IITim.2:15, "Cutting the Word of Truth Straight"

[shturt678]

What exactly is the inspired "Word" in the context of IITim.2:15. Jn.1:1, "Word was God" for example? Scriptures = inspired Word, another example as in IITim.3:16? Translations = inspired Word, another? One's K.J.V. = inspired Word? Or ? = inspired Word? One's one valid interpretation = inspired word?

Old Jack

 

[Mr.Bride]

The Holy Spirit's interpretation. The revelation of who Jesus Christ was, is, and will be. One Truth. One Word. *Jesus*

 

[Martin W.]

What exactly is the inspired "Word" in the context of IITim.2:15. Jn.1:1, "Word was God" for example? Scriptures = inspired Word, another example as in IITim.3:16? Translations = inspired Word, another? One's K.J.V. = inspired Word? Or ? = inspired Word? One's one valid interpretation = inspired word?

Old Jack

The mention of "inspired word" is to clarify that the bible was written by men but God (Holy Spirit) was the author

When the boss dictates a letter to his secretary , the boss is the author , not the secretary

God is the boss and the author of the bible and the apostles and prophets wrote down what he directed them to.

The Old testament scriptures nearly always start with ...... "the word of the Lord came to Ezekiel " .... etc

Revelation says .... " write down what you see and hear" (visions)

Most likely the apostles were prompted by the Holy Spirit within when they wrote the NT

 

[shturt678]

The Holy Spirit's interpretation. The revelation of who Jesus Christ was, is, and will be. One Truth. One Word. *Jesus*

Thank you for your respon

The mention of "inspired word" is to clarify that the bible was written by men but God (Holy Spirit) was the author

When the boss dictates a letter to his secretary , the boss is the author , not the secretary

God is the boss and the author of the bible and the apostles and prophets wrote down what he directed them to.

The Old testament scriptures nearly always start with ...... "the word of the Lord came to Ezekiel " .... etc

Revelation says .... " write down what you see and hear" (visions)

Most likely the apostles were prompted by the Holy Spirit within when they wrote the NT

Thank you for your response!

Question: Was God the Holy Spirit the Author of the Bible translations, or only the original Biblical 66 Book's Autographs which we no longer have?

Old curious Jack

 

[Chopper]

Thank you for your respon

Thank you for your response!

Question: Was God the Holy Spirit the Author of the Bible translations, or only the original Biblical 66 Book's Autographs which we no longer have?

Old curious Jack

Hi there "Old Curious Jack", the Old Chopper here. B) My oh my, the subject of the Scriptures, their origin, and authenticity has been debated for many years. It seems to me a subject of great importance but explained by so many different people with so very many backgrounds. A person's preconceived notions always seem to enter in. I personally liked, in the past, studying the findings of several men who were not Christians, just scholars, they seemed to keep it simple and to the point. I don't have that information now, most of the research I did in Bible College, I gave to other students.

I said all that just to say that God's Word to man was of the greatest importance to our Almighty Father to His children. You know that He wasn't about to let anything or anyone mess up the Holy process of transporting His Word to us. Thru the great power of the Holy Spirit, holy men, OT & NT wrote down exactly what YHWH wanted us to know about creation, thru the sufferings of His Son for our redemption, thru to Revelation, the end of life in this realm. No mistakes, no errors in the original manuscripts.

You are right. We don't have the originals, we have copies. God was also overseeing the copies. Some say that they are perfect copies, others say they are not perfect, that there are errors here and there. As I said before, it depends on who you read and their background. If you read Brother David Cloud who is a King James only man, he will say the T.R. is perfect as well as the KJV of the Bible.

You say, what do I think? There are minor errors but nothing to do with the major tenants of our faith. I still use the KJV, as well as the ESV. Even just these two versions there are differences, but the plan of Salvation is the same, as well as other doctrines....Sorry this is so long, but your question, hit the ball out of the park.

 

[shturt678]

Hi there "Old Curious Jack", the Old Chopper here. B) My oh my, the subject of the Scriptures, their origin, and authenticity has been debated for many years. It seems to me a subject of great importance but explained by so many different people with so very many backgrounds. A person's preconceived notions always seem to enter in. I personally liked, in the past, studying the findings of several men who were not Christians, just scholars, they seemed to keep it simple and to the point. I don't have that information now, most of the research I did in Bible College, I gave to other students.

I said all that just to say that God's Word to man was of the greatest importance to our Almighty Father to His children. You know that He wasn't about to let anything or anyone mess up the Holy process of transporting His Word to us. Thru the great power of the Holy Spirit, holy men, OT & NT wrote down exactly what YHWH wanted us to know about creation, thru the sufferings of His Son for our redemption, thru to Revelation, the end of life in this realm. No mistakes, no errors in the original manuscripts.

