Bible Message Vs Biblical Texts

[trivialtheology]

What will you say if I say that the biblical texts was composed with the author being allowed to use his own composition and style and therefore the message (what God intended to say) is more important (or the real inspired one) than the whole Biblical literal texts?

But I still maintained that The Bible is inspired by God.

 

[Levi]

Are you talking about the difference between the letter and the spirit of the law?

2 Cor 3:6

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

What will you say if I say that the biblical texts was composed with the author being allowed to use his own composition and style and therefore the message (what God intended to say) is more important (or the real inspired one) than the whole Biblical literal texts?

But I still maintained that The Bible is inspired by God.

I find it difficult to interpret your question , sorry.

Can you try to re-word it ??

Thanks

 

[Dan57]

What will you say if I say that the biblical texts was composed with the author being allowed to use his own composition and style and therefore the message (what God intended to say) is more important (or the real inspired one) than the whole Biblical literal texts?

But I still maintained that The Bible is inspired by God.

I find no evidence that the authors misrepresented what God intended scripture to say. The writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit; "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16). So no, I don't think each writer relied or relayed their own personal composition, although some had their own definitive style of writing. Therefore, I believe the bible is literally what God intended to say.

 

[justaname]

I would say that is your own personal conviction on the inspiration of the Bible. Personally I hold to a verbal plenary inspiration view.

What can happen from a lesser view of verbal plenary is a degradation of the validity of inspiration. From this we have things happening similar to the "Jesus Seminar." Also by allowing this view doctrinal issues have a less solid platform. The terms, "Well God probably intended this... Or the author did not mean that to be such a strict interpretation" is heard from that point of view.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

I would say that is your own personal conviction on the inspiration of the Bible. Personally I hold to a verbal plenary inspiration view.

What can happen from a lesser view of verbal plenary is a degradation of the validity of inspiration. From this we have things happening similar to the "Jesus Seminar." Also by allowing this view doctrinal issues have a less solid platform. The terms, "Well God probably intended this... Or the author did not mean that to be such a strict interpretation" is heard from that point of view.

I think we need a translator to interpret this whole thread.

 

[williemac]

I think we need a translator to interpret this whole thread.

Let me have a stab at it.
It has occurred to me through experience and observation that we often get our messages from God in thoughts and impressions and seldom in exact words. The passage says scripture is inspired. It doesn't say that everything written was under Divine control in word for word expression of the ideas that were being communicated. Every person is called in ministry and whether babes or mature, we operate in the limitations of our 'limitations'. Far be it from me to imply that the writers were not mature and skilled in understanding. However, what they communicated must likely have been filtered through their own personalities and personal vocabulary. If I speak to a person, I can use body language and emphasis on various words. In fact our communication employs these things far more than we realize. So when something is written down, some of this is lost. This is probably why the bible is such a big book and covers the real important issues from various perspectives and authors. That was my stab, vocabulary such at it is.

 

[FHII]

As far as I understand the question, I tend to think Willimac is on to something.... Paul had his favorite catch phrases that he used... "God forbid!" For example. "All things are lawful unto me, but not all things are expedient". He said it at least 2 or 3 times in slightly different ways. I can't think of examples, but I've noticed the same thing with Isaiah and Jeremiah... That is certain writing styles and phrases they like to use.

So the question might be, "do we look at every word they wrote and take them all to heart or do we look at the overall jist of the message they were getting at"? I believe the former. Of course, we look at the overall message (for example, don't get hung up on the revelation that might be in one verse without reading the whole chapter). But I do believe that every word that the prophets wrote in the NT as well as the Apostles and servants in the NT must be considered, despite the author's style of writing.

Why? First off, Jesus said man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God. He also said not one jot nor tittle would fail to come to pass. So why? Jesus said so! But also, God called these men knowing their style of speech and favorite phrases. I have to think he took that into account when he called them.

So God called these men to write the Bible, and he knew how it would come out even before he called Moses to start the work. And the work came out perfect!

 

[Dodo_David]

I believe that the question in the OP is about the context of Bible verses.

Do modern-day Western people take the cultural context into consideration when reading Scriptures that originated in ancient Hebrew society or in a Hebrew society that was under the influence of the ancient Greek society?

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

I believe that the question in the OP is about the context of Bible verses.

Do modern-day Western people take the cultural context into consideration when reading Scriptures that originated in ancient Hebrew society or in a Hebrew society that was under the influence of the ancient Greek society?

If that was indeed the opening question ..... then I would say yes ..... I always interpret scriptures the way they would be understood by the people at the time .... then I flip the meaning to how it might be applied to me today.

On the other hand , many scriptures are straightforward to each person regardless of culture or history

 

[whirlwind]

What will you say if I say that the biblical texts was composed with the author being allowed to use his own composition and style and therefore the message (what God intended to say) is more important (or the real inspired one) than the whole Biblical literal texts?

But I still maintained that The Bible is inspired by God.

I would say that the Author is God and He inspired each of the prophets. Only then can one see the absolute wonder of the Bible...to have been written over so many years and penned by so many different men and be so very cohesive...from beginning to end. As He inspired them to pen the text...He inspires us to understand, as we are able.