Is every word in the Christian Bible, Old and New Testaments, inspired by God?

[handy]

Frankly, I don't think we can use the word "inspired" when it comes to what Jesus says... as He is God Himself, anything Jesus would say would, by definition, be "God breathed".

That's not to say that Jesus didn't use metaphors, parables, and illustrations in His teachings. Absolutely, He did!

I'm not sure I understand this. Metaphors, parables and illustrations are God breathed but don't really mean what they appear to say? Or is it that their real meanings are only understood by the truly learned who have diligently studied them and are the approved who "rightly divide the Word"?

I was responding to the questions wayseer put forth... these questions:

Were the words of Jesus 'inspired' when he called Gentiles 'dogs'?

Were Jesus words 'inspired' when he told the wannabe follower that only the 'dead bury the dead'?

Where the words of Jesus inspired when he turned his back on his family and said 'here are my brothers and sisters'?

My response was basically that anything Jesus said would, by definition be inspired as inspired means "God breathed." If Peter sneezed and Jesus said, "Gesundheit" it would be "God breathed" for no other reason that Jesus is God.

You do bring up a point here: Or is it that their real meanings are only understood by the truly learned who have diligently studied them and are the approved who "rightly divide the Word"?

While I think it's important for every believer to diligently study God's word and be approved to "rightly divide"... I think when it comes to the metaphors, parables etc... really even a lot of the straightforward words within the Scriptures, it takes having the Holy Spirit revealing the truth to one.

I've known at least one man who was raised in Church, went to seminary, came back to the church he was raised in and preached every Sunday there. He was the pastor of the church I worked at. And, we Christian young women in the day care were more knowing of the Scriptures than he was... basically because he wasn't born again. He'd be preaching these different things and we'd be "what is he talking about!!!" Then he recognized that he wasn't born again and didn't have the Spirit... made a big difference. He actually quit the church and ceased ministry for a while, in order to have time to grow as an actual Christian.

That's not to say I don't find value in all Christians diligently studying God's word... just that without the Spirit, relying upon our own understanding... all the study in the world won't reveal what the Holy Spirit can bring to light in a 13 year old Junior High school kid like I was the night I read the Gospel of John.

 

[handy]

It occurred to me in reading the posts of this thread that this part of the original was not addressed in any:

...is it not contradictory for Peter to have said, "And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" when another Scripture states clearly that Jesus as the Lamb of God was "to take away the sins of the world"? Is that 'scarcely saved'?

Interesting.

I don't believe that the bible contains any real contradictions.

One thing that we can know about our salvation, spiritual walk, the Lord, creation, the Fall, all the great themes of the Scriptures is that they are complex issues. Often what appears to be contradictory is just a matter of different aspects of these complex issues being emphasized.

Or, it is a matter of context. When the Scriptures speak of being "saved" exactly what kind of salvation is being discussed in the context? Often it's our salvation from eternal death into eternal life.

But in this particular passage, the context makes it clear that Peter isn't discussing our salvation from sin as much as he is discussing the eminent tribulations and persecutions about to come down upon the Church and the Jews. Those who faced this persecution were being encouraged by Peter that it was for their testing, and they could look at it as sharing in the sufferings of Christ. Anyone sharing in the sufferings of Christ is blessed and will be saved even though going through terrible conflict. But, for the unrighteous and ungodly.. they would be facing the tribulations as well. But, they have no hope of being saved and their suffering and persecutions will only result in death.

This passage really doesn't have anything to do with the salvation Jesus procured for us upon the cross, other than those who embrace Jesus' salvation can be encouraged when facing fiery trials and sufferings.

 

[Pard]

The Bible is in perfect harmony.

 

[Sinthesis]

It is the message that is inspired by God.

 

[Drew]

For instance, in a confrontation with the Jews of the day, they said he had a demon. Their words were not inspired by God, were they? But the words are recorded in the Bible as what we call Scripture.

You are, of course, quite correct. The fact that a statement of a belief appears in the scriptures is not grounds, in and of itself, for concluding that such a statement represents a true belief. Just as in the example you listed.

