ARE THE OT AND THE NT INSPIRED?

[GodsGrace]

The OT is inspired.
The NT is historical.

Am I wrong??

Why is inspiration necessary if I'm relaying a fact??
Isn't the NT comprised of facts?


Is every word in the NT corret and correctly translated??


Depends what you mean by that.

Does an errant word change the outcome of the idea being presented?

Every word MIGHT be errant since words have changed through the millenia.

But the changes do NOT CHANGE CHRISTIANITY.
Doctrine remains constant.

Would you agree?



Definition of INSPIRED:

1. To animate the mind or emotion.
2. To stimulate and influence.
3. To elicite or create.

 

[Rasputin]

The scripture is inspired.

The OT and the NT are scripture.

Therefore, the OT and the NT are inspired.

 

[GodsGrace]

The scripture is inspired.

The OT and the NT are scripture.

Therefore, the OT and the NT are inspired.

Thanks Rasputin.

I can understand why/how the OT is inspired...
men wrote things that only God would know or
would want us to know.

Scripture would be a holy writing that is respected within a religion.

Inspired means:

of extraordinary quality, as if arising from some external creative impulse.


Was an outside force necessary to write the letters/gospel of the New Testament?
Isn't it, instead, a history of what happened?

 

[Rasputin]

Inspired means:

of extraordinary quality, as if arising from some external creative impulse.

That's not the meaning of inspired in the Bible. You can not use foreign definitions and import that meaning into the Bible. The Bible defines it's own terms.

So when we speak of inspired, we mean by that that the writers of the New and Old Testaments were under such an influence of the Holy Ghost, that what they wrote, God wrote. It has the same authority as if Gid had written it with his own finger. They wrote in the name of God.

It's the same when the prophets declared God's word orally. God spoke by them. He firstly infused into them a knowledge of the things themselves, and then afterwards he guided their preaching in such a way, that not only the matter of the knowledge they received, but also the very manner and the words they used to convey this previously acquired knowledge was immediately from him. So in the end, the things themselves and the words whereby these things were expressed were immediately from God, they emanted from him as the origin.

Yet he guided the writers and prophets in such a way that the words they used were natural to them, they were accustomed to them by their own lifes and experiences. God uses men rationally, it was a pleasant and natural experience for them, even tho supernaturally excited. The devil uses force, God doesn't.

There are undoubtedly many mysteries accompanying this process. But these are the most important ones. It's good to keep boundaries.

So in the end, the Old and New Testament are both accompanied with divine authority. It were no less so if God did write them with his own finger. By reading the Bible, or by hearing inspired preaching (as the people of old did), you are immediately facing the actual God who created heaven and earth. That's why you see the reverence of the people of God for the word of God as preached or written, even Jesus himself went to the scripture when faced with the devil, who himself too knew and misquoted them.

 

[GodsGrace]

That's not the meaning of inspired in the Bible. You can not use foreign definitions and import that meaning into the Bible. The Bible defines it's own terms.

I DO agree that the bible has its own definition for words.

So when we speak of inspired, we mean by that that the writers of the New and Old Testaments were under such an influence of the Holy Ghost, that what they wrote, God wrote. It has the same authority as if Gid had written it with his own finger. They wrote in the name of God.

Right.
To me it would fall under the explanation of:
AN EXTERNAL CREATIVE IMPULSE.

It's the same when the prophets declared God's word orally. God spoke by them. He firstly infused into them a knowledge of the things themselves, and then afterwards he guided their preaching in such a way, that not only the matter of the knowledge they received, but also the very manner and the words they used to convey this previously acquired knowledge was immediately from him. So in the end, the things themselves and the words whereby these things were expressed were immediately from God, they emanted from him as the origin.

Yet he guided the writers and prophets in such a way that the words they used were natural to them, they were accustomed to them by their own lifes and experiences. God uses men rationally, it was a pleasant and natural experience for them, even tho supernaturally excited. The devil uses force, God doesn't.

There are undoubtedly many mysteries accompanying this process. But these are the most important ones. It's good to keep boundaries.

So in the end, the Old and New Testament are both accompanied with divine authority. It were no less so if God did write them with his own finger. By reading the Bible, or by hearing inspired preaching (as the people of old did), you are immediately facing the actual God who created heaven and earth. That's why you see the reverence of the people of God for the word of God as preached or written, even Jesus himself went to the scripture when faced with the devil, who himself too knew and misquoted them.

Thanks for your input !
Yes, absolutely both the Old and New have divine authority.

I've never considered before that inspiration might not be necessary if we're describing historical facts.
But your position is very clear.

 

[Rasputin]

AN EXTERNAL CREATIVE IMPULSE.

