How do we determine whether the Bible is the Word of God?

[lee_merrill]

According to Matthew, Jesus' paternal grandfather (Joseph's father) was named Jacob.
According to Luke, Jesus' paternal grandfather was Heli.

And there might have been adoption in Jesus' lineage, thus the need to trace two lines.

but not all of the Bible's scripture is inspired by God.

[tabibito]

And if not everything in scripture is inspired by God, the whole argument based on nothing more than a single verse (which might itself be wrong) becomes futile.

While I did cite that verse, I also stated that the translation is highly questionable - which is to say "suspect."

Where "is inspired" can in the English be interpreted as a verb, in the Koine Greek, it is an adjective: "Every scripture is inspired by God" means "Every inspired-by-God Scripture," or, to phrase it more naturally, "every scripture that is inspired by God." or "Every scripture inspired by God (is ...)"


And beyond that certainty, it is highly probable that the entire "sentence" describes the "writings that Timothy has known since infancy:" i.e. it would be an adjectival phrase, which would make any insertion of "is" in the translation invalid.

No verb is used in that phrase - "is" has been interpolated not just once (which might be justified), but twice (which can't be justified.)

[One Bad Pig]

The sacred writings which Timothy knew from childhood could have only referred to the Tanakh, in context. None of the New Testament had been written when Timothy was a child.

[eschaton]

So what your saying is that the God we know from general revelation is consistent with the God of the scriptures? I think that's certainly a fruitful way of inquiry but the problem would be to distinguish truths about God and explicit truths from God.

In my view, the Word of God is God's revelation. We should respond to that revelation with faith. Truths about God are truths from God. We can dissect the Bible into individual words and maybe even individual historical events, but I don't think that is what the scriptures are really about. The scriptures are about ideas that lead to God and are inspired by God. When Jesus asked the lawyer how he read the law the lawyer gave an answer by summarizing the first two commandments.

Luk 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
Luk 10:26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
Luk 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
Luk 10:28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

Rather than breaking the law into various things, Jesus confirmed the answer. The whole is greater than the parts. I think the idea is from God and about God. It is faith that determines true obedience.

[lee_merrill]

And if not everything in scripture is inspired by God, the whole argument based on nothing more than a single verse (which might itself be wrong) becomes futile.

Well, no, "the Scripture cannot be broken", said Jesus (John 10:35).

And beyond that certainty, it is highly probable that the entire "sentence" describes the "writings that Timothy has known since infancy:" i.e. it would be an adjectival phrase, which would make any insertion of "is" in the translation invalid.

But why can't an adjective be used in this way (e.g. "all Scripture is blue").

No verb is used in that phrase - "is" has been interpolated not just once (which might be justified), but twice (which can't be justified.)

But you just said the second "is" is valid, so why not the first? And "kai" seems to me startling if "theopneustos" is simply an adjective here.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

The sacred writings which Timothy knew from childhood could have only referred to the Tanakh, in context. None of the New Testament had been written when Timothy was a child.

Yes, though by implication, "all Scripture" would seem to include all subsequent Scripture too. I just wanted to make it clear that all Scripture was meant.

Blessings,
Lee

[One Bad Pig]

Yes, though by implication, "all Scripture" would seem to include all subsequent Scripture too. I just wanted to make it clear that all Scripture was meant.

Blessings,
Lee

Or it's possible we're looking at it the wrong way. Instead of Paul having a given set of writings in mind, he could be setting down the criteria for determining what is scripture.

[lee_merrill]

Or it's possible we're looking at it the wrong way. Instead of Paul having a given set of writings in mind, he could be setting down the criteria for determining what is scripture.

Could be! Good point...

Blessings,
Lee

[hedrick]

Not sure if this is the best sub-forum but hey ho.