 

[John 8:32]

Some claim this is true and it is difficult, for me, to go against this particular doctrinal claim. But in order to clarify in my own mind if the doctrine is actually true, I'm asking the question. I'm basing the question on a couple of things. One is that some of what was said to Jesus in the Gospels is clearly not inspired by God.

For instance, in a confrontation with the Jews of the day, they said he had a demon. Their words were not inspired by God, were they? But the words are recorded in the Bible as what we call Scripture.

Our definition of Scripture requires that it be written words inspired by God. One verse says "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost. ". It was only later that their words were 'written'. So was it Scripture when it was spoken by those men or not?

Another thing that bothers me is that is it not contradictory for Peter to have said, "And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" when another Scripture states clearly that Jesus' as the Lamb of God was "to take away the sins of the world"? Is that 'scarcely saved'?

I'm not attempting to discredit the Bible. I am asking whether our definition of Scripture is not slightly askew.

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

"God breathed"- NIV (not a big fan of the NIV, but this is a very good translation of this verse.

Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Now you know where I stand on scripture. As for Luke 14:26, someone needs to find out what "love less by comparison" means.

 

[heymikey80]

Some claim this is true and it is difficult, for me, to go against this particular doctrinal claim. But in order to clarify in my own mind if the doctrine is actually true, I'm asking the question. I'm basing the question on a couple of things. One is that some of what was said to Jesus in the Gospels is clearly not inspired by God.

For instance, in a confrontation with the Jews of the day, they said he had a demon. Their words were not inspired by God, were they? But the words are recorded in the Bible as what we call Scripture.

Our definition of Scripture requires that it be written words inspired by God. One verse says "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost. ". It was only later that their words were 'written'. So was it Scripture when it was spoken by those men or not?

Another thing that bothers me is that is it not contradictory for Peter to have said, "And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" when another Scripture states clearly that Jesus' as the Lamb of God was "to take away the sins of the world"? Is that 'scarcely saved'?

I'm not attempting to discredit the Bible. I am asking whether our definition of Scripture is not slightly askew.

I think the issue is not whether everyone represented in the Bible is inspired. They're not. The issue lies in the veracity of what is documented in Scripture, as far as who said what and who is who. That would go to the inerrancy of the Bible.

However, the circumstances under which the people in Scripture do things, that is also arranged and ordered by God. For God's inscrutable purposes a whole lot of events, data, and even songs have been recorded.

The point is not to read God's words in simply one way, as if they're a textbook or a science experiment, but to read them as they are intended: letters, as letters, histories, as histories, gospels as gospels, and so on.

 

[tessiewebb]

I think the issue is not whether everyone represented in the Bible is inspired. They're not. The issue lies in the veracity of what is documented in Scripture, as far as who said what and who is who. That would go to the inerrancy of the Bible.

However, the circumstances under which the people in Scripture do things, that is also arranged and ordered by God. For God's inscrutable purposes a whole lot of events, data, and even songs have been recorded.

The point is not to read God's words in simply one way, as if they're a textbook or a science experiment, but to read them as they are intended: letters, as letters, histories, as histories, gospels as gospels, and so on.

I'm "picking on" your post because I want to get a point across on this thread and not because I do not agree with most of what you've said here. We receive faith by hearing and hearing by the 'word of God'. This implies He is speaking continuously and we know logically and by the word which says that if all that Jesus did was written there'd not be enough books in the world to contain it. This also implies that there is more to the story, so to speak.

However, because we are warned that the Bible is IT so far as His speaking and moving in His people, many are held back from practicing the gifts that the Spirit gives or moving as the Spirit leads them as they "hear in the ear".

I heard a speaker once say that though she had been told by the Spirit to give a small amount of money to someone else, she hesitated for many days, saying "But, Lord, how do I know it is You speaking?" Because of her situation at the time, the small amount asked of her was large in her eyes. And she was worried that she was being led by something other than the Spirit of God to give it. Finally, she said, the Lord told her "Woman, if you miss Me, I will find you!"

