Many chiasmic movements like the JW’s, quote 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is inspired of God,” to promote the concept that everything written in our modern Bible is God’s direct thoughts, that the Bible contains secret messages that only by revelation by a superior being, can anyone know without divine revelation.
One cited expression is the Bible’s phrase “circle of the earth.” According to WT, this really means “sphere,” not simply “circle!” (They have some ridiculous explanation on the Hebrew, which is completely idiotic, from my recollection.) They have some wacky explanation that somehow this simple statement, a “circle,” really means sphere! Their explanation is that only those to whom God spoke to would know this super-secret knowledge, that the earth is a sphere, not a flat surface, a “circle!” (Take note of their “Revelation Climax…” book illustration of John in heaven, looking down upon a “sphere” earth, with the 4 angles! – Simply ridiculous!)
On closer examination, there is no “is” in the Greek text of 2 Timothy 3:16. A friend of mine suggested that a better translation could be, “All Scripture, inspired of God…” (no “is”) In other words, it is a clarifying addendum, but not a statement of some divine revelation! Also, the “circle of the earth” was a common understanding of people for thousands of years. They believed the earth was a flat circle, with a dome-like “heavens!” There is no indication that God or any superior intelligence gave out super-secret information, that the earth is really a “sphere.”
This leads me to another concept that I’m sure I’ll get some controversy with! That most of the Bible doesn’t claim to be “inspired,” and the Bible was written by those who made no such claim, and in fact denied it!
Is there anything that says that somebody got some revelation about Genesis? That is, “God said…” something about the beginnings of the earth? NO! Men wrote down what was the then “history” of their world at that time! They made NO claim to a revelation by a superior being! I get a little perturbed when folks criticize the Genesis account, based on modern science, in that the writers never claimed to have divine inspiration!
Interestingly, in the New Testament, Luke’s account has the opening words “many have undertaken to complete a statement of the facts… I traced all things from the start.” Did he have a revelation? He doesn’t say he did. He wrote down what “facts” he had gotten from eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2). The Apostle Paul, in several places, said something like “not the Lord’s by my thoughts!” So, are those “words” inspired? NO! And I’m sure that much of what is considered the Bible today can be attributed to man’s search for God, no “inspiration” implied or expressed! From my perspective, the Bible is Man’s search for God, NOT God’s search for man!
My 2-cents!
Cyber!
Inspiration or perspiration?
by cyberguy 12 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
cyberguy
-
Leolaia
Paul, at least in his part, tried to distinguish his own opinions from what he had received "from the Lord":
"Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. But this I say by way of concession, not of command. Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. ..... Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.... A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. But in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 7:5-12, 25, 39-40).
All of this material in what Paul simply wrote as correspondence today has status as scripture. Opinions and all. When they were written, they were letters ... i.e. mail, giving instructions and advice to the churches and explaining doctrinal points of view. Today they have the same status as any other part of the Bible. Yet Paul distinguished his own opinions from the divine commands he presented as from "the Lord"....
-
greendawn
That's what I use when I argue with those who claim that all the Bible is inspired, as Paul's example shows it is not. The idea that all the Bible is inspired and that everything we need to know is contained in it is simply a myth.
-
cyberguy
Leloaia,
Yes, a status as "scripture" but not totally "inpiried," although much of it was evidently considered part of the "inspired scriptures" at some time. -- see 2 Peter 3:14-16. His text was considered part of the sacred writings, but as he himslef says, some comments are of his own opion. No? Just my 2-cents!
-
Leolaia
Also:
"I am not speaking this as a command, but as proving through the earnestness of others the sincerity of your love also. For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich. I give my opinion in this matter, for this is to your advantage, who were the first to begin a year ago not only to do this, but also to desire to do it" (2 Corinthians 8:8-10).
-
Leolaia
cyberguy.....Bear in mind that 2 Peter is a late pseudenymous writing....usually assigned to the second century (the reference to the "twisting" of Paul's writings may pertain to Marcion), or in the very late first century at the earliest (as its dependence on Jude, its familiarity with the appendix to John and other factors suggest). There was no evidence that his writings were considered "scripture" in Paul's lifetime, or that even a collection of letters had yet existed.
