Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Theopneustos" is not a word that ws made up for Paul's purpose, but was in use in Koine to describe the process by which authors were able to write their various works and the "god" to which it refers would be one of the Muses. It was a literary convention to invoke the appropriate Muse to speak or sing (poetry was the common form) through the writer and NOBODY really believed that was what was happening, "Inspiration" to them was the same kind that inspires a poet to write about something he finds beautiful or whatever animates his mind.
Theopneustos is the word that Paul chose to use with regard to the divine origin of the Bible. The word quite literally means 'God-breathed.' And I assure you that Paul really believed that the Scriptures were God-breathed just as did the other apostles. Quoting Peter;
2 Peter 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21] for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Also, you didn't provide any sources to back up your statement about the usage of the word 'Theopneustos' outside of the Bible. There's really not much information on the origin of the word Theopneustos. I did come across the following;
''Theopneustos is particularly awkward for us, because it is not only hapax legomenon, but its usage in Koine Greek (“common Greek”, the language of the New Testament) is very limited. There is no conclusive evidence that it was ever used before Paul used it here in II Timothy — certainly there are no indications that Paul or Timothy had any prior knowledge of the word. Paul may have actually invented this word (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit). We can’t assume that any other usage of the word in Greek literature really had the meaning that Paul meant to convey, or the meaning that Timothy received when he read it. In other words, not only are we without clues #2 & 3, #1 is no help to us, either.'' [Bolded mine]
Additionally, the Greek/English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, third edition (BDAG), doesn't provide much detail about the word Theopneustos, citing only a few references outside the Bible where the word was used which means that the word was not widely used. And the issue is what did Paul mean by using the word? And that is self-evident.
And you chose not to address my comment.
''The fact that the Bible is the word of God doesn't mean that God dictated the words to be written, although some of it is dictation, such as Revelation chapters two and three where Jesus told John exactly what to write. It means that everything in the Bible is authorized by God to be there as part of His message to man. ''
Last edited by Michael Way; 08-07-2017 at 06:58 AM..
''The fact that the Bible is the word of God doesn't mean that God dictated the words to be written, although some of it is dictation, such as Revelation chapters two and three where Jesus told John exactly what to write. It means that everything in the Bible is authorized by God to be there as part of His message to man. ''
The point was that it IS a word that was used in the Greek culture of the time and should be understood in the context OF the time and not arbitrarily assigned the meaning of the origin. This is just a ploy to tighten the meaning of "inspire" to make it more restrictive than its use in the time and culture. It is nothing more than smoke and mirrors to promote a doctrine of men. Now there are various ideas about just how the "inspiration" of scripture occurs and yours is just a little less restrictive than the most "conservative" view, but it is STILL just an effort to place authority in a book where it does not belong, and where it has demonstrably done a LOT of damage to the advancement of the message of Christ. Which of the myriad "bible-based" denominations do YOU represent?
The point was that it IS a word that was used in the Greek culture of the time and should be understood in the context OF the time and not arbitrarily assigned the meaning of the origin. This is just a ploy to tighten the meaning of "inspire" to make it more restrictive than its use in the time and culture. It is nothing more than smoke and mirrors to promote a doctrine of men. Now there are various ideas about just how the "inspiration" of scripture occurs and yours is just a little less restrictive than the most "conservative" view, but it is STILL just an effort to place authority in a book where it does not belong, and where it has demonstrably done a LOT of damage to the advancement of the message of Christ. Which of the myriad "bible-based" denominations do YOU represent?
No, the point is that there is not much information on how the word Theopneustos was used outside the Bible and what its origin was.
And you still have not provided any source to back up your statement. You've simply made an unsubstantiated assertion and are now making accusations about 'ploys' and 'smoke and mirrors'. You have nothing.
No, the point is that there is not much information on how the word Theopneustos was used outside the Bible and what its origin was.
And you still have not provided any source to back up your statement. You've simply made an unsubstantiated assertion and are now making accusations about 'ploys' and 'smoke and mirrors'. You have nothing.
What I have is a faith in the Guide Jesus promised, and a knowledge of the characteristics OF that Guide, which gives me a recognition of the failure of those who don't trust Jesus' promise.
What I have is a faith in the Guide Jesus promised, and a knowledge of the characteristics OF that Guide, which gives me a recognition of the failure of those who don't trust Jesus' promise.
If you expect to be taken seriously, you are going to have to present a more scholarly case and show some objective evidence that Paul didn't use the word 'Theopneustos' to mean that all Scripture is God-breathed.
And by the way, Paul also had faith in the Guide that Jesus promised. Furthermore, the writers of the Bible were guided by that Guide that Jesus promised - the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures are the result.