Because of the force of this very teaching that all we "hear" must "align", "agree" with the written Scripture, His Body has become powerless and worthless, in a sense, in spreading the Gospel of reconciliation to God available to all who will heed His call. This great Gospel of peace with God, the precious gifting He has given us in the Holy Spirit and that with power. The uplifting of being crowned with glory and honor by Him. The fact that we are kings and priests to our God. That we are meant to rule and reign with Him. All this has been kept "undercover" in many who call upon His Name because they fear that they, like the speaker I quoted, will "miss" the voice of their Shepherd and go astray.

My God, my Lord, how long will we labor under the delusion that we must strive to determine what is Your speaking when Your Word clearly declares Your sheep KNOW your voice and another they will NOT follow! Because some have gone what we see as "astray", we fear practicing and utilizing the gifts You've given us! Lift this smothering blanket from Your Body, Father God!

We have eyes to see, ears to hear, we are not ignorant that the enemy is targeting us, Your people. Yet in You we will be and are victorious over the world, the devil and his tactics, even over our own flesh! We DO have the power to subdue the enemy, to rise up and speak with bold authority in Your behalf by Your Name. We do have the right and obligation to overcome the world system, the politically correct, the naysayers of OUR day as You did when You were on earth.

Oh, Father, You hear the cry of Your people! You have produced in us the desire to rise up, shake the dust of our first creation off us and become the new creation, the sons of God, manifested for all the world to see and wonder at. You have given us the power to open blind eyes, to make the deaf to hear, to raise the dead from the dust to behold Your glory and Your kingdom come! And even, dear God, to do greater things here than Your Beloved Son!

Open our hearts, Lord, to Your wonderful truths, to Your glory with which You have crowned us, and Your lovingkindness with which You have drawn us to Yourself. Cause us to rise up, stand on our feet and become the ministers of Your Gospel again...as in the days of the apostles and further, on and on til You come again!

 

[Elijah674]

Some claim this is true and it is difficult, for me, to go against this particular doctrinal claim. But in order to clarify in my own mind if the doctrine is actually true, I'm asking the question. I'm basing the question on a couple of things. One is that some of what was said to Jesus in the Gospels is clearly not inspired by God.

For instance, in a confrontation with the Jews of the day, they said he had a demon. Their words were not inspired by God, were they? But the words are recorded in the Bible as what we call Scripture.

Our definition of Scripture requires that it be written words inspired by God. One verse says "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost. ". It was only later that their words were 'written'. So was it Scripture when it was spoken by those men or not?

Another thing that bothers me is that is it not contradictory for Peter to have said, "And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" when another Scripture states clearly that Jesus' as the Lamb of God was "to take away the sins of the world"? Is that 'scarcely saved'?

I'm not attempting to discredit the Bible. I am asking whether our definition of Scripture is not slightly askew.

Think of 66 men being INSPIRED by the Holy Spirit to pen about what they were given in picture form (vision) to write? Lets say even any of Truly Honest Christians of today. Let's just say we all write about the same thing! A engine of a train? or a baby even?

So according to scripture of Isa 8:20 this is called Holy Spirit Inspired, yet, it is the many mens 'TESTIMONY' as they 'see' it. Now see if you can get something from this Vital verse....

[20] (1) To the law and (2) to the testimony: [[[if they speak not according to this word,]]] it is because there is no light in them.

Notice that 'i' divided the verse up. The reason is because it has Vital Truth in just the one verse! The Law of God is the only portion of the whole Inspired Book that He Himself wrote & then re/writes in the Born Again heart & mind.

And then comes the 66 Books that He even requires as seen in Matt. 4:4 & 2 Tim. 3:16, for us to study to have His COMPLETE [TESTIMONY]!
Kind of like a jury trial with most of the today jurist's hearing only pieces of its testimony. Thus we see mass confusion!

Note this verse in me getting out of here!;) 1 Cor. 14:32 'And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets'. That means that the Bible is penned with no contradiction's when one takes in ALL OF THE TOTAL TESTIMONY! See Isa. 28:9-10 for this additional Truth, even verse 8 finds where one was to be fed (church is that tabel) full of vomit and filthiness so there is no place clean! Thus you see Rev. 17:1-5 today.