You are right. We don't have the originals, we have copies. God was also overseeing the copies. Some say that they are perfect copies, others say they are not perfect, that there are errors here and there. As I said before, it depends on who you read and their background. If you read Brother David Cloud who is a King James only man, he will say the T.R. is perfect as well as the KJV of the Bible.

You say, what do I think? There are minor errors but nothing to do with the major tenants of our faith. I still use the KJV, as well as the ESV. Even just these two versions there are differences, but the plan of Salvation is the same, as well as other doctrines....Sorry this is so long, but your question, hit the ball out of the park.

You hit the ball out of the ballpark!

Us ol' Christian coots have to stick together - excellent response! Younger ones rightfully moving up in paygrades. Ever give much thought to why translations are so extremely interpretive just by default of being translations, ie, noting also the original perfectly inspired inerrant, and infallible Autographs were even interpretive to a degree?

Old Jack - sorry, tried to lighten the bold, but my PC not responding so well.

 

[StanJ]

What exactly is the inspired "Word" in the context of IITim.2:15. Jn.1:1, "Word was God" for example? Scriptures = inspired Word, another example as in IITim.3:16? Translations = inspired Word, another? One's K.J.V. = inspired Word? Or ? = inspired Word? One's one valid interpretation = inspired word?

Old Jack

It's the OT.

 

[Wormwood]

Inspiration is the means by which God inerrantly communicates through the spoken and written word with humanity. The concept is found in 2 Peter 1:21 and 2 Tim. 3:16. Inspiration is different from illumination which was mentioned above. Inspiration is not about the Spirit empowering someone to understand God's revelation, but it is the accurate communication of God's revelation through supernatural means. I would contend that because there is inspiration, there is no need for the doctrine of illumination. Illumination renders inspiration meaningless because what is the point of God guiding his communication through inspiration if we need supernatural aid to understand it? I believe inspiration means that the word was communicated in such a way that the truth of God could be accurately relayed and understood through natural human communication.

I also believe inspiration points to inerrancy in the Scriptures. While we must understand the Scriptures according to their literary styles and authorial intent, if God is the author we must assume that the information is entirely accurate in its intent. I find these quotes by Gleason Archer on the topic to be most insightful.

Despite the neoorthodox contention that the error-filled Hebrew and Greek documents of Scripture somehow point the questing soul of a true believer to some kind of suprahistorical, suprascientific level of metaphysical truth, intellectual and moral integrity demands that we face up to the validity of the attacks of these skeptics. This via media offered by the revisionist Evangelicals and neoorthodox theologians cannot be successfully maintained. There can be no infallibility without inerrancy—even in matters of history and science—and sooner or later the schools or denominations that accept this via media slip away from their original evangelical posture and shift into substantial departures from the historic Christian faith. There are some good and solid reasons for this doctrinal decline.


If the statements it contains concerning matters of history and science can be proven by extrabiblical records, by ancient documents recovered through archaeological digs, or by the established facts of modern science to be contrary to the truth, then there is grave doubt as to its trustworthiness in matters of religion. In other words, if the biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested.

Gleason L. Archer, New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan’s Understand the Bible Reference Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982), 23.

 

[shturt678]

It's the OT.

Thank you for your response!

IITim.3:16, "All Scripture" denotes the well-known canon called "Scripture" waaay beyond the O.T., ie, includes the N.T. This singular is a collective that points to "all Scripture."

Old Jack's view

Inspiration is the means by which God inerrantly communicates through the spoken and written word with humanity. The concept is found in 2 Peter 1:21 and 2 Tim. 3:16. Inspiration is different from illumination which was mentioned above. Inspiration is not about the Spirit empowering someone to understand God's revelation, but it is the accurate communication of God's revelation through supernatural means. I would contend that because there is inspiration, there is no need for the doctrine of illumination. Illumination renders inspiration meaningless because what is the point of God guiding his communication through inspiration if we need supernatural aid to understand it? I believe inspiration means that the word was communicated in such a way that the truth of God could be accurately relayed and understood through natural human communication.

I also believe inspiration points to inerrancy in the Scriptures. While we must understand the Scriptures according to their literary styles and authorial intent, if God is the author we must assume that the information is entirely accurate in its intent. I find these quotes by Gleason Archer on the topic to be most insightful.

Thank you again for your response!

Agree to agree to most of your response, not that I'm any authority. Ref. IIPet.1:20, 21: Let's say we happen to have the no longer available inerrant, infallible, and inspired original Autographs ("Scriptures" without "1" discreptancy) before us. This is considered "prophecy" supplying its "own interpretation." My point is Scriptura undoubtedly ex Scriptura explicanda est. In this way the Spirit interprets Scripture. As you put forth it's not the interpretation of anyone that governs the prophecy, but the prophecy governs the interpretation.

