|
Post by unkleE on Jan 9, 2013 7:43:43 GMT
Does anyone who has studied this more than I have, know any authoritative discussion of what the Greek "God-breathed" means in the celebrated 2 Timothy 3:16b passage please? I have seen several different explanations, each claiming to be the right one: - "All scripture is breathed out by God" = God's words
- "All scripture is breathed into by God" = human words which the Holy Spirit makes God's words to us.
- "All scripture that is inspired is profitable" - changes the nature of the statement
- "All scripture is inspiring" = helpful
I'm not so much wanting to discuss the theology as understand if the Greek meaning can really be known.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jan 9, 2013 22:36:18 GMT
Does anyone who has studied this more than I have, know any authoritative discussion of what the Greek "God-breathed" means in the celebrated 2 Timothy 3:16b passage please? I can offer some quotes from a few commentaries. Would that help?
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jan 10, 2013 20:52:45 GMT
That would be helpful thanks, especially if they are scholarly commentaries and not just popular christian ones. I know what evangelical christians say it means, but I'm trying to find if the Greek meaning can be known for sure.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jan 10, 2013 23:03:54 GMT
That would be helpful thanks, especially if they are scholarly commentaries and not just popular christian ones. I know what evangelical christians say it means, but I'm trying to find if the Greek meaning can be known for sure. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find an extended discussion on the subject, but there does seem to be a consensus position for 'God-breathed.'
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jan 11, 2013 1:34:01 GMT
Thanks a lot. The interesting thing to me is that only two of them attempt to explain the meaning on the Greek "God breathed". The most common explanation of the Greek that I've come across is that "God-breathed" = "God-exhaled", as in your quote from RJ Utley. This would seem to make the actual words coming from the mouth of God, hence the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. Ben Witherington takes this view. But note this is a different meaning to that of LO Richards, who says God's breath carried the writer along, or empowered, or inspired, the writers, like a boat having its sail filled by the wind. On this view, the writers were not necessarily inerrant, though their general message originated with God. I have also come across a third view, by Brad Anderson, in which he argues from other passages that when God breathes in the Bible, he is breathing into something that is already there, to give it something extra ( e.g. Ezekiel 37:1-4, John 20:21-23). On this view (I think), the breathing occurs when the scriptures are read, and makes them profitable to us. The three meanings are very different, though I suppose you could argue all are true, and I haven't seen any really clear arguments why one or the other should be preferred, just the assertion, as in the Utley quote. Anyone got any more light to throw on this?
|
|
|
Post by chavoux on Jul 7, 2015 6:37:02 GMT
Hi UnkleE, Just something to add, is that a single verse of Scripture is too slim a branch to hang your understanding of inspiration on, IMHO. Phrases like "the Word of the Lord" etc., and "Thus says the Lord" scattered throughout the Bible carries a lot of weight as well. And I am fairly convinced (on the grounds of Scripture itself - cf 1 Cor.7 and Hebr.1:1!) that not all Scripture is inspired in the same way. And I don't think Paul is saying anything about the manner of inspiration in his letter to Timothy, but simply states the fact of inspiration.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jul 7, 2015 12:17:17 GMT
Hi chavoux, thanks. Yes I agree, one verse is insufficient to base a major doctrine on, but many evangelical christians do exactly that. So I wanted to see if I could get clear evidence of the "best" meaning of the term in 2 Tim 3:16. I agree with you that it seems likely that not all scripture is inspired in the same way, but I'm doubtful that the phrases you quote say a lot about scripture itself, for they are describing a particular utterance which scripture reports. But surely a non-inspired, or non-inerrant document could record an inspired and inerrant utterance?
|
|
|
Post by chavoux on Jul 7, 2015 16:37:18 GMT
Yes, I will agree with you (that "uninspired" scripture can record inspired words). But then my question would be, Does that make them any less authoritative (as long as they are recorded faithfully)?E.g., even if the gospel writers were not inspired, but only truthful. Would that really make any difference in my relationship with Jesus and in how I should follow Him? Will His words carry any less power/authority in my life? But I will argue that the texts do say more than this. That Paul, even when acknowledging that a certain teaching does not come directly from the Lord, still claimed to be speaking by the Spirit. And that Hebr.1 would make no sense unless what God said in the past (by various means) could be known in the present (through it being written down). For me the various means thing has to with how I apply or interpret Scripture, rather than its authority. And this is something that many fellow fundamentalists sometimes miss, since they treat Scripture as if it was all dictated or inspired in exactly the same way. To expand a bit on that... I cannot make Paul's own advice given as his own spiritual wisdom (and in a certain context not to marry) as a universal law, whereas the command of the Lord Jesus in the same chapter (not to divorce) cannot be treated as simply wise advice, but do have binding authority. So maybe my question for you would be: what difference will the different possible meanings of the text in Timothy make in how you handle and apply the Bible? E.g. even if (as I believe) God exhaled his Word (and I see closer correspondence between the breath of God and His Spirit, than one of the commentators above) directly to the authors of Scripture, it does not remove from me the need to be dependent on the Holy Spirit for interpreting it correctly anymore than the opposite view that it is the breath of God which makes it "inspired" when I read it.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jul 8, 2015 8:46:56 GMT
Yes, I will agree with you (that "uninspired" scripture can record inspired words). But then my question would be, Does that make them any less authoritative (as long as they are recorded faithfully)?E.g., even if the gospel writers were not inspired, but only truthful. Would that really make any difference in my relationship with Jesus and in how I should follow Him? Will His words carry any less power/authority in my life?. I agree with you here. I think those who make strong theological claims for the Bible haven't shown, by theology or by practice, that those claims matter much. What matters is actually following Jesus in how we live, and we can do that with a wide range of views about the Bible. But I am still interested to understand the text as well as I can. Again I agree, at least partly. Your emphasis on the Spirit is one I also accept. But while the texts give us examples of that, I don't think they actually say more about the mode of scripture's inspiration.
|
|