-
cyberguy
Good point Leolaia!That's what I am saying. Much of the sacred text is of people searching for God! And there is nothing wrong with that! And “opinion” is not unimportant, or apostate! It is completely valid (with relation to the period of time when such statements were made -- i.e., women and "head covering?"), especially when exclaimed by writers like Paul. As Paul says, he had his “opinions!” And he didn’t force “opinions” on early Christians did he? Neither was he fearful of saying something countered by “GB-standards” in Jerusalem (as the WT would have it – there was NO GB in Jerusalem, as you know!). How refreshing that would be as compared to the GB-today, who imposes their opinions on everyone, and on every aspect of life! How different things would be if they would say something like, well, this is our“opinion” of the GB --- such-and-such! NO! They say, they are directed by God, and this is what God has said! Follow us, or you are rebelous and thefore, you should DIE!
-
Leolaia
Much of the sacred text is of people searching for God! And there is nothing wrong with that!
I couldn't agree more. I always think of the whole gamut of scripture/religious writing as a record of man's experience with the "divine", however that may be construed. Rather than trying to force it all (or rather only canonical scripture divorced from its wider literary context) to conform to a single unitary synthetic theology, it is much more awe-inspiring (and faithful to the texts themselves) to witness the range and diversity of different views and ideas and experiences within the texts. That paints a more spectacular vista of religious experience than pigeonholing it all into a monolithic harmonizing doctrine. The Bible is rather a library of faiths, each closely related to the others in various ways (e.g. intertexutality, shared theological assumptions, etc.) but none exactly identical to the others.
What is interesting is that the modern fundamentalist beliefs of cohesion (i.e. viewing it as a single book) and inerrency as applied to the whole are in themselves unbiblical. The canonical and authoritative status accorded to the whole collection in the third and fourth centuries AD is retrojected into the text iself and viewed as an inherent property of the text, i.e. reifying and essentializing canonicity (thereby making the non-canonical status of other self-claimed "inspired" books common-sensical), but this is a criterion and evaluation that originates outside the text itself. In fact, there is a modern conflation (especially in Protestantism) of inspired = canonical = authoritative = scripture, but in the early church, there were scriptures that were inspired but not canonical, even for Jerome (who strictly abided by the Hebrew OT canon). The problem of "inspired" scriptures existing outside the canon is brought to relief by Jude, which cites a non-canonical text (i.e. 1 Enoch, regarded as "scripture" by the anonymous author of Barnabas and by Tertullian) as genuine inspired "prophecy". Since Jude is canonical, but its source material is not, should we share the author's evaluation of the text as prophecy? Too often, there is an assumption that 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to our present 66-book Bible, even tho that is not the Bible the author had, and even tho early Christians treated a wider body of literature as "inspired" and "scripture" than what was then canonical (i.e. the Tanakh, even tho debate raged in rabbinical circles on the canonicity of Ezekiel and Esther into the second century) As a matter of fact, we don't know what the author regarded as "scripture". "All scripture," in fact, would suggest that all scriptures are in view here, even scriptures that did not eventually pass the mark of canonicity (including apocryphal works)....
-
Narkissos
Bear in mind, too, that having the gods speak is an almost universal feature of religion and religious literature. That's what "prophecy" (not especially foretelling the future, but speaking for the deity in general) is about. The authoritative oracle formulae in the OT are quite similar to what is found in other Ancient Near East cultures: "thus speaks [insert divine name]," "Fear not, I am with you" etc. This kind of role-playing, i.e., playing the god-part in the drama, is essential to most religions.
(I started a thread some time ago on this topic, entitled "How did they dare?" but the topic history is still not available.)
-
Leolaia
The OT prophets were, in a sense, the ancient version of political activists. Think of Jeremiah, for instance. He was unpopular in his day because he did not say what the people wanted to hear. The prophet Hananiah, who also attributed his prophecies with Yahwistic oracular formulae, was quite popular but was proven wrong by history...hence, Jeremiah's political critique had great credibility and his oracles against the nations were accorded greater weight...