Old Jack's opinion only,

Appreciate you folks and your words.

 

[StanJ]

Thank you for your response!

IITim.3:16, "All Scripture" denotes the well-known canon called "Scripture" waaay beyond the O.T., ie, includes the N.T. This singular is a collective that points to "all Scripture."

Paul was not aware nor would he have been presumptuous enough to consider his letters, SCRIPTURE. As a Hebrew scholar, Paul was referring to the scripture that existed at THAT time, which was basically the LXX.

 

[shturt678]

Paul was not aware nor would he have been presumptuous enough to consider his letters, SCRIPTURE. As a Hebrew scholar, Paul was referring to the scripture that existed at THAT time, which was basically the LXX.

Thank you for your response!

Rarely Paul quoted from the O.T., viz. Romans, as the LXX was full of discrepncies, however Paul being inspired by God, perfectly appropriated the O.T. passages resulting in perfect, inerrant, infallible, and inspired Scriptures in the original.

Old imperfect Jack

 

[StanJ]

Thank you for your response!

Rarely Paul quoted from the O.T., viz. Romans, as the LXX was full of discrepncies, however Paul being inspired by God, perfectly appropriated the O.T. passages resulting in perfect, inerrant, infallible, and inspired Scriptures in the original.

Old imperfect Jack

Do you know how the LXX came into being?

Voila: http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/septuagint.html

No discrepancies.

Never said Paul wasn't inspired, but what he was referring to was the OT/Torah, NOT his writings or any other NT writings we now know.

 

[Wormwood]

Thank you for your response!

IITim.3:16, "All Scripture" denotes the well-known canon called "Scripture" waaay beyond the O.T., ie, includes the N.T. This singular is a collective that points to "all Scripture."

Old Jack's view

Thank you again for your response!

Agree to agree to most of your response, not that I'm any authority. Ref. IIPet.1:20, 21: Let's say we happen to have the no longer available inerrant, infallible, and inspired original Autographs ("Scriptures" without "1" discreptancy) before us. This is considered "prophecy" supplying its "own interpretation." My point is Scriptura undoubtedly ex Scriptura explicanda est. In this way the Spirit interprets Scripture. As you put forth it's not the interpretation of anyone that governs the prophecy, but the prophecy governs the interpretation.

Old Jack's opinion only,

Appreciate you folks and your words.

Jack, I appreciate your thoughts. In my estimation, Peter is referring to the communication of the prophet's words, not the interpretation of the listeners. I think he makes this clear when he says the prophets (not the listeners) were "carried along by the Holy Spirit." Thus, what they wrote was guided by the Spirit, and not the prophet's own interpretation or gut feeling of what God was trying to communicate. Does that make sense?

I would claim that the NT writers indicate that no supernatural aid was needed in order to understand the Gospel message they were proclaiming. There is never any indication that they required their readers or listeners to have supernatural aid to understand what they were communicating. John declares that "I have written these things that you might believe and that by believing you might have life in his name." Also, when listeners rejected Paul's Gospel, he never attributes this to the Spirit, but points to a rejection of the truth and hardness of heart. I think the doctrine of illumination is innately Calvinistic and suggests that any failure to accept the Scriptures is ultimately a result of God's refusal to allow people to understand them. The Scriptures never present themselves in such a cryptic fashion that need supernatural aid to be accepted. Again, I think if this is the case, then inspiration is meaningless. If the Spirit has to unlock a spiritually cryptic text for it to be understood, what is the purpose of inspiration in the first place?

Paul was not aware nor would he have been presumptuous enough to consider his letters, SCRIPTURE. As a Hebrew scholar, Paul was referring to the scripture that existed at THAT time, which was basically the LXX

StanJ,

I disagree. Paul did view his writings as filled with direct commands from God and he also instructed churches to circulate his letters among them. Moreover, Peter declares Paul's writings to be "Scripture" (2 Peter 3:16).

 

[StanJ]

StanJ,

I disagree. Paul did view his writings as filled with direct commands from God and he also instructed churches to circulate his letters among them. Moreover, Peter declares Paul's writings to be "Scripture" (2 Peter 3:16).

Actually Peter says Paul's writings and OTHER scriptures. Paul himself in 2 Tim 3:15 is talking about sacred writings. As these were what Timothy had experienced since childhood, Paul was not referring to his own writings.

 

[shturt678]

Jack, I appreciate your thoughts. In my estimation, Peter is referring to the communication of the prophet's words, not the interpretation of the listeners. I think he makes this clear when he says the prophets (not the listeners) were "carried along by the Holy Spirit." Thus, what they wrote was guided by the Spirit, and not the prophet's own interpretation or gut feeling of what God was trying to communicate. Does that make sense?

