Are There Any Contradictions In The Bible?

[bobinfaith]

The intent of the authors was theological, and not logistical or historical details. But, of course, this does not mean that the facts are in dispute or erroneous, but rather that they are either simply omitted or act of secondary importance.

There is one source of inspiration, and that is the Holy Spirit, and we understand that the Biblical authors were inspired in some form or another, by the Holy Spirit. I say 'in some form or another' because I do not believe that the words of Scripture were dictated, or manipulated in any fashion by the HS. The authors gained their understanding either through revelation or impartation, and their memories recalled distant and obscure events. But, they wrote by their own volition, comprehension and literary capabilities, and independently chose which events and sayings of Jesus to include. Outside of all that, they concertedly chose not to be precise with every single detail that occurred in the life of Christ, nor with 100% accuracy of the timing or numbers involved within the story plot. Their main intent was related to theological issues.

I'm getting the impression that those who have responded to me, including yourself, regard my views as skepticism? They weren't, they were rhetorical - simply pointing out areas of discrepancy, but justifying them by the ancient authors thematic or theological literary approach, not one of emphasizing the logistics of the events, or every detail of the characters and plot. I thought that I made my position clear in my initial posts, that the majority of perceived conflicts can be reconciled with further research and comprehension of the respective author's approach and intent, of each Gospel.

Yes, sorry, there are explicit statements of authorship in some cases, even in the Old Testament as far as the Psalms are concerned. But, even these are not without dispute: some of the epistles of Paul, by some scholars esteem, are considered pseudepigraphical. So, there is still that controversy or uncertainty.
To be honest, though, I personally don't care - if God endowed certain men with wisdom and understanding, to the point that their instructions and assertions were uncontested truth and authoritative, I care very little if they were either prominent Biblical characters, or had the word of God dictated to them letter by letter. The wisdom speaks for itself that, in one form or another, they are writing under the auspices of God, whether we know their names or not.
Yes, some statements made in the Bible cannot be known without divine intervention, but not all, and I believe that God allowed somewhat of a motley crew to be part of the establishment and transmission (In various forms and mediums) of His divine will.

But, that's clearly not true as far as Luke's writings are concerned. He explicitly stated that he took the research upon himself to discover what occurred during the lifetime of Jesus and the early Church, and that it required investigation by speaking to other witnesses. That is, the facts were not imparted to him by God, as you are attempting to declare.

Well, you may be correct about the nature of man that Luke was, ...which, of course, can be said about all the the converts at that time, both Jew and Gentile. And, even your initial comment about God inspiring Luke to feel compelled to spread the news about Jesus is plausible. But, I believe, due to Luke's own admission, that his understanding of what transpired during the days of his Messiah came by oral transmission and dedicated investigation, and not by verbal plenary theory.

Only in part. I believe that Luke is a prime example of a Biblical author that, by his own volition, dedicated himself to offer an account of his Messiah's testimony. Now, we can argue endlessly as to whether or not his desire was instilled by the Holy Spirit, as we can about all men's desires to promote God in one fashion or another. Either way, Luke makes it clear that he was not endowed with knowledge from God enabling him to give an accurate account of the Gospel of Christ.

We can say that about about any man's efforts to do what pleases God. I don't believe that you have Scripture that explicitly states that any New Testament author wrote being moved by the Holy Spirit outside of in the generic sense. Peter states that Paul was given wisdom from God of which he put such sublime sentiments to pen. But, again, this can be said about many of the Christians in that period, or any era - Christians are endowed with wisdom in general. But, I will not assert that everything that they write or say, is under the auspices or guidance of God.

My only point is, when speaking of the Bible as a whole, that I would not give the same amount of inspiration to all the books. I believe that all the Books are sincere , accurate, and penned by wise and devout men, but not necessarily guided by divine intervention - there's no need, for the author's inspirations or revelations may have come well before they decided to write anything down.

If so, the Mishnah is full of traditions that were alleged to be handed down from the time of Moses, I believe. Meaning, traditions are not reliable as far as 100% truth is concerned.
I cannot assert that Samuel wrote either Ruth or Judges. It appears plausible for whatever reason, but I refuse to be dogmatic about it and therefore will not state is as fact, despite me believing in the Books historical veracity.

