The Psalms are the word of Christ

[Drake]

-1

“Likewise, when it records historical events, genealogies, etc., it does so using the idioms and cultural norms of the time--yet it is without error.”

Neither does the Bible express our physical world in accurate scientific terms ... and it quotes philosophers and non inspired writings. Yet, it is without error.

The error in Aron’s understanding can be traced back to his definition of the Scriptural term “God breathed” ... he and Miller offer explanations of “God breathed” as if the Bible emerged out of thin air or as if the human instruments who actually penned its pages went into a trance of some sort and started scribbling. . Perhaps they never understood that we have no original letters and the closest copies to the original are at least a hundred years and most are closer to 700 to 800 years removed. Maybe they don’t understand that the copies from which current versions are derived come from different schools with scribes that may have omitted or added a word here or there in an MSS to fit their concepts.... yet even that is instructive where it appears.

Nevertheless, the Bible we possess is without error but not in the way they describe that every word in it is a portrayal of Christ or God or an accurate understanding of the things of God. The human concepts are there, the lies are there, the workings of evil minds are recorded there.... and still it is without error....it is accurate in what it records.

There is a possibility they are really smart and know all this and more....but merely engaging in sophistry.... to attack the object of their discontent... Brother Lee.

Drake

[Evangelical]

It was not until about 100 years after Luther and Calvin that other Reformers introduced the idea of biblical inerrancy in the text itself rather than Luther and Calvin's view that inerrancy came about because of the inspiration of the Spirit, and they allowed for the possibility of human errors. That is, even if there is an error in the bible the Holy Spirit will provide the correct inspiration and we do not need to pretend that the bible is perfect. Luther even believed that an apostle's words may be uninspired and non-apostolic and an unbelievers words may be inspired and apostolic - it was evaluated against whether or not it made Christ known or not, based upon the words of Paul (1 Cor 2:2).

Lee's approach is very similar to Luther's - using the Scripture to interpret Scripture, but also using Scripture to critique Scripture. Lee also emphasized the inspiration of the Spirit for the proper meaning of Scripture through "pray -reading" - the spirit over the letter.

So, what these people are reacting against, I believe, is a type of hermeneutics they will not find in modern evangelicalism, which assumes that the text itself is inerrant.

[Drake]

-1

This is an excellent accurate summary of the subject.

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee's approach is very similar to Luther's - using the Scripture to interpret Scripture, but also using Scripture to critique Scripture. Lee also emphasized the inspiration of the Spirit for the proper meaning of Scripture through "pray -reading" - the spirit over the letter.

Good point ... if pray-reading triggers inspiration of the Spirit. Or if the Spirit is always available if we have the right key (let's call it the Lee key) to open it up.

But prolly, pray-reading anything my lead to deeper insights into any text ; a cookbook say, or mechanic's manual. But it can also make us see things that aren't there.

So Lee's Cargo Cult method of "inspiration of the Spirit" does not necessarily fill the gaps in the human aspects of scripture, if it causes our imagination to run wild of the Spirit. Just sayin'.

And bro E, if Lee's approach is very similar to Luther's wouldn't that mean that Lee's Recovery was stuck back there with Luther? Just askin'.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

And bro E, if Lee's approach is very similar to Luther's wouldn't that mean that Lee's Recovery was stuck back there with Luther? Just askin'.

We could say that Lee "Recovered the Reformation" from the point where it started to go astray - when the later Reformers fell into the error of literal inerrancy.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We could say that Lee "Recovered the Reformation" from the point where it started to go astray - when the later Reformers fell into the error of literal inerrancy.

Titus Chu and numerous men of God tried to reform and recover the Recovery.

The Blendeds then issued a papal bull against them and lynched them at the Whistler ITERO kangaroo court.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We could say that Lee "Recovered the Reformation" from the point where it started to go astray - when the later Reformers fell into the error of literal inerrancy.

Yes, we could say....