It's spiritually healthy to agree to disagree as you're already aware! However here, not only makes sense, but agree. I just wasn't clear on the "interpretation" part. I strrongly feel, like Daniel, John, and others, Paul at times penned down (God the Author) things he didn't even understand - penned the "Text" minus the interpretation, eg, the "Parable of the Sower" still needs an valid interpretation from the Text. I bumped into the ol' illumination routine awhile back, and can only say from my view that the Text needs an interpretation otherswise it'll result in Text with Text ends in Pretext sort of thing, ie, Text without Context is Pretext. Thus when the context interprets the context = an intrepretation with the Holy Spirit without any modern type of illmination - no supernatural aid, ie, only via the Word does God the Holy Spirit interpret, and speak to us.

Not that I'm correct, only an opinion for sure!

I would claim that the NT writers indicate that no supernatural aid was needed in order to understand the Gospel message they were proclaiming. There is never any indication that they required their readers or listeners to have supernatural aid to understand what they were communicating. John declares that "I have written these things that you might believe and that by believing you might have life in his name." Also, when listeners rejected Paul's Gospel, he never attributes this to the Spirit, but points to a rejection of the truth and hardness of heart. I think the doctrine of illumination is innately Calvinistic and suggests that any failure to accept the Scriptures is ultimately a result of God's refusal to allow people to understand them. The Scriptures never present themselves in such a cryptic fashion that need supernatural aid to be accepted. Again, I think if this is the case, then inspiration is meaningless. If the Spirit has to unlock a spiritually cryptic text for it to be understood, what is the purpose of inspiration in the first place?

Only making a clarification my friend. btw if you do know the one valid interpretation of the Sower only by the Text, as been using this for a litmus test for decades, then I'll recant all my posit fully agreeing with you.




StanJ,

I disagree. Paul did view his writings as filled with direct commands from God and he also instructed churches to circulate his letters among them. Moreover, Peter declares Paul's writings to be "Scripture" (2 Peter 3:16).
[/QUOTE]

Stanj my friend: Only a head's up, the LXX is very corrupt where Jesus and Paul fully understood, correcting the Texts with their individual appropriations.

Old Jack's view

 

[StanJ]

Stanj my friend: Only a head's up, the LXX is very corrupt where Jesus and Paul fully understood, correcting the Texts with their individual appropriations.

Old Jack's view

Not from what I have read Jack. It's the oldest extant version of the OT we have today, and was translated by Jewish scholars of the day in the mid 300 BC. If you have anything to indicate it is corrupt then please supply it. Thanks

 

[shturt678]

Not from what I have read Jack. It's the oldest extant version of the OT we have today, and was translated by Jewish scholars of the day in the mid 300 BC. If you have anything to indicate it is corrupt then please supply it. Thanks

Most could care less, and emphatically thank you folks for caring!

I'll have to go to my larger library in town for each discrepancy, however off the top for now: The N.T. penners had a corrupt copy of the LXX, but the transmission of the LXX a different story. It underwent more corruption and interpolation, that is, each verse has an array of varient readings - alternative readings, that is, began early before the Christian era. Early Christians did adopt the LXX however. Will get back to you with a few of the multitude of errors in the LXX.

Old Jack heading for the ol' library, forgot my glasses again.

btw found some of my notes thus eyeball Acts7:43's LXX then Rom.3:14 for a minor that I recall.

 

[StanJ]

Most could care less, and emphatically thank you folks for caring!

I'll have to go to my larger library in town for each discrepancy, however off the top for now: The N.T. penners had a corrupt copy of the LXX, but the transmission of the LXX a different story. It underwent more corruption and interpolation, that is, each verse has an array of varient readings - alternative readings, that is, began early before the Christian era. Early Christians did adopt the LXX however. Will get back to you with a few of the multitude of errors in the LXX.

Old Jack heading for the ol' library, forgot my glasses again.

btw found some of my notes thus eyeball Acts7:43's LXX then Rom.3:14 for a minor that I recall.

Jack I think you are confused between the Masoretic Texts, Textus Receptus and the LXX. The latter was the OT, nothing to do with the NT.

 

[shturt678]

Jack I think you are confused between the Masoretic Texts, Textus Receptus and the LXX. The latter was the OT, nothing to do with the NT.

Thank you for your response!

Wait till you get my age and milage, everything is confusing. If I recall I said the LXX is corrupt, then you said provide evidence that it's corrupt, or something like this. Then I provided passages where the N.T. writers did not quote, but appropriated passages from the LXX, however obviously corrected the LXX...plenty more passages available. Then you said I was confused with the Masoretic Text. other text and so on trying to recall. At least now you can see exactly where I'm 'confused' as don't have a problem with it - use to it.

Old Jack trying to get unconfused

 

[RANDOR]

Think maybe you boys have this all backwards.......................it's XXL..............just in case you want to get me somethin for Christmas