--Elijah

 

[heymikey80]

Because of the force of this very teaching that all we "hear" must "align", "agree" with the written Scripture, His Body has become powerless and worthless, in a sense, in spreading the Gospel of reconciliation to God available to all who will heed His call. This great Gospel of peace with God, the precious gifting He has given us in the Holy Spirit and that with power. The uplifting of being crowned with glory and honor by Him. The fact that we are kings and priests to our God. That we are meant to rule and reign with Him. All this has been kept "undercover" in many who call upon His Name because they fear that they, like the speaker I quoted, will "miss" the voice of their Shepherd and go astray.

So you're saying that the force of written Scripture is too strong, or that its power is misused?

To me, both the written Scripture and our status as kings and priests before God, both are misused. We're the sinners in all these cases. It wouldn't be God's words that are wrong, I don't think.

But we humans like power, and misuse that power for our own purposes.

Written Scripture is a check against that power: the actions of those who claim to be spiritual can indeed be compared with what is undoubtedly spiritual. We follow the Apostle's writings and instructions of the prophets of God who have gone before us, because they have the Spirit of God. And there are other spirits to guard against.

1 Cor 2 & 14 talk about this. So does a lot of 1 John.

 

[elijah23]

Some claim this is true and it is difficult, for me, to go against this particular doctrinal claim. But in order to clarify in my own mind if the doctrine is actually true, I'm asking the question. I'm basing the question on a couple of things. One is that some of what was said to Jesus in the Gospels is clearly not inspired by God.

For instance, in a confrontation with the Jews of the day, they said he had a demon. Their words were not inspired by God, were they? But the words are recorded in the Bible as what we call Scripture.

Our definition of Scripture requires that it be written words inspired by God. One verse says "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost. ". It was only later that their words were 'written'. So was it Scripture when it was spoken by those men or not?

Another thing that bothers me is that is it not contradictory for Peter to have said, "And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" when another Scripture states clearly that Jesus' as the Lamb of God was "to take away the sins of the world"? Is that 'scarcely saved'?

I'm not attempting to discredit the Bible. I am asking whether our definition of Scripture is not slightly askew.

I believe the Bible is an accurate account of the events it documents. Contained in it are words of our Lord.

 

[wayseer]

Whatever that means.

 

[elijah23]

Whatever that means.

I am not telling you what you want to hear. That doesn't make it false.

 

[Chris.]

Not everything in the bible is inspired by God, I think the publishing acknowledgements, copyrights and associated symbols as well as map s of Israel may not be divinely inspired. If you want to be nit picky lol.

 

[EDEN2004]

Joh_1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jesus is the Word, did his body see corruption? no. The bible is the inerrant word of God, published in all languages and provinces according to the bible.

Est 1:20 And when the king's decree which he shall make shall be published throughout all his empire, (for it is great,) all the wives shall give to their husbands honour, both to great and small.
Est 1:21 And the saying pleased the king and the princes; and the king did according to the word of Memucan:
Est 1:22 For he sent letters into all the king's provinces, into every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language, that every man should bear rule in his own house, and that it should be published according to the language of every people.

The bible, a book about how a wife should honour her husband.....That is so cool!

Here's another good one.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

 

[heymikey80]

Not everything in the bible is inspired by God, I think the publishing acknowledgements, copyrights and associated symbols as well as map s of Israel may not be divinely inspired. If you want to be nit picky lol.

... and the part about Corinthian leather!

 

[Stan53]

Some claim this is true and it is difficult, for me, to go against this particular doctrinal claim. But in order to clarify in my own mind if the doctrine is actually true, I'm asking the question. I'm basing the question on a couple of things. One is that some of what was said to Jesus in the Gospels is clearly not inspired by God.

For instance, in a confrontation with the Jews of the day, they said he had a demon. Their words were not inspired by God, were they? But the words are recorded in the Bible as what we call Scripture.

Our definition of Scripture requires that it be written words inspired by God. One verse says "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost. ". It was only later that their words were 'written'. So was it Scripture when it was spoken by those men or not?

Another thing that bothers me is that is it not contradictory for Peter to have said, "And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" when another Scripture states clearly that Jesus' as the Lamb of God was "to take away the sins of the world"? Is that 'scarcely saved'?

I'm not attempting to discredit the Bible. I am asking whether our definition of Scripture is not slightly askew.