Hello DNB7;

I read and intentionally clipped parts of your posts that pertain to the verb of this topic. What I strongly feel is you don't believe the authors were all fully led by God's instruction of divine inspiration that pervades Scripture. You support what you don't believe using example wordings such as volition, motley crue, main intent, "not verbal plenary theory" and deeper beliefs on a sub-contextual level.

You are entitled to stand by your convictions and I respect you for that. I also have my convictions about the authors in the Bible.

Deuteronomy is a good example of Moses' authorship in the Old Testament with Joshua writing the end after Moses' death. Unfortunately, there has always been endless debate on the author credibility, which overlooks and misleads the whole point of this book which was the law code that invoked curses for disobedience and blessings for obedience.

Mark was inspired and filled by the Holy Spirit from his missions with Paul and Barnabas, and taking his instruction from God he would write Mark around 55-65 A.D. Mark's material was 7% written to the Romans emphasizing Christ was viewed as a servant. The Gospel structure was in 2 parts - the first was the form of healing, controversies, parables and Jesus' healings. The second part was more on the chronological areas of Jesus' teachings, death and resurrection.

Matthew was inspired and filled by the Holy Spirit, taking his instruction from God to write Matthew around 60-65 A.D. Matthew was called by Jesus. Matthew's unique material reached 42% of the Jews while proclaiming Jesus as King. Matthew encouraged his Jewish followers of Christ to reach more Gentiles converts.

Luke was indeed inspired and prompted by the Holy Spirit and filled him in his medical practice and companionship with Paul. Luke was a Gentile author of the Gospel, his unique material of 59% was written to the Greeks around 60 A.D. When he took his instruction from God, the prompting of the Holy Spirit was written in Luke more than in Matthew or Mark.

John was spirit filled to take God's instruction and write the book of John. His unique material was 92% written to the church later in 85-90 A.D. The language in John did differ from the synoptics in Mark, Matthew and Luke because he spent more time with Jesus during His mission, the example of the first miracle recorded in John 2:11. John's leading of the Holy Spirit goes beyond the Gospel and into 1, 2, 3 John and Revelation.

Point is, there is so much more in the Gospels, New and Old Testaments that was complex, so these authors could not just be spirit filled to offer their own account, but needed God's instruction to guide them in writing. I believe God anointed all His servants to write each of the 66 books. All that is written in the Bible is God-breathed. With the wisdom and spirit that God gave His servants to author, to fail at His instruction would have a devastating impact on the readers.

When I read volition, motley crue, main intent, "not verbal plenary theory" and deeper beliefs on a sub-contextual level which is how I read your posts, mixed with "I personally don't care or I care very little" regarding the credibility of all authors, then this just doesn't sink in and I find this hard to reconcile the full indwelt of the Holy Spirit.

In 1 Kings 8:11, 11 so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord. - ESV

My wife and I studied this passage during our new daily devotional and we discussed how we long for a more welcoming experience with God's Holy Spirit and this included all God's authors who were spirit led to write them. There is a peace within us.

God bless you, DNB7, and your family.

 

[Major]

If so, the Mishnah is full of traditions that were alleged to be handed down from the time of Moses, I believe. Meaning, traditions are not reliable as far as 100% truth is concerned.
I cannot assert that Samuel wrote either Ruth or Judges. It appears plausible for whatever reason, but I refuse to be dogmatic about it and therefore will not state is as fact, despite me believing in the Books historical veracity.

That is true. There is no clear evidence who wrote these books, although some scholars have assumed that either Samuel or one of his disciples wrote them.

The purpose of Judges is not to glorify Israel's ancestors, but rather to glorify the grace of the God of Israel.

The purpose of Ruth is to allow us to see the far-reaching scope of the Grace of God who welcomed even Gentile con-verts into His kingdom.

That being the case, I for one do not see why the authorship of these books is a problem. We know from the Bible that Jesus Christ was the root of those books and IMHO if He had wanted the mans name known to us, we would know it. That does not make it a contradiction.