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It was not until about 100 years after Luther and Calvin that other Reformers introduced the idea of biblical inerrancy in the text itself rather than Luther and Calvin's view that inerrancy came about because of the inspiration of the Spirit, and they allowed for the possibility of human errors. That is, even if there is an error in the bible the Holy Spirit will provide the correct inspiration and we do not need to pretend that the bible is perfect. Luther even believed that an apostle's words may be uninspired and non-apostolic and an unbelievers words may be inspired and apostolic - it was evaluated against whether or not it made Christ known or not, based upon the words of Paul (1 Cor 2:2).

That is very surprising to me that Calvin believed as you say.
Do you have supporting evidence?

I believe in Biblical inerrancy. The Orthodox Jews do also and always have, and so did Jesus as proved by the below among others:
John 10:34 ... and the Scripture cannot be broken.

When Luther got old he was mentally ill due to ear infections.
That is when he made his horrible anti-Semitic rants.
I don't know when in his life he made the terrible mistake of saying that the book of James was uninspired. He said the same about Hebrews, Jude and Revelation, because these books contradict his overemphasized teaching on salvation by faith alone without works.
He also did not believe Esther, Jeremiah, Jonah and Song of Songs.
Luther had been a great man of God.
This shows me that no minister of the age is inerrant and needs the checks and balances of others.
But the Bible is inerrant.


When you say the Bible is not inerrant, I understand you to mean that there are mistakes in the Bible as originally written. Is that what you mean?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

That is very surprising to me that Calvin believed as you say.
Do you have supporting evidence?

I believe in Biblical inerrancy. The Orthodox Jews do also and always have, and so did Jesus as proved by the below among others:
John 10:34 ... and the Scripture cannot be broken.

When Luther got old he was mentally ill due to ear infections.
That is when he made his horrible anti-Semitic rants.
I don't know when in his life he made the terrible mistake of saying that the book of James was uninspired. He said the same about Hebrews, Jude and Revelation, because these books contradict his overemphasized teaching on salvation by faith alone without works.
He also did not believe Esther, Jeremiah, Jonah and Song of Songs.
Luther had been a great man of God.
This shows me that no minister of the age is inerrant and needs the checks and balances of others.
But the Bible is inerrant.


When you say the Bible is not inerrant, I understand you to mean that there are mistakes in the Bible as originally written. Is that what you mean?

With Calvin, it's a matter of debate.

These two articles present it from both sides.

https://postbarthian.com/2014/05/26/...-bible-errors/

https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-P...5-442_JETS.pdf

I believe the original manuscripts are inerrant. I cannot say the same of the multitude of versions and translations, or our modern day understanding of the original manuscripts.

What was more interesting to me was how their view, especially Luther's, seemed to differ from modern Reformers. Tracing the origins and history of biblical inerrancy doctrine seems to lead me closer to American fundamentalism than the actual teachings of early Reformers.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

With Calvin, it's a matter of debate.

These two articles present it from both sides.

https://postbarthian.com/2014/05/26/...-bible-errors/

https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-P...5-442_JETS.pdf

I believe the original manuscripts are inerrant. I cannot say the same of the multitude of versions and translations, or our modern day understanding of the original manuscripts.

What was more interesting to me was how their view, especially Luther's, seemed to differ from modern Reformers. Tracing the origins and history of biblical inerrancy doctrine seems to lead me closer to American fundamentalism than the actual teachings of early Reformers.

Thanks for those links for both views. Both were spot on for what I had asked.
Based on both articles, Calvin believed strongly in the inerrancy of God's word. The article that argues against that is defining inerrancy in an extremely narrow way, and also plays a little semantics.
I don't think Calvin is very skilled with the OT.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Thanks for those links for both views. Both were spot on for what I had asked.
Based on both articles, Calvin believed strongly in the inerrancy of God's word. The article that argues against that is defining inerrancy in an extremely narrow way, and also plays a little semantics.
I don't think Calvin is very skilled with the OT.

