capt. America would say, I could do this all day.
Without agreeing with me, do you see my point?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I see your point and I agree with you. You left out Yahweh telling Abraham to murder his own innocent son. That's about as f'd as it gets for me. But, but, but... Right, we could do this all day.
I see the Bible as Mythos, allegory, poetry, propaganda. Man's attempt at explaining the unexplainable. And just man telling stories. And man writing poetry. And man writing propaganda. Some of the stories are based on historical fact. Jesus was a real man. Paul was real. There are lessons to be learned about ourselves in these stories.
I do not believe God writes literature, scripture, instruction books. I do not believe God tells tells anyone what to write. I don't believe God requires binoculars, as Mike believes. Again, this is awkward to articulate, because it really depends on what one means by "Theopneustos" and "God."
Ultimately, I can't make a logical argument for or against the theopneustos of any book, to your point.
But it doesn't matter, because no holy book is required for one to understand Truth, Love, Principle... God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Ahh...yes....reason. We have been taught since grade school to revere reason above all else. Well, our founding fathers essentially reasoned God out of the equation. Reason is a cult in it's own right and during the french revolution deists made an idol to the goddess of reason. Its not conspiracy, it's history. Anywho: Here's a link for those interested. Peace!
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
"Reason is a cult..."
.
.
.
.
I got nothing, guys. Anyone? Bueller? Frye?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Obviously, you haven't watched the video or even googled what I am talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason
https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/reason-cult-goddess
Nobody said reason shouldn't be valued, it shouldn't be overvalued at the expense of all else.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Because this is the first time I've encountered this proposition.
It's a silly, desperate attempt by religious people to equate faith and reason as values. It's the same "atheism is a religion" argument that religious people make to show that people who reject religion are just as religious as people who embrace it.
"Reason is a cult" is the kind of absurd statement that sounds clever but actually requires a certain suspension of critical thinking skills to embrace. It's like when VPW said there's no such thing as an atheist because atheists belueve in nothing, but that's a belief, so they believe in something after all! Checkmate, atheists!
Hardy-har-har. If it were not such a stupid argument it would be brilliant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Trying to decide which is a more absurd tangent to derail the thread: The Little Engine That Could or an exploration of a clan of anti-religious zealots during the French Revolution with a view toward discrediting reason as common ground on which to stand while having a conversation or debate about a particular topic in the 21st century.
Do I now get to use the Spanish Inquisition to discredit faith as a reliable indicator of morality?
I'll bet no one would expect THAT.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
No, it would require reading history during the french revolution. Your criteria that the Bible is a cow patty is based on reason alone is it not?
So I am endeavoring to show that reason alone is not the supreme answer. But none of that matters to you because being objective likely isnt in the cards. You have a point to prove so go ahead and prove it. It certainly doesnt require my participation. This is your dog and pony show, im just passing through my friend. Peace!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
yeah, I think there’s a compound problem – In PFAL it is evident wierwille subscribes to the plenary verbal inspiration theory and posits other dubious theories (like the law of believing) derived from mostly a fundamentalist’s or strict literal interpretation of the Bible.
On another thread, my 2nd wave post: 4 most common inspiration theories postulated by scholars , the plenary verbal inspiration theory claims the Holy Spirit interacted with the writers to produce the Bible but goes a step further and asserts that God’s inspiration extends to ALL of Scripture – WHICH INCLUDES when the writers recorded any historical, physical science and life science details – which really means God’s stimulation – or however you want to describe the divine / human interaction extends to THE VERY WORDS the writers ‘chose’. The writers could have chosen other words, and God often allowed them the freedom to express their own personalities as they wrote – but the Holy Spirit still guided the process so that the finished product faithfully conveyed God’s message.
I’m of the opinion that the way one thinks the Bible was written will influence the way one interprets the Bible.
There are only a few accounts in Scripture that indicate God communicated a word-for-word message like in Deuteronomy 4:13 and Deuteronomy 9:10 …but assuming God is also the creator of the cosmos – with superlative attributes like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc. - and the fact that we find historical errors as well as erroneous concepts of physical sciences and ancient cultural worldviews - rules out this inspiration theory for me. Of course, that’s just my opinion – I could be wrong.
I lean toward the limited inspiration theory which holds that God inspired the thoughts of the biblical writers, but not necessarily the words they chose. God guided the thoughts of the writers, but he gave them freedom to express those thoughts in their own style. Having that freedom along with the limitations of drawing upon the fund of knowledge thus far (knowledge and skills derived from family and cultural background. The concept is based on the premise that knowledge is cumulative and culturally developed. Some of this accrued knowledge is essential for survival.).