 

[Major]

No, I'm not being skeptical - I personally accept all the thirteen epistles that are ascribed to Paul, as being of Pauline authorship. I'm fully aware that Paul used Tertius as his amanuensis in Romans, and that he implies that he employed the efforts of other scribes where he states how he wrote his signature in his own hand. This can plausibly account for the stylistic differences between some of the disputed books.
But, I also personally believe, that since Paul was a missionary for approximately 3 decades, that his own style would have both changed and matured over the course of his Christian life.

My only point is, when speaking of the Bible as a whole, that I would not give the same amount of inspiration to all the books. I believe that all the Books are sincere , accurate, and penned by wise and devout men, but not necessarily guided by divine intervention - there's no need, for the author's inspirations or revelations may have come well before they decided to write anything down.

You said...........
"All Books are sincere , accurate, and penned by wise and devout men, but not necessarily guided by divine intervention."

And that is the contention of our conversation! That is your personal opinion which does not compare to the Bible itself.

2 Timothy 3:16.........
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".

Here, Paul makes a powerful and definitive statement about the nature of the written Word of God, “Scripture.” God has breathed it out by his Holy Spirit into the prophetic minds of the authors of both the Old and the New Testament.

The Bible is profitable for all these things for the one who reads it, and the one who leads others. When seeking to minister to other people, all should be done according to Scripture. To go outside of this and to follow our own thoughts and opinions, is to open the doors to commit errors. Much of today’s Church is derelict in teaching the Scriptures and helping Christians to live according to them. It has weakened the Bride of Christ.

 

[Major]

Well, you may be correct about the nature of man that Luke was, ...which, of course, can be said about all the the converts at that time, both Jew and Gentile. And, even your initial comment about God inspiring Luke to feel compelled to spread the news about Jesus is plausible. But, I believe, due to Luke's own admission, that his understanding of what transpired during the days of his Messiah came by oral transmission and dedicated investigation, and not by verbal plenary theory.

I understand what you are saying. However.....to me, that is not in any way a contradiction as much as it is a lack of history.

Now, Luke never said he was an eyewitness.

What he said in Luke 1:3 was..........
“…it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;”.

Did Luke carefully investigate (G3877), in the sense of conducting research, everything that Jesus said and did from the beginning, or did he carefully follow (G3877), in the sense of mentally keeping a close eye on, all things Jesus said and did from the beginning?

Josephus uses this same word (G3877) in his work:
"A strange sort of accusation and calumny this! Since every one undertakes to deliver the history of actions truely ought to know them accurately himself in the first place, as either "having been concerned in the himself". (G3877)
(Josephus; Against Apion I; section 10; Winston Translation ]

What Luke, therefore, means in the preface to his Gospel (Luke 1:1-4) is that, while he had the eyewitness account of the Apostles available to him, he was also able to supplement what they were teaching through what he carefully followed and recorded in his own experience. He may not have been with Jesus from the beginning, but Luke would have been able to offer what he followed and recorded from the beginning of his association with Jesus’ ministry.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Well, you may be correct about the nature of man that Luke was, ...which, of course, can be said about all the the converts at that time, both Jew and Gentile. And, even your initial comment about God inspiring Luke to feel compelled to spread the news about Jesus is plausible. But, I believe, due to Luke's own admission, that his understanding of what transpired during the days of his Messiah came by oral transmission and dedicated investigation, and not by verbal plenary theory.

He gathered the materials himself, thru eyewitnesses, but his finished book using all of those sources was indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit!

 

[YeshuaFan]

Only in part. I believe that Luke is a prime example of a Biblical author that, by his own volition, dedicated himself to offer an account of his Messiah's testimony.
Now, we can argue endlessly as to whether or not his desire was instilled by the Holy Spirit, as we can about all men's desires to promote God in one fashion or another. Either way, Luke makes it clear that he was not endowed with knowledge from God enabling him to give an accurate account of the Gospel of Christ.