Yes, I know Calvin is not a strong example, but Luther is. I still referred to Calvin because it is a matter of debate.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

“Likewise, when it records historical events, genealogies, etc., it does so using the idioms and cultural norms of the time--yet it is without error.”

Neither does the Bible express our physical world in accurate scientific terms ... and it quotes philosophers and non inspired writings. Yet, it is without error.

These are self-contradicting statements. If the Bible is inaccurate, then it has errors. But then you say the Bible is without error, which is true, and means it is inerrant, right? Maybe you meant to say "precise" instead of "accurate".

Do you believe in the theory of evolution? It contradicts the Bible. If the theory of evolution is right, then the Bible is wrong and vice-versa.

Originally Posted by Drake

The error in Aron’s understanding can be traced back to his definition of the Scriptural term “God breathed” ... he and Miller offer explanations of “God breathed” as if the Bible emerged out of thin air or as if the human instruments who actually penned its pages went into a trance of some sort and started scribbling. .

I don't believe most of the Bible was dictated by God. God used the writer's humanity to write it. I said the Bible does not contain any erroneous human concepts. I understand "God breathed" to mean similar to what Peter said:
2Pet 1: 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.
21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Originally Posted by Drake

Perhaps they never understood that we have no original letters and the closest copies to the original are at least a hundred years and most are closer to 700 to 800 years removed. Maybe they don’t understand that the copies from which current versions are derived come from different schools with scribes that may have omitted or added a word here or there in an MSS to fit their concepts.... yet even that is instructive where it appears.

This is a different matter. The Bible is inerrant in its original manuscripts.
The Masoretic Text of the OT matches the Dead Sea Scrolls almost word for word throughout, even though the manuscripts are about 1,000 years apart. There are some significant 1-letter differences which affect the interpretation of prophecy, but none that affects how we should live our life and faith.
There are 1000's of NT manuscripts. They all agree similarly to how the NT and DSS agree. God has preserved His Word, as He promised.
Also the earliest complete NT manuscripts are not 700-800 years older than the originals. More like 300 years.

Originally Posted by Drake

Nevertheless, the Bible we possess is without error but not in the way they describe that every word in it is a portrayal of Christ or God or an accurate understanding of the things of God. The human concepts are there, the lies are there, the workings of evil minds are recorded there.... and still it is without error....it is accurate in what it records.

The workings of evil minds are recorded there as what accurately happened. We can understand from the context that these are examples of what not to do. What WL said is much different. For example WL said that when God Himself speaks at the end of Job, that God's speaking there is not wise.
Or when Peter quotes Psalm 34 saying to keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking guile, WL says that Peter was wrong to quote that verse. So WL is disagreeing with the divinely inspired Biblical authors.

Originally Posted by Drake

There is a possibility they are really smart and know all this and more....but merely engaging in sophistry.... to attack the object of their discontent... Brother Lee.

I do not know what sophistry is. I don't use sarcasm. I think Bro Lee was a great man of God. I learned how to understand the Bible from him. Bro Lee also had some serious mistakes, and as I said, I think his worst one was to say that parts of the Bible are unprofitable. When he excommunicated most of the former pastors and missionaries in 1988, he lost his checks and balances, as well as the Lord's blessing.
I was saved in the LC 1975, and remained there until the church in Detroit was excommunicated by the blendeds for not agreeing to the 1-Publication doctrine in around 2007.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

WL said that when God Himself speaks at the end of Job, that God's speaking there is not wise.
Or when Peter quotes Psalm 34 saying to keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking guile, WL says that Peter was wrong to quote that verse. So WL is disagreeing with the divinely inspired Biblical authors..

Please provide the two quotes mentioned above. Let’s have a closer look.

Drake

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Please provide the two quotes mentioned above. Let’s have a closer look.