The Word of God is a thing to be preached, not read (Mark.2:2; Acts 8:4, 25; Titus.1:3). To "preach the Bible", as some boast of doing, is nothing, for even Satan quoted Scripture to entrap Jesus; that obviously could not be considered "preaching the Word of God". Those not ordained by God are condemned to preach nothing but what they have heard and read of others. That is the only gospel they have to offer. And that is why they must teach that the Bible is the Word of God. They can claim to have the Word of God if it is a book. Doing so excuses their lack of a testimony of experiencing the Word being spoken to them. They have no Word of God to preach, because God has not spoken to them. It is often by those who hold up the Bible as the "infallible Word of God" that the true Word of God is corrupted (2Corinthians .2:17) and frequently contradicted when it is revealed. Men without the Word of God will resist this message "just as their fathers did resist the holy Ghost" (Acts 7:51).
This is a quote I found a couple of years ago ( can't remember where) but fits in this thread nicely.
If you expect to be taken seriously, you are going to have to present a more scholarly case and show some objective evidence that Paul didn't use the word 'Theopneustos' to mean that all Scripture is God-breathed.
And by the way, Paul also had faith in the Guide that Jesus promised. Furthermore, the writers of the Bible were guided by that Guide that Jesus promised - the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures are the result.
Guess I got to but this over here also.
Was it just scripture or was it their interpretation of the scriptures?
According to the Jews themselves what they wrote was their interpretation of scripture.
According to the Jewish study Bible pages*1835*& 1838
The Jews interpreted scripture by using scripture, thus they turned the scripture over and over to find new truths from examining the scriptures and reordering the old scriptures. Thus when they came upon problem scriptures they would translate those scripture according to thier own interpretation and took sides in theological and legal contraversies, expaned the narritive and legal material all the while purporting to merely convey the meaning of the text they translated.
Thus in ancient times it was the responsiblity of the translator not to only translate the text, but to render it comprehensible to those who could not read the sacred writting themselves. Thus many of their interpretation of the scripture became a part of the scriptures
Thus we can see clearly that man has tampered with the scriptures.
If you expect to be taken seriously, you are going to have to present a more scholarly case and show some objective evidence that Paul didn't use the word 'Theopneustos' to mean that all Scripture is God-breathed.
And by the way, Paul also had faith in the Guide that Jesus promised. Furthermore, the writers of the Bible were guided by that Guide that Jesus promised - the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures are the result.
Frankly, I don't care whether my lack of a scholarly approach is taken seriously by you, but your approach that there may be nothing to show that Paul did NOT use a term from a certain intlellectual milleu in Greece in a way that does not match the known zeitgeist and the way that thought community would use it seems to me to be directed toward what you WANT to believe rather than an investigation of what WAS.
To say that the Bible (and here we are just talking New Testament) IS the result of the guidance disregards what can happen to original teaching in the hands of polemicists. The teachings may be apparent to investigation in the spirit, but not necessarily authority, and certainly not without extraneous material added. The book is not the authority.
The Word of God is a thing to be preached, not read (Mark.2:2; Acts 8:4, 25; Titus.1:3). To "preach the Bible", as some boast of doing, is nothing, for even Satan quoted Scripture to entrap Jesus; that obviously could not be considered "preaching the Word of God". Those not ordained by God are condemned to preach nothing but what they have heard and read of others. That is the only gospel they have to offer. And that is why they must teach that the Bible is the Word of God. They can claim to have the Word of God if it is a book. Doing so excuses their lack of a testimony of experiencing the Word being spoken to them. They have no Word of God to preach, because God has not spoken to them. It is often by those who hold up the Bible as the "infallible Word of God" that the true Word of God is corrupted (2Corinthians .2:17) and frequently contradicted when it is revealed. Men without the Word of God will resist this message "just as their fathers did resist the holy Ghost" (Acts 7:51).
This is a quote I found a couple of years ago ( can't remember where) but fits in this thread nicely.
The New Testament scriptures hadn't been written during Jesus' lifetime. Jesus Himself read from the Old Testament Scriptures. The word of God is to be read. John stated in Revelation 1:3 that the person who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy which he called the word of God are blessed.
Paul expected his letters to be read in church.
Col. 4:16 When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea.
Frankly, I don't care whether my lack of a scholarly approach is taken seriously by you, but your approach that there may be nothing to show that Paul did NOT use a term from a certain intlellectual milleu in Greece in a way that does not match the known zeitgeist and the way that thought community would use it seems to me to be directed toward what you WANT to believe rather than an investigation of what WAS.
To say that the Bible (and here we are just talking New Testament) IS the result of the guidance disregards what can happen to original teaching in the hands of polemicists. The teachings may be apparent to investigation in the spirit, but not necessarily authority, and certainly not without extraneous material added. The book is not the authority.
Here you are just throwing out words which carry no weight. And you haven't demonstrated any reason for you to be taken seriously. There is in fact nothing to suggest that Paul didn't mean by the use of the word 'Theopneustos' that all Scripture is God-breathed. Paul wasn't a pagan. He wasn't secular. He was a man who had encountered the risen Jesus on the Damascus road and as a result became a believer. He considered what he taught to be, not the word of men, but the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13).
The Bible (here, the NT) is indeed a result of the Holy Spirit guiding the writers of the Bible. The Bible, the Scriptures are invested with the authority of God who is the divine author of the Scriptures.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