Inspiration b y the Holy Spirit does not mean they had all knowledge given to them supernaturally concerning what they recorded down, but that regardless of their source materials used, the finished book was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and was free of any mistakes or errors!

 

[YeshuaFan]

We can say that about about any man's efforts to do what pleases God. I don't believe that you have Scripture that explicitly states that any New Testament author wrote being moved by the Holy Spirit outside of in the generic sense. Peter states that Paul was given wisdom from God of which he put such sublime sentiments to pen. But, again, this can be said about many of the Christians in that period, or any era - Christians are endowed with wisdom in general. But, I will not assert that everything that they write or say, is under the auspices or guidance of God.

Peter asserted that the OT Prophets were under the Holy Spirit inspiration, as well as the NT Apostles, and Jesus confirmed that truth Himself!

Their had inspiration that was unlike any other ever has had!

 

[YeshuaFan]

No, I'm not being skeptical - I personally accept all the thirteen epistles that are ascribed to Paul, as being of Pauline authorship. I'm fully aware that Paul used Tertius as his amanuensis in Romans, and that he implies that he employed the efforts of other scribes where he states how he wrote his signature in his own hand. This can plausibly account for the stylistic differences between some of the disputed books.
But, I also personally believe, that since Paul was a missionary for approximately 3 decades, that his own style would have both changed and matured over the course of his Christian life.

My only point is, when speaking of the Bible as a whole, that I would not give the same amount of inspiration to all the books. I believe that all the Books are sincere , accurate, and penned by wise and devout men, but not necessarily guided by divine intervention - there's no need, for the author's inspirations or revelations may have come well before they decided to write anything down.

ALL of the 66 canon books were equally inspired!

 

[YeshuaFan]

If so, the Mishnah is full of traditions that were alleged to be handed down from the time of Moses, I believe. Meaning, traditions are not reliable as far as 100% truth is concerned.
I cannot assert that Samuel wrote either Ruth or Judges. It appears plausible for whatever reason, but I refuse to be dogmatic about it and therefore will not state is as fact, despite me believing in the Books historical veracity.

Regardless of who actually penned down the bible, all of the canon books were inspired by the Holy Spirit!

 

[YeshuaFan]

Hello DNB7;

I read and intentionally clipped parts of your posts that pertain to the verb of this topic. What I strongly feel is you don't believe the authors were all fully led by God's instruction of divine inspiration that pervades Scripture. You support what you don't believe using example wordings such as volition, motley crue, main intent, "not verbal plenary theory" and deeper beliefs on a sub-contextual level.

You are entitled to stand by your convictions and I respect you for that. I also have my convictions about the authors in the Bible.

Deuteronomy is a good example of Moses' authorship in the Old Testament with Joshua writing the end after Moses' death. Unfortunately, there has always been endless debate on the author credibility, which overlooks and misleads the whole point of this book which was the law code that invoked curses for disobedience and blessings for obedience.

Mark was inspired and filled by the Holy Spirit from his missions with Paul and Barnabas, and taking his instruction from God he would write Mark around 55-65 A.D. Mark's material was 7% written to the Romans emphasizing Christ was viewed as a servant. The Gospel structure was in 2 parts - the first was the form of healing, controversies, parables and Jesus' healings. The second part was more on the chronological areas of Jesus' teachings, death and resurrection.

Matthew was inspired and filled by the Holy Spirit, taking his instruction from God to write Matthew around 60-65 A.D. Matthew was called by Jesus. Matthew's unique material reached 42% of the Jews while proclaiming Jesus as King. Matthew encouraged his Jewish followers of Christ to reach more Gentiles converts.

Luke was indeed inspired and prompted by the Holy Spirit and filled him in his medical practice and companionship with Paul. Luke was a Gentile author of the Gospel, his unique material of 59% was written to the Greeks around 60 A.D. When he took his instruction from God, the prompting of the Holy Spirit was written in Luke more than in Matthew or Mark.

John was spirit filled to take God's instruction and write the book of John. His unique material was 92% written to the church later in 85-90 A.D. The language in John did differ from the synoptics in Mark, Matthew and Luke because he spent more time with Jesus during His mission, the example of the first miracle recorded in John 2:11. John's leading of the Holy Spirit goes beyond the Gospel and into 1, 2, 3 John and Revelation.