Drake

Here is the quote about God's speaking in Job:
Much of the speaking in this book is ambiguous. This is
the case not only of the speaking of Job, of his friends, and
of Elihu, but to some extent it seems to be the case even of
the speaking of Jehovah in 40:10-14. (Msg 29, p 155).
I had remembered it as something worse. As it is in the Life Study, it is not heretical.

Here is the extended context of where WL said that Peter was wrong to quote Ps 34. It is Life-Study of the Psalms, msg 16, p. 203-4. I've highlighted the parts I think are beyond the realm of what a Christian should believe:
2. The Way to Fear God
In Psalm 34 David spoke of the way to fear God (vv. 11-16;
1 Pet. 3:10-12). Verses 12-16 say, ‘‘Who is the man who desires
life, / Who loves having days in order to see good? / Guard
your tongue from evil, / And your lips from speaking deceit. /
Turn away from evil and do good; / Seek peace and pursue
it. / The eyes of Jehovah are set toward the righteous, / And
His ears, toward their cry. / The face of Jehovah is against
those who do evil, / To cut off the memory of them from the
earth.’’ These verses were quoted by Peter in 1 Peter 3:10-12,
but Paul did not quote such a word. Paul’s vision of the New
Testament economy was clearer than that of all the other
apostles.
When David asked, ‘‘Who is the man who desires life, /
Who loves having days in order to see good?’’ he was not
talking about the eternal life but about the physical life.
David was a great saint in the Old Testament, and Peter was
one of the great apostles in the New Testament, but I do not
believe that what David said here is spiritual. Even among
us, who dares ask the Lord to give him long days that he
may enjoy many good things?
MESSAGE SIXTEEN 203
David said that if we love having days in order to see
good, we should guard our tongue from evil and our lips from
speaking deceit. But who has ever succeeded in guarding his
tongue from evil? What David spoke here was according to
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Verse 15 says, ‘‘The eyes of Jehovah are set toward the
righteous, / And His ears, toward their cry.’’ But who is
righteous on this earth? Paul said that not one is righteous
(Rom. 3:10), and Isaiah said that our righteousnesses are like
filthy rags (Isa. 64:6). If we depend upon our righteousness
to enjoy God’s eyes and ears being set toward us, we will
enjoy nothing, because we have no righteousness of our own.
Concerning the righteous man, David said, ‘‘He keeps all
his bones; / Not one of them is broken’’ (v. 20). This is a verse
concerning Christ because David was a type of the suffering
Christ. When Christ was on the cross, the soldiers did not
break His legs when they saw that He had already died (John
19:33). John said, ‘‘These things happened that the Scripture
might be fulfilled: ‘No bone of His shall be broken’’’ (v. 36).
There were times in describing his sufferings that David
typified Christ.
When we look at Psalm 34, we can see the mixed
expressions of David’s sentiment. Verse 20 refers to Christ,
but most of this psalm is not according to the tree of life.
Our concept needs to be changed to the divine concept
according to the tree of life. As we grow in Christ, our concept
will be changed.

[Drake]

VoiceInWilderness> “Here is the quote about God's speaking in Job:
Much of the speaking in this book is ambiguous. This is the case not only of the speaking of Job, of his friends, and of Elihu, but to some extent it seems to be the case even of the speaking of Jehovah in 40:10-14. (Msg 29, p 155). I had remembered it as something worse. As it is in the Life Study, it is not heretical. “


Let’s deal with Job first.

Those verses are ambiguous.

So what?

Drake

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Drake

VoiceInWilderness> “Here is the quote about God's speaking in Job:
Much of the speaking in this book is ambiguous. This is the case not only of the speaking of Job, of his friends, and of Elihu, but to some extent it seems to be the case even of the speaking of Jehovah in 40:10-14. (Msg 29, p 155). I had remembered it as something worse. As it is in the Life Study, it is not heretical. “


Let’s deal with Job first.

Those verses are ambiguous.