I'm from a Protestant background and recently came across a Roman Catholic argument that we could determine that the scriptures were highly reliable using the standard tools of history and logic but it couldn't tell us that they were the inspired Word of God. The article claimed that they only way we can be sure that it is the Word of God because the Church (capital C for a reason) was founded by Christ so has the authority to declare it to be so. However this still doesn't answer the fundamental epistemological question of how does one move from solid truthful documents to the inspired Word of God.

My tentative suggestion is that prophets of God are accompanied with signs and wonders to declare they're God's agent however we would likley only have the testimony of the prophet to distinguish between what were his words alone and those inspired by God.

Any thoughts on the matter would be much appreciated.

I think the Catholic analysis you saw is incomplete. I certainly agree that we can use historical criteria to look at the historical accuracy of Scripture. But we can also assess in an objective way that Scripture is the only primary source we have for the story of how God worked with Israel, and for Jesus.

It's a matter for personal decision whether believe that story or not, but that's not the question you're looking at.

There are plenty of questions about the books. Probably some of the NT letters weren't written by their claimed authors. And of course the Gospel writers have their own viewpoints, and their accounts don't completely coincide. But this kind of thing is true of all historical sources. We still have good enough evidence to know what Jesus was about, and how he affected the people who experienced him.

We have faith in God and in Christ. That faith is in part based on what we know historically about Jesus, but in part on the experiences of his followers, historical, current, and even our own experience. In that sense the Catholic position has some validity. Not that the role of the Bible as primary source material depends upon the Church, but that our reaction to it does to some extent depend upon seeing how Jesus has affected the lives of his people. There's a similar Protestant idea, that Scripture doesn't really become Scripture for us without the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

You can argue that it was the Church that chose the specific documents that form the NT. (The OT, of course, was chosen by Jewish tradition.) But the Gospels were accepted from as early as we know, and it's hard to see how anyone could have decided otherwise. (No, there are no other Gospels with claim to be anywhere near as good evidence as the canonical ones.) Similarly, Paul's letters are the earliest writings we have by anyone who experienced the consequences of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. On the other letters, I'm actually not sure the Church made such good decisions. It's pretty clear that some of the letters aren't by the claimed authors. Indeed I think they accepted some letters as Paul's that weren't. But historical judgement is based on weighing sources, so having a collection of varied sources isn't a problem as long as we assess them critically. I'm not aware of any other sources that might reasonably have been included, except maybe the Didache.

[tabibito]

Well, no, "the Scripture cannot be broken", said Jesus (John 10:35).

Yup - it do say that. So Michael is God (also a claim made in scripture). Does "the scripture cannot be broken" refer to the scripture in question, or to scripture generally? The scripture cites God as saying "you are gods" - so the scripture in question is either inspired by God, or false. Given that Jesus gives it the thumbs up, I'll accept it as inspired.

But why can't an adjective be used in this way (e.g. "all Scripture is blue").

"All scripture is blue" does not mean the same thing as "all blue scripture" or "all scripture that is blue." The last two allow for the existence of scripture that is not blue, the first does not. Given that Paul records that one passage (and others) is his very own personal opinion, we have in undeniable existence at least one passage of scripture that was not inspired by God.

But you just said the second "is" is valid, so why not the first? And "kai" seems to me startling if "theopneustos" is simply an adjective here.

It is a run on, complex sentence ... when the sentence is simplified the και is not at all surprising. The second "is" can be valid - as a matter of reducing the length of the sentence for acceptable English grammar: "Every scripture inspired by God is useful ..." doesn't change the meaning (though it does impact on nuance).

"From infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures that are able to give you the wisdom you need for salvation through faith in the Messiah Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good action."



So, "From childhood, you have known the holy writings ... every scripture inspired by God and useful ... "

[lee_merrill]

Does "the scripture cannot be broken" refer to the scripture in question, or to scripture generally?

Given that Paul records that one passage (and others) is his very own personal opinion, we have in undeniable existence at least one passage of scripture that was not inspired by God.

"Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches." (1 Co 7:17)

So this does not appear to be just a matter of Paul's opinion, these were directions for all the churches, and thus authoritative, and thus inspired.

It is a run on, complex sentence ... when the sentence is simplified the και is not at all surprising. The second "is" can be valid - as a matter of reducing the length of the sentence for acceptable English grammar: "Every scripture inspired by God is useful ..." doesn't change the meaning (though it does impact on nuance).

But the "kai" comes into English as "all Scripture inspired by God is also useful..." which is a little surprising.

So, "From childhood, you have known the holy writings ... every scripture inspired by God and useful ... "

Blessings,
Lee

[tabibito]

[NorrinRadd]

... Given that Paul records that one passage (and others) is his very own personal opinion, we have in undeniable existence at least one passage of scripture that was not inspired by God.

No, it's not undeniable. It is probably not the case that, in 1 Cor. 7:12, Paul is saying, "Now this part is just my opinion." Rather, he is probably clarifying that he is expanding on and applying what the Lord taught as recorded in the Gospels (vv. 10-11).

[Physiocrat]

I think the Catholic analysis you saw is incomplete. I certainly agree that we can use historical criteria to look at the historical accuracy of Scripture. But we can also assess in an objective way that Scripture is the only primary source we have for the story of how God worked with Israel, and for Jesus.

It's a matter for personal decision whether believe that story or not, but that's not the question you're looking at.

There are plenty of questions about the books. Probably some of the NT letters weren't written by their claimed authors. And of course the Gospel writers have their own viewpoints, and their accounts don't completely coincide. But this kind of thing is true of all historical sources. We still have good enough evidence to know what Jesus was about, and how he affected the people who experienced him.

We have faith in God and in Christ. That faith is in part based on what we know historically about Jesus, but in part on the experiences of his followers, historical, current, and even our own experience. In that sense the Catholic position has some validity. Not that the role of the Bible as primary source material depends upon the Church, but that our reaction to it does to some extent depend upon seeing how Jesus has affected the lives of his people. There's a similar Protestant idea, that Scripture doesn't really become Scripture for us without the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

You can argue that it was the Church that chose the specific documents that form the NT. (The OT, of course, was chosen by Jewish tradition.) But the Gospels were accepted from as early as we know, and it's hard to see how anyone could have decided otherwise. (No, there are no other Gospels with claim to be anywhere near as good evidence as the canonical ones.) Similarly, Paul's letters are the earliest writings we have by anyone who experienced the consequences of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. On the other letters, I'm actually not sure the Church made such good decisions. It's pretty clear that some of the letters aren't by the claimed authors. Indeed I think they accepted some letters as Paul's that weren't. But historical judgement is based on weighing sources, so having a collection of varied sources isn't a problem as long as we assess them critically. I'm not aware of any other sources that might reasonably have been included, except maybe the Didache.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think I read that argument on Catholic Answers website.

[tabibito]

θεοπνευστος is a true adjective in Koine Greek, but it necessarily becomes a verbal adjective in English. The difference between a true adjective and a verbal adjective is critical to a correct rendering.
Not verbal adjectives


Not verbal adjectives

faithful saying is also worthy of all acceptation.

πιστος, αξιος. Not verbal adjectives.

good thing is also acceptable.

καλον, αποδεκτον : Not verbal adjectives.

This one almost makes the cut. Grammatical issues arise because of the contrast that is established with the first phrase.

But the Revisers do not translate them thus! And the fact that they render the whole of these eight passages as in the A.V., and single out 2 Tim. 3:16 for different treatment, forbids us to accept the inconsistent rendering, and deprives it of all authority.

usually result in problems.

The author has not demonstrated his claim to be accurate. Relevant grammatical issues have not been fully examined, resulting in an unsound argument.

So then, does

every good tree

every kingdom divided against itself

Matt 4:4 παντι ρηματι εκπορευομενω δια στοματος θεου

2 Tim 3:16 πασα γραφη θεοπνευστος και ωφελιμος