Point is, there is so much more in the Gospels, New and Old Testaments that was complex, so these authors could not just be spirit filled to offer their own account, but needed God's instruction to guide them in writing. I believe God anointed all His servants to write each of the 66 books. All that is written in the Bible is God-breathed. With the wisdom and spirit that God gave His servants to author, to fail at His instruction would have a devastating impact on the readers.

When I read volition, motley crue, main intent, "not verbal plenary theory" and deeper beliefs on a sub-contextual level which is how I read your posts, mixed with "I personally don't care or I care very little" regarding the credibility of all authors, then this just doesn't sink in and I find this hard to reconcile the full indwelt of the Holy Spirit.

In 1 Kings 8:11, 11 so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord. - ESV

My wife and I studied this passage during our new daily devotional and we discussed how we long for a more welcoming experience with God's Holy Spirit and this included all God's authors who were spirit led to write them. There is a peace within us.

God bless you, DNB7, and your family.

If we hold that God Himself became a man, why would believe that God could inspire what he wanted us to have written down be all that hard to believe?

 

[YeshuaFan]

You said...........
"All Books are sincere , accurate, and penned by wise and devout men, but not necessarily guided by divine intervention."

And that is the contention of our conversation! That is your personal opinion which does not compare to the Bible itself.

2 Timothy 3:16.........
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".

Here, Paul makes a powerful and definitive statement about the nature of the written Word of God, “Scripture.” God has breathed it out by his Holy Spirit into the prophetic minds of the authors of both the Old and the New Testament.

The Bible is profitable for all these things for the one who reads it, and the one who leads others. When seeking to minister to other people, all should be done according to Scripture. To go outside of this and to follow our own thoughts and opinions, is to open the doors to commit errors. Much of today’s Church is derelict in teaching the Scriptures and helping Christians to live according to them. It has weakened the Bride of Christ.

When one looses the full inspiration of scripture, all that is left over will be"did God really state that?", as we will be open to experiences and feeling, no objective truths!

 

[YeshuaFan]

I understand what you are saying. However.....to me, that is not in any way a contradiction as much as it is a lack of history.

Now, Luke never said he was an eyewitness.

What he said in Luke 1:3 was..........
“…it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;”.

Did Luke carefully investigate (G3877), in the sense of conducting research, everything that Jesus said and did from the beginning, or did he carefully follow (G3877), in the sense of mentally keeping a close eye on, all things Jesus said and did from the beginning?

Josephus uses this same word (G3877) in his work:
"A strange sort of accusation and calumny this! Since every one undertakes to deliver the history of actions truely ought to know them accurately himself in the first place, as either "having been concerned in the himself". (G3877)
(Josephus; Against Apion I; section 10; Winston Translation ]

What Luke, therefore, means in the preface to his Gospel (Luke 1:1-4) is that, while he had the eyewitness account of the Apostles available to him, he was also able to supplement what they were teaching through what he carefully followed and recorded in his own experience. He may not have been with Jesus from the beginning, but Luke would have been able to offer what he followed and recorded from the beginning of his association with Jesus’ ministry.

Think he might be confused on what inspiration means, as it is not that they were robots who now had given all wisdom and knowledge, and so no need to do any research on their own!

 

[Major]

Hello DNB7;

I read and intentionally clipped parts of your posts that pertain to the verb of this topic. What I strongly feel is you don't believe the authors were all fully led by God's instruction of divine inspiration that pervades Scripture. You support what you don't believe using example wordings such as volition, motley crue, main intent, "not verbal plenary theory" and deeper beliefs on a sub-contextual level.

You are entitled to stand by your convictions and I respect you for that. I also have my convictions about the authors in the Bible.

Deuteronomy is a good example of Moses' authorship in the Old Testament with Joshua writing the end after Moses' death. Unfortunately, there has always been endless debate on the author credibility, which overlooks and misleads the whole point of this book which was the law code that invoked curses for disobedience and blessings for obedience.