So what?

Drake

So nothing. It's not a problem. I had remembered it as something worse from the live training.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

So nothing. It's not a problem. I had remembered it as something worse from the live training.

Lee's more objectionable comments are continually edited out by his editorial staff.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

I don't believe most of the Bible was dictated by God. God used the writer's humanity to write it. I said the Bible does not contain any erroneous human concepts. I understand "God breathed" to mean similar to what Peter said:
2Pet 1: 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.
21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

I don't think human concepts are necessarily erroneous...just human. I see David's human concepts as God accurately and without error, communicating the truth to us about human nature. David's human concepts show us the law and our inability to keep it. It points us to divine concepts found in Christ in the New Testament. Seeing David's human concepts is more practical to me than pretending everything he wrote is divine.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't think human concepts are necessarily erroneous...just human. I see David's human concepts as God accurately and without error, communicating the truth to us about human nature. David's human concepts show us the law and our inability to keep it. It points us to divine concepts found in Christ in the New Testament. Seeing David's human concepts is more practical to me than pretending everything he wrote is divine.

Something can be a human concept and also be truth and profitable. Like math or verifiable science. Some concepts can be both human and divine, such as things that are witnessed to by our conscience.

Here is an example of what I mean by a statement that is both human and divinely inspired:
I posted the life study of WL on Ps 34. He said that David and Peter were not spiritual to say "Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking guile". WL wrote that this divinely inspired human utterance in both Testaments is not spiritual. If it is not spiritual, how was it that David and Peter were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it? WL says that Paul would never say such a thing, but Paul did many times. i.e. Eph 5:29.
Memorizing and singing this psalm helps me to keep my tongue from evil and my lips from speaking guile. It is not an unprofitable human concept as WL said. Neither is it a word about Christ. It is part of God's truth, and we need to live by every word of it. There is no such thing in the Bible as high truth and low truth. There is just "truth" and "the truth". It is a package deal. We need it all.

Can you give me an example of what you mean by something in the Psalms that helped you in the way you describe?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Something can be a human concept and also be truth and profitable. Like math or verifiable science. Some concepts can be both human and divine, such as things that are witnessed to by our conscience.

Here is an example of what I mean by a statement that is both human and divinely inspired:
I posted the life study of WL on Ps 34. He said that David and Peter were not spiritual to say "Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking guile". WL wrote that this divinely inspired human utterance in both Testaments is not spiritual. If it is not spiritual, how was it that David and Peter were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it? WL says that Paul would never say such a thing, but Paul did many times. i.e. Eph 5:29.
Memorizing and singing this psalm helps me to keep my tongue from evil and my lips from speaking guile. It is not an unprofitable human concept as WL said. Neither is it a word about Christ. It is part of God's truth, and we need to live by every word of it. There is no such thing in the Bible as high truth and low truth. There is just "truth" and "the truth". It is a package deal. We need it all.

Can you give me an example of what you mean by something in the Psalms that helped you in the way you describe?

1 Peter 3:10 does not match God's economy I think that's why.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

1 Peter 3:10 does not match God's economy I think that's why.

God's real economy is what is defined in the whole NT, not parts that a man picks.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

I posted the life study of WL on Ps 34. He said that David and Peter were not spiritual to say "Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking guile". WL wrote that this divinely inspired human utterance in both Testaments is not spiritual. If it is not spiritual, how was it that David and Peter were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it?

Ok Steve,

Here is where I think the disconnect lies. Someone being inspired by the Spirit to write something (now in the Bible) does not automatically make the thing written spiritual nor does it make it a spiritual truth.

Drake

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok Steve,

Here is where I think the disconnect lies. Someone being inspired by the Spirit to write something (now in the Bible) does not automatically make the thing written spiritual nor does it make it a spiritual truth.

Drake

Okay Drake, do you agree with Evangelical that:

1) any believer could write a book of the Bible if they wanted to and that many do and that they call them books and sell them in bookstores?