That's not correct. Using the word impulse seems to suggest that it is just some temporary, passing, transient initial force, and then the writer or speaker is left to himself. That's why I used the word influence. The writers and speakers were under the constant and infallible influence of of Holy Ghost. What they wrote, God wrote through them; what they spoke, God spoke through them. Their very words were Gods words.

I've never considered before that inspiration might not be necessary if we're describing historical facts.

Of course not. But these facts may be wrong, because they're not divine. Humans make mistakes, God doesn't.

Speaking of historical facts assumes that they are actual facts. But if you want to be really nitpicky about it, they are just declared so to be by humans. Doesn't mean these facts are not facts, but it also does not mean that they are. If any historical so-called facts are against the Scripture, then we, as Christians, are bound to go with the Scripture. Because there are also facts recorded in Scripture.

For example, we know, from the Bible, that Israel was in Egypt for many years. If now the supposed so-called historical facts from all the world declared that Israel never was in Egypt, then we as Christians are still bound to go with the Bible. Because the Bible says they were in Egypt. So here it's word against word. God against anyone else.

 

[Prycejosh1987]

I believe the whole bible is inspired. the Holy Spirit exists throughout eternity past and future. The bible is literal Israels history.

 

[GodsGrace]

I believe the whole bible is inspired. the Holy Spirit exists throughout eternity past and future. The bible is literal Israels history.

Thanks P,,,
yes, this seems to be the common view.

 

[quietthinker]

ARE THE OT AND THE NT INSPIRED?​

Are you inspired.....yes, when you write out of your conviction, are you inspired?
Does this mean that everything you write about is 100% accurate with no flaws? Does it mean that what you write is without your particular filter of right/ wrong or anything in between?

Understanding inspiration, even by the Spirit of God, does not mean bypassing your bias, your preferences, your tastes, your creativity or lack of it. It means being aware that everything is contextual to ones paradigm and that growth means and requires one to be open to NEW ways of seeing/ hearing. Growth and further inspiration are always contingent to this.

 

[GodsGrace]

ARE THE OT AND THE NT INSPIRED?​

Are you inspired.....yes, when you write out of your conviction, are you inspired?
Does this mean that everything you right about is 100% accurate with no flaws? Does it mean that what you write is without your particular filter of right/ wrong or anything in between?

Understanding inspiration, even by the Spirit of God, does not mean bypassing your bias, your preferences, your tastes, your creativity or lack of it. It means being aware that everything is contextual to ones paradigm and that growth means and requires one to be open to NEW ways of seeing/ hearing. Growth and further inspiration are always contingent to this.

Thanks quiethinker!

Yes. I've always understood that God inspires, but it will be filtered by ourSELF.

I'm just having some thoughts about why it would be necessary to be inspired when writing about history. (the NT).
You're using INSPIRED to mean the same as when someone is inspired to write any book...or seek a different job?

But doesn't biblical inspiration mean something else?

Will also reply to @Rasputin regarding this when I have more time
Will tag you in for your comment.

 

[quietthinker]

Thanks quiethinker!

Yes. I've always understood that God inspires, but it will be filtered by ourSELF.

I'm just having some thoughts about why it would be necessary to be inspired when writing about history. (the NT).
You're using INSPIRED to mean the same as when someone is inspired to write any book...or seek a different job?

But doesn't biblical inspiration mean something else?

Will also reply to @Rasputin regarding this when I have more time
Will tag you in for your comment.

I think the Prophets, whoever they may be were given insights but they didn't always join the dots well. Isaiah writes confidently that God is the creator of both good and evil. We know from what Jesus and John tell us that in God is no darkness at all.

King David writes exuberantly about washing his feet in the blood of his enemies. Somehow, even though he was called a friend of God's, he definitely missed something major when he wrote that.

Job, bless the guy, in all his suffering thought it was God doing it to him. He didn't know about the first two chapters of the book named after him. Had he known, his angle would have been different.
His mates accuse Job of wickedness because they also had a faulty paradigm re who was responsible for Job's calamities.

Yes, faulty paradigms make us draw conclusions that are equally wrong.
The fire which destroyed Job's livestock is called the 'fire of God'. It was no doubt lightning....but who sent it? God gets the blame but WE know it was Satan from the first two chapters of the book.

We need to be onto this so we do not misappropriate!

 

[LoveYeshua]

Thanks quiethinker!

Yes. I've always understood that God inspires, but it will be filtered by ourSELF.

I'm just having some thoughts about why it would be necessary to be inspired when writing about history. (the NT).
You're using INSPIRED to mean the same as when someone is inspired to write any book...or seek a different job?

But doesn't biblical inspiration mean something else?

Will also reply to @Rasputin regarding this when I have more time
Will tag you in for your comment.