Mark was inspired and filled by the Holy Spirit from his missions with Paul and Barnabas, and taking his instruction from God he would write Mark around 55-65 A.D. Mark's material was 7% written to the Romans emphasizing Christ was viewed as a servant. The Gospel structure was in 2 parts - the first was the form of healing, controversies, parables and Jesus' healings. The second part was more on the chronological areas of Jesus' teachings, death and resurrection.

Matthew was inspired and filled by the Holy Spirit, taking his instruction from God to write Matthew around 60-65 A.D. Matthew was called by Jesus. Matthew's unique material reached 42% of the Jews while proclaiming Jesus as King. Matthew encouraged his Jewish followers of Christ to reach more Gentiles converts.

Luke was indeed inspired and prompted by the Holy Spirit and filled him in his medical practice and companionship with Paul. Luke was a Gentile author of the Gospel, his unique material of 59% was written to the Greeks around 60 A.D. When he took his instruction from God, the prompting of the Holy Spirit was written in Luke more than in Matthew or Mark.

John was spirit filled to take God's instruction and write the book of John. His unique material was 92% written to the church later in 85-90 A.D. The language in John did differ from the synoptics in Mark, Matthew and Luke because he spent more time with Jesus during His mission, the example of the first miracle recorded in John 2:11. John's leading of the Holy Spirit goes beyond the Gospel and into 1, 2, 3 John and Revelation.

Point is, there is so much more in the Gospels, New and Old Testaments that was complex, so these authors could not just be spirit filled to offer their own account, but needed God's instruction to guide them in writing. I believe God anointed all His servants to write each of the 66 books. All that is written in the Bible is God-breathed. With the wisdom and spirit that God gave His servants to author, to fail at His instruction would have a devastating impact on the readers.

When I read volition, motley crue, main intent, "not verbal plenary theory" and deeper beliefs on a sub-contextual level which is how I read your posts, mixed with "I personally don't care or I care very little" regarding the credibility of all authors, then this just doesn't sink in and I find this hard to reconcile the full indwelt of the Holy Spirit.

In 1 Kings 8:11, 11 so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord. - ESV

My wife and I studied this passage during our new daily devotional and we discussed how we long for a more welcoming experience with God's Holy Spirit and this included all God's authors who were spirit led to write them. There is a peace within us.

God bless you, DNB7, and your family.

And all of the items you underlined and posted confirm that DNB7; seems to indeed be a skeptic.

 

[YeshuaFan]

And all of the items you underlined and posted confirm that DNB7; seems to indeed be a skeptic.

He seems to have bought into limited inspiration

 

[bobinfaith]

Sorry bobinfaith, but you didn't actually qualify your assertions that Mark, Luke or John were indwelt with the Holy Spirit. And, possibly my wording is an issue of semantics?

Hello, DNB7;

Nor have you. You made your position clear and as I did. It's clear you don't believe the authors were all fully led by God's instruction of divine inspiration that pervades Scripture, therefore, this does make it hard to receive and reconcile the full indwelt of the Holy Spirit.

Enjoy the rest of the forums here, brother.

God bless you and your whole family.

 

[crossnote]

Did Peter consider the letter (2 Peter) that he made that remark as Scripture also?

a non sequiter.

 

[Major]

Yes, I agree with you absolutely. But, maybe this is a semantical issue, as my only contention is that Luke relied on his own experiences and understanding, which is entirely valid in my opinion, as opposed to receiving direction outside of his own experience or understanding, or ability.

But if he did not have outside help from the Holt Spirit, you are then in effect denying the inspiration of the Scriptures. Are you not?

 

[Major]

The Bible is clearly the sole source for truth, wisdom, and God's will. No one disputes that between us.
My only apprehension lies in defining exactly how the authors were compelled to write. Paul claims that hw was taught by Jesus himself, and this I believe wholeheartedly, as again, his words speak for themselves. Does this mean that Jesus whispered in his hear which words to chose (no sarcasm intended), I don't believe so. I feel that since Paul received continuous revelation and guidance, he now had the ability to express his mind in several different ways, and either one that he chose at any given moment, was sufficient to impart the Gospel as he understood it.
Comprehension is the key, rather than being manipulated or guided by an external force.