2) the Bible alone is insufficient?

3) only the Recovery knows about being one spirit with the Lord and what that means?

4) even the errors in the Bible are divinely inspired just like Judas's betrayal of Christ because God can inspire human mistakes for his purpose?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by zeek

Okay Drake, do you agree with Evangelical that:

1) any believer could write a book of the Bible if they wanted to and that many do and that they call them books and sell them in bookstores?

2) the Bible alone is insufficient?

3) only the Recovery knows about being one spirit with the Lord and what that means?

4) even the errors in the Bible are divinely inspired just like Judas's betrayal of Christ because God can inspire human mistakes for his purpose?

Sorry zeek. I missed your entry until now.

Rather than have me review and critique what Evangelical said, do you disagree with what I said?

Drake

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by zeek

Okay Drake, do you agree with Evangelical that:

4) even the errors in the Bible are divinely inspired just like Judas's betrayal of Christ because God can inspire human mistakes for his purpose?

This throws me off because I would not call Judas's betrayal of Christ an "error in the Bible". I would call it an "error recorded and portrayed in the Bible". These are two vastly different things. There are records and stories in the Bible of the errors people have made, but that isn't what most would describe as "an error in the Bible".

Unless you mean it is an error that it is recorded in the Bible at all.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok Steve,

Here is where I think the disconnect lies. Someone being inspired by the Spirit to write something (now in the Bible) does not automatically make the thing written spiritual nor does it make it a spiritual truth.

Drake

There is no such thing in the Bible as spiritual truth or non-spiritual truth.
If you can find that in the Bible, then I'll stand corrected.
There is just truth. One package deal.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

There is no such thing in the Bible as spiritual truth or non-spiritual truth.
If you can find that in the Bible, then I'll stand corrected.
There is just truth. One package deal.

Steve,

Let’s start this part of the conversation with Peter since you used him in your second example and his use of Psalm 34.

Peter was a divinely inspired author.

Did Peter express any erroneous human concepts?

Thanks
Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok Steve,

Here is where I think the disconnect lies. Someone being inspired by the Spirit to write something (now in the Bible) does not automatically make the thing written spiritual nor does it make it a spiritual truth.

Drake

But there are other verses which say "thy word is truth" and that Jesus is the "incarnated word". Timothy says "the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword dividing soul from spirit", so rather than a "spiritual truth" I'd say it is a truth that is a two edged sword which divides soul from spirit.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I believe the original manuscripts are inerrant. I cannot say the same of the multitude of versions and translations, or our modern day understanding of the original manuscripts.

Unfortunately we don't have any autograph copies of any of the NT books. So we can't correct the more variants in the over 5500 pieces of NT manuscripts than there are words in the NT.

Don't trust any scholar(s) that claim they know something about the NT autographs.

To believe they are inerrant is a matter of faith.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But there are other verses which say "thy word is truth" and that Jesus is the "incarnated word". Timothy says "the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword dividing soul from spirit", so rather than a "spiritual truth" I'd say it is a truth that is a two edged sword which divides soul from spirit.

I agree ZNP that one of the primary functions of Gods speaking is to operate within us. All Scripture is profitable in that way also.

Jesus in His divine eternal status as coequal in the Godhead is with and was God as the Word and this Word was incarnated, became flesh, and tabernacled among us. Some who beheld His glory, the glory of an Only Begotten Son, wrote down what they saw and that is included in the record in the Bible, Gods written and documented word to us. When we read the Bible or hear a message from the Bible with the Spirit then the written word becomes the instant word, a sword in function, the rhema, to operate in us, to divide the soul from the spirit.

Christ is the eternal Word, the Bible is the written word, and the Spiriit operates in us as the instant speaking word. These three uses of the “the word” are not interchangeable but all are Gods speaking to us in different formats, means, and ways.

That how i see the broader definition of the word.

Drake