The New Testament is not only history but also prophecy. Jesus spoke prophecy, and John also received prophecy on the island of Patmos, which is written in the Book of Revelation.
The Bible is not just a record of past events. It also contains God’s message about what is happening now and what will happen in the future. This is true for both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

In the Old Testament, God spoke through the prophets. They did not speak their own ideas. God put His words in their mouths. The Lord said, “I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him.” (Deuteronomy 18:18)

Jesus confirmed that God’s word comes from God Himself. He said, “For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.” (John 12:49)
This shows that when Jesus spoke, God was speaking through Him.

Jesus also clearly spoke prophecy. He foretold future events, including the destruction of Jerusalem, persecution of believers, and His return. He said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.” (Matthew 24:35)
This means His words are sure, lasting, and from God.

In the New Testament, prophecy continues. John did not write Revelation from his own thoughts. He received it from Jesus while exiled on the island of Patmos. Scripture says, “I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (Revelation 1:9)
And again, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place.” (Revelation 1:1)

This brings us to inspiration. When we say the Old Testament and the New Testament are inspired, we mean that God is the source of the message. God worked through human beings, using their language and personality, but the message comes from Him. The prophets, Jesus, and the apostles did not invent God’s word. They received it and passed it on faithfully.

God Himself explains what inspiration means. He said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4)
This shows that Scripture is not just human writing. It is God’s word given to humans.

So both the Old Testament and the New Testament are inspired because they come from the same God, speak the same truth, and point to the same purpose. The Old Testament prepares the way. Jesus fulfills and explains it. The New Testament continues with prophecy, teaching, and the final revelation of what God will do at the end.

Blessings

 

[David Lamb]

The OT is inspired.
The NT is historical.

Am I wrong??

Why is inspiration necessary if I'm relaying a fact??
Isn't the NT comprised of facts?


Is every word in the NT corret and correctly translated??


Depends what you mean by that.

Does an errant word change the outcome of the idea being presented?

Every word MIGHT be errant since words have changed through the millenia.

But the changes do NOT CHANGE CHRISTIANITY.
Doctrine remains constant.

Would you agree?

Paul write to Timothy:

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” (2Ti 3:16 NKJV)

The word translated "inspiration of God" is the Greek word theopneustos, which I am told means literally "God-breathed."

 

[GodsGrace]

That's not the meaning of inspired in the Bible. You can not use foreign definitions and import that meaning into the Bible. The Bible defines it's own terms.

So when we speak of inspired, we mean by that that the writers of the New and Old Testaments were under such an influence of the Holy Ghost, that what they wrote, God wrote. It has the same authority as if Gid had written it with his own finger. They wrote in the name of God.

Hi Rasputin,

Sorry for the delay in responding.

I have to start by saying that we don't seem to agree on what the word INSPIRE means.
This thread is not about a word - and I do dislike debating what a word means, but it seems important in this case.

You're saying that inspired means that what the writer wrote - God wrote.

That would be like saying that if YOU inspired ME to write a book...
it would be YOU writing it.

Inspired means :

1. To animate the mind or emotion.
2. To stimulate and influence.
3. To elicite or create.


This definition is important to this thead.
I've added it to the OP.


So, I'd agree that the writers wrote in the name of God...
what God inspired them to write...
what God put on their heart to let others know.

It's the same when the prophets declared God's word orally. God spoke by them. He firstly infused into them a knowledge of the things themselves

Only Adam had infused knowledge....
Man does not have infused knowledge...
he only knows what he is taught.

, and then afterwards he guided their preaching in such a way, that not only the matter of the knowledge they received, but also the very manner and the words they used to convey this previously acquired knowledge was immediately from him. So in the end, the things themselves and the words whereby these things were expressed were immediately from God, they emanted from him as the origin.

I think we're going to get off topic....
The question is not what inspired means.

The question is this:

IF the NT is writings about what happened during the ministry of Jesus and what came immediately after...
Why would it have to be inspired?

Why would HISTORY have to require inspiration?

Yet he guided the writers and prophets in such a way that the words they used were natural to them, they were accustomed to them by their own lifes and experiences. God uses men rationally, it was a pleasant and natural experience for them, even tho supernaturally excited. The devil uses force, God doesn't.

There are undoubtedly many mysteries accompanying this process. But these are the most important ones. It's good to keep boundaries.

So in the end, the Old and New Testament are both accompanied with divine authority. It were no less so if God did write them with his own finger. By reading the Bible, or by hearing inspired preaching (as the people of old did), you are immediately facing the actual God who created heaven and earth. That's why you see the reverence of the people of God for the word of God as preached or written, even Jesus himself went to the scripture when faced with the devil, who himself too knew and misquoted them.

 

[GodsGrace]

That's not correct. Using the word impulse seems to suggest that it is just some temporary, passing, transient initial force, and then the writer or speaker is left to himself. That's why I used the word influence. The writers and speakers were under the constant and infallible influence of of Holy Ghost. What they wrote, God wrote through them; what they spoke, God spoke through them. Their very words were Gods words.



