Actually it means "breathed into" and when it comes to God, there is an impartation of knowledge that is obvious in the writing. The Bible does more than stimulate or encouarge, there an empowerment imparted to the believer.
Originally Posted by Richard Gillett
The definition is certainly yours and not what the word means when it comes to God. He does not merely encouarge or stimulate. There is something imparted to those who can receive it.
My Dictionary calls it theology, which is accurate enough, but that does not make it universally accepted Theology, just as the use of the word person is specific to a theology, ie Trinitarianism. The use of Inspire to mean communicate is unque to Bibliolatry and the making of the bible as the specific words of God. it is not a universal usage and it is not mine.
Certainly does. Muscle fibers stimulated give an all or nothing response. There are other examples as well.
Is a absolutely ridiculous question and notion. All or nothing? That is rubbish. It does not match anything in God's creation!
The quote is all that he did, not all of God's wisdom. I think it is very precise on points.
The bible is not perfection, nor is it precise, nor is it all of God's wisdom. It cannot be. If all the books in the wordl can't contain the works of Jesus how can one book contain all of God!
Untrue. But it is not the main point of communication (science in the Bible.)
No it is non existent. There is no scietific knowledge of any real consequence (exageration)
You wrongly assume the writer wrote down everything he knew. This is likely not to be true and that is what is required. A writer has to write down ALL he knows. They writers of the Bible did not do this for sure.
By matching it against what is now known.
Except that the bible offers explanations for things that do not compute with modern scientific knowledge. It is
addressing the subjects
Why is the nature of God necesssary? You think scoffers will be gone? I highly doubt it. They will scoff still unabated.
Why is the Trinity not explicit? Why is it not there in obvious black and white so that we can quote once and for all and dismiss the scoffers?
John certainly had a clearer understanding than many a reader today. Clearly. He communicated that as he could.
Do you think that the Trinity was definately understood, in completion by the writers of the New Testament? Then why did they not expound it?
The brain is not the problem. Language is.
Use your brain. What applies to one notion applies equally to another.
No it does not. "God hides things from the wise and intelligent and reveals them to babes."
No that denies what you agreed with as freedom of information or free will. The information has to be freely available to be ignored or accepted.
Where did I do that? Never occured to me.
Can't you see that you are blinkering yourself? You are claiming a specific version of Scripture that clearly does not exist.
That was not his goal.
If the writer of Genesis knew all of science he would not have explained the breeding specled sheep the way he did. Or he would have by-passed it as not necesary information, or something beyond the understanding of the masses. But instead he gave an explanation - it is false. it is wrong. It is denied by all that we know of Creation. God knows, but the writer did not! (and the same applies to the cosmoslogy of Genesis 1.)
Well, I know people who have spoken or written God breathed words and they fit just like the Bible.
The meaning of Inspired, or God Breathed has been convoluted by people who follow your tradition of how to read the bible - and dictionaries adjust (include) meanings to known usage.
No it does not.
It is false. It is a fantasy. It is trying to simplify how to read the bible. It fails.
It is not a book on science. I read a history of Abraham Lincoln once and a bit of Otto Von Bismark. They did not discuss microbiology or the atom either. So? They were not meant to do so.
Read what is written and compare it to what you know as science, without biasing what you believe about scripture. Take off the blinkers. You have more intelligence than this. The bible (writers) think(s) the world is flat. The bible has no notion of micro-organisms or things that are outside the visual range or identification. As in there are no bacteria, or other sources of desease. The writers do not know of anything that is "discovered" after it was written.
How'd he get the sodium not to ignite until several buckets were poured on? I mean on cue? How does one get sodium to do that?
However, God does know and can use it even when the user does not understand preciesly what is happening. There is a scientific explanation for the ignition of the sacrifice on mount Carmel - it can be duplicated without fire directly from Heaven - you just cover the bull in sodium. I am not saying that was how it was done but it could
have - but the onlookers would not see it that way. They would see what they understood - that water prevents rather than starts a fire! Basic Chemistry says that water ignites Sodium!
Find me the posts where I write the Bible is innerant? Talk about needing to read more carefully!!
This all about how you read the bible. You have decided that the bible is inerrant despite all the eveidence against it. You are fooling no one but yourself.
Last edited by Dottie; 02-14-2017 at 10:54 PM.
"He has shown you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you. But to do justly..and to love mercy...and to walk humbly with your God."