~ ~ ~ ~
I don’t view the Bible as a user manual for this thing called life. I think that’s the way PFAL portrays it. I don’t even think it was meant to be a book on theology. It is a record of God interacting with humans in a variety of ways. As Luke 1 says
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
Note the word compile - assemble information collected from other sources. This is reflected in Wikipedia’s definition of the Bible:
The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, 'the books') is a collection of religious texts or scriptures that are held to be sacred in Christianity, Judaism, Samaritanism, and many other religions.
The Bible is an anthology – a compilation of texts of a variety of forms – originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. These texts include instructions, stories, poetry, and prophecies, among other genres. The collection of materials that are accepted as part of the Bible by a particular religious tradition or community is called a biblical canon. Believers in the Bible generally consider it to be a product of divine inspiration, but the way they understand what that means and interpret the text can vary.
The religious texts were compiled by different religious communities into various official collections. The earliest contained the first five books of the Bible. It is called the Torah in Hebrew and the Pentateuch (meaning five books) in Greek; the second oldest part was a collection of narrative histories and prophecies (the Nevi'im); the third collection (the Ketuvim) contains psalms, proverbs, and narrative histories. "Tanakh" is an alternate term for the Hebrew Bible composed of the first letters of those three parts of the Hebrew scriptures: the Torah ("Teaching"), the Nevi'im ("Prophets"), and the Ketuvim ("Writings"). The Masoretic Text is the medieval version of the Tanakh, in Hebrew and Aramaic, that is considered the authoritative text of the Hebrew Bible by modern Rabbinic Judaism. The Septuagint (meaning the Translation of the Seventy) is a Koine Greek translation of the Tanakh from the third and second centuries BCE (Before Common Era); it largely overlaps with the Hebrew Bible.
Christianity began as an outgrowth of Judaism, using the Septuagint as the basis of the Old Testament. The early Church continued the Jewish tradition of writing and incorporating what it saw as inspired, authoritative religious books. The gospels, Pauline epistles and other texts quickly coalesced into the New Testament.
From: Wikipedia - The Bible
~ ~ ~ ~
Circling back to my point of contrasting inspiration theories - plenary verbal inspiration theory versus limited inspiration theory – look at the difference in understanding a passage.
Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. Matthew 21:21
In PFAL wierwille used passages like this to teach about the law of believing. What’s funny to me is that wierwille - who plagiarized so much from Bullinger (and not that Bullinger was correct on everything he wrote about either) – either overlooked or deliberately ignored Bullinger’s comments on that verse. In The Companion Bible Bullinger notes on page 1357 by Matthew 21: 21:
Be thou removed, &c. It was a common proverb to say of a great teacher, who removed difficulties, that he was “a rooter up of mountains”.
And even in a more recent study Bible The NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible , it notes on page 1654 under Matthew 21:21:
Say to this mountain. Some later sources suggest that “moving mountains” was a Jewish figure of speech for doing what was considered impossible.
~ ~ ~ ~
Apparently, the plenary verbal inspiration theory was behind wierwille’s thinking to deem the passage as literal - as one of the bylaws for true believers. Whereas I subscribe to the limited inspiration theory – and see it as suggesting one should adopt a common cultural approach of that time – being determined and persistent when and where others might give up…well anyway – this is just one example of the compound problem in PFAL doctrine based on the plenary verbal inspiration theory …I have addressed this on other threads – see my post on another thread commonplace believing vs religious faith
~ ~ ~ ~
A summary of my thoughts. I believe the Bible is God-breathed, but there is no way to prove that the Bible is God-breathed. I accept the metaphysical truths in faith and hope the things the Bible promises will happen.
PFAL is NOT God-breathed, though it often uses the plenary verbal inspiration theory as a basis to support dubious ideas like the law of believing. As a grad of PFAL and devoted follower of TWI for 12 years I acknowledge that my faith and hope in PFAL-doctrine is destroyed due to lack of evidence any of it works – other than as a ‘great’ indoctrination tool for a harmful and controlling cult.
That’s all folks, have a nice day
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
"Your criteria that the Bible is a cow patty..."
Not what I said and cannot be inferred from what I said.
You are not "endeavoring to show that reason alone is not the supreme answer."
You are seeking to discredit reason as a method of seeking resolution to disagreements.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.