Of course not. But these facts may be wrong, because they're not divine. Humans make mistakes, God doesn't.

Speaking of historical facts assumes that they are actual facts. But if you want to be really nitpicky about it, they are just declared so to be by humans. Doesn't mean these facts are not facts, but it also does not mean that they are. If any historical so-called facts are against the Scripture, then we, as Christians, are bound to go with the Scripture. Because there are also facts recorded in Scripture.

For example, we know, from the Bible, that Israel was in Egypt for many years. If now the supposed so-called historical facts from all the world declared that Israel never was in Egypt, then we as Christians are still bound to go with the Bible. Because the Bible says they were in Egypt. So here it's word against word. God against anyone else.

I'm sorry I'm not grasping the above.

Are you saying that if it was PROVED that the Hebrews never lived in Egypt...
we would still be required to believe that they had?

 

[GodsGrace]

I believe the whole bible is inspired. the Holy Spirit exists throughout eternity past and future. The bible is literal Israels history.

The NT is basically history with teachings from the Apostles and Paul (and Jesus of course).

Why would inspiration be necessary?

Inspired means :

1. To animate the mind or emotion.
2. To stimulate and influence.
3. To elicite or create.

 

[GodsGrace]

ARE THE OT AND THE NT INSPIRED?​

Are you inspired.....yes, when you write out of your conviction, are you inspired?
Does this mean that everything you write about is 100% accurate with no flaws? Does it mean that what you write is without your particular filter of right/ wrong or anything in between?

But this thread is not about the bible having flaws or not having flaws.

The OT is inspired...a lot of it is history but a lot of it is not.
For instance, Psalms is most definitely inspired.
But
Is the story of Ruth inspired?
Or is it just historical and thus required no inspiration?

Does the NT have to be inspired for history to be written down on paper?

Understanding inspiration, even by the Spirit of God, does not mean bypassing your bias, your preferences, your tastes, your creativity or lack of it. It means being aware that everything is contextual to ones paradigm and that growth means and requires one to be open to NEW ways of seeing/ hearing. Growth and further inspiration are always contingent to this.

But history is history...
it's not about a world paradigm....
Acts is a book about history...
is inspiration required?

 

[GodsGrace]

I think the Prophets, whoever they may be were given insights but they didn't always join the dots well. Isaiah writes confidently that God is the creator of both good and evil. We know from what Jesus and John tell us that in God is no darkness at all.

King David writes exuberantly about washing his feet in the blood of his enemies. Somehow, even though he was called a friend of God's, he definitely missed something major when he wrote that.

Job, bless the guy, in all his suffering thought it was God doing it to him. He didn't know about the first two chapters of the book named after him. Had he known, his angle would have been different.
His mates accuse Job of wickedness because they also had a faulty paradigm re who was responsible for Job's calamities.

Yes, faulty paradigms make us draw conclusions that are equally wrong.
The fire which destroyed Job's livestock is called the 'fire of God'. It was no doubt lightning....but who sent it? God gets the blame but WE know it was Satan from the first two chapters of the book.

We need to be onto this so we do not misappropriate!

But I'm not saying there are faulty paradigms in the NT.
I see it as being purely historical.
Jesus lived, He taught, He died, He resurrected.
Peter and Paul and the others went into the world and taught what Jesus taught them.

Does writing about this require inspiration?

 

[GodsGrace]

Paul write to Timothy:

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” (2Ti 3:16 NKJV)

The word translated "inspiration of God" is the Greek word theopneustos, which I am told means literally "God-breathed."

The word inspiration has a definite biblical meaning.
I've added it to the OP.

Inspired means :

1. To animate the mind or emotion.
2. To stimulate and influence.
3. To elicite or create.


So you believe even the NT has to be inspired...
even though it's writing about historical facts?

Sorry, I've just never considered this before and I'm wondering which parts of the NT
would REQUIRE inspiration.

 

[David Lamb]

The word inspiration has a definite biblical meaning.
I've added it to the OP.

Inspired means :

1. To animate the mind or emotion.
2. To stimulate and influence.
3. To elicite or create.


So you believe even the NT has to be inspired...
even though it's writing about historical facts?

Sorry, I've just never considered this before and I'm wondering which parts of the NT
would REQUIRE inspiration.

But the NT isn't just about historical facts, is it: It's about doctrine (teaching) too, When Jesus told the disciples to love one another, or when He said, "I am the way, the truth and the life," I suppose the fact that He said those words is historical, but the teaching those words contain is not just a historical fact. Jesus's parables are not historical facts. Nor is Paul's teaching about the Christian armour in Ephesians 6.