Only as a matter of discussion and not arguing in any way, I believe that there are several problems with what you are saying..

#1. The purpose of the Bible is showing God’s plan of redemption throughout history from Genesis to the Revelation. He is out seeking to redeem a people to Himself, and in doing so, He has not only communicated man’s great problem, which is sin, but the solution to that problem, a redeemer in Jesus Christ.

Therefore He uses ones who have fallen in the 1st place.( sinners- men ) and in this process to reach and speak to those who are His. He uses fallen men because that is all that there is. If God did not use men.......who would He have used?????

There are no righteous people for Him to use in writing the Bible because there are none. This is why it is so important that we understand that the Holy Spirit was moving the prophets along as they were writing the Bible. Peter tells us in his second letter 1:21.....
" for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit".

Then, the Bible never candy-coates the men who wrote it. What I mean by that is that if the Bible were actually written by “just men” and not the Holy Spirit as well, we would never know that Moses murdered an Egyptian before becoming God’s mediator for the people. I’m quite certain that he would have glossed over that little bit in his history. But he doesn’t because he is being moved by the Holy Spirit to give an account of what took place.

It is for this reason we also know of King David’s transgression with Bathsheba, and Paul’s aid to those stoning the first Christians. So a majority of the Bible is written by three murderers showing God’s rich grace toward His people and showing that there are none He cannot reach with the righteousness of Christ.

Also consider the Apostle Paul. He confessed that he abused Christians and even killed some and many believe that he threw the 1st stone at Stephen. Would he confessed that sin if he was just a man without the guidence of the Holy Spirit???/ I think not!

Finally, we also have hundreds of places in the Scripture where the writer was quoting directly from the LORD. What do we do with the words........
“I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, you shall have no other gods before Me.”

 

[Major]

Your references are a bit more specific than you are claiming.
I believe that the Torah had a divine inspiration about it, and Paul at several points in his life received direct revelation from God. What he penned came from his comprehension of what he had previously received, the words were not dictated to him.

You are talking about the "Dictation Theory" of the Scriptures.

The dictation theory states that God “dictated” His Word to the writers of Scripture, who were nothing more than human stenographers for the Holy Spirit. The dictation theory says that the Spirit wrote through the agency of human writers who were fully under God’s control. With the authors in a state of relative passivity, God dictated every word written with pinpoint accuracy.

Speaking only for myself......I have not stated that nor do I ascribe to it.

Now that does not mean that at times......that is exactly what God did!!!

Passages such as Rev. 2:1 and 2:8 demonstrate that, at times, God seems to have used a dictation method. Also, The prophet Jeremiah was told in Jer. 26:2......
“Tell them everything I command you; do not omit a word”.

However, as I have stated, The more accurate view of inspiration is the verbal plenary theory. This theory says that every word of the Bible is inspired by God (but not necessarily dictated) and that all portions of Scripture are equally inspired.

2 Peter 1:21 verifys that when we read,........
“For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

As the writers were “carried along” by the Spirit, they, as individuals, “spoke.” Their personal expressions were guided by and protected under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit. The final product is the authoritative Word of God.

 

[bobinfaith]

Hello Major;

We had an excellent Bible study this morning and it actually pointed to the objectives in the original 4 points in this thread. I listened to the witnesses during the study on the positive benefits. (I always have a small note binder for taking notes);

"When we diligently spend our time with reading the Bible, God reveals wisdom and discernment in our personal gained knowledge."

"We receive direction, instruction, correction and conviction, wisdom and discernment while God strengthens our faith enabling us to stand firm to the opposition."

"When we foolishly take stock to the negative objections (of the 4 points) instead of the truthfulness of the Divine Author, then we open the door to contradiction."

"When we remain in prayer and study of the Bible we attain peace and remain still, as God takes the world's intelligence of fools and prunes them."

It is a blessing to see God work through the growth of Christians especially when they have come a long way in their personal faith walk.