Billy Graham, Walter Martin and Chuck Swindoll have inspired me. So has Winston Churchill, Lester B. Pearson and John Kennedy. I can guarantee NOT everything they did was inspirational, nor is everything in the Bible. As imperfect an inspiration the men I've mentioned are, God is that much more a perfect inspiration. Today we either have to believe that God did inspire our current canon of scripture and use it accordingly, or abandon it and try to walk only in the Spirit. I have no confidence in myself to do that and would rather use God's Word even with some apparent issues, than trust my own spirit to convey everything about God to me. All the writers in the Bible were committed to knowing His written word, and King David wrote why in Psalm 119:11; I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you.

 

[tessiewebb]

...Today we either have to believe that God did inspire our current canon of scripture and use it accordingly, or abandon it and try to walk only in the Spirit. I have no confidence in myself to do that and would rather use God's Word even with some apparent issues...All the writers in the Bible were committed to knowing His written word, and Kind David wrote why in Psalm 119:11; I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you.

Great point, me too!:yes However, NT apostles, though they had the OT as background, had nothing written yet about the change that came with Jesus. He was "hidden', as it is said, in the OT and only by the Holy Spirit's indwelling did they have unction and words to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Since as believers we have the same Holy Spirit that they had indwelling us, we would not be trusting our own spirits but His, enough to believe that He will lead us into all truth, as it is written now. We depend on the Bible and that is a very sound foundation, but if it becomes the limiting factor of our Spirit led walk, because of men's interpretations and teachings, then it is JUST a foundation without building upon.

Pastors? Teachers? Prophets? By what means are they "called"? Is it not by the Spirit? How is it that one "knows" he/she is meant to be an evangelist, while another that teaching is his/her "calling"? How does one become an evangelist? Is it not because as Eph 4:11 says "He Himself gave" them?

The very nature of the definition of prophet shows this: "One who, moved by the Spirit of God and hence his organ or spokesman, solemnly declares to men what he has received by inspiration,..." and used of "men filled with the Spirit of God, who by God's authority and command in words of weight pleads the cause of God and urges salvation of men".

Maybe if we depended more on the Spirit of God and less on the letter of the Bible, we would all be moved to fulfill more fully our purpose in life.

 

[gr8fulbeliever]

I'm not sure I understand this. Metaphors, parables and illustrations are God breathed but don't really mean what they appear to say? Or is it that their real meanings are only understood by the truly learned who have diligently studied them and are the approved who "rightly divide the Word"?

Clearly Jesus spoke in parables, and as a previous poster pointed out, these parables were, by definition "inspired by God" because they came directly from the mouth of God. So, while metaphor does not equal God-inspired, it also does not mean that something is not inspired by God.

 

[Stan53]

Great point, me too!:yes However, NT apostles, though they had the OT as background, had nothing written yet about the change that came with Jesus. He was "hidden', as it is said, in the OT and only by the Holy Spirit's indwelling did they have unction and words to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Since as believers we have the same Holy Spirit that they had indwelling us, we would not be trusting our own spirits but His, enough to believe that He will lead us into all truth, as it is written now. We depend on the Bible and that is a very sound foundation, but if it becomes the limiting factor of our Spirit led walk, because of men's interpretations and teachings, then it is JUST a foundation without building upon.

Paul studied for 14 years and although I'm sure the Holy Spirit did a lot in his life, He also made the existing scriptures come aliove and make sense to Paul, who was a Pharisee. The key is of course that we HAVE the infilling of the Holy Spirit to be able to depend on. There are many believers who have NEVER receieved that.

Pastors? Teachers? Prophets? By what means are they "called"? Is it not by the Spirit? How is it that one "knows" he/she is meant to be an evangelist, while another that teaching is his/her "calling"? How does one become an evangelist? Is it not because as Eph 4:11 says "He Himself gave" them?

When Jesus gives these people to the church, they are already fulfilling these offices by the way they have allowed the Holy Spirit to work in them. You are what you are, BEFORE you are presented to fill a role in the church.

The very nature of the definition of prophet shows this: "One who, moved by the Spirit of God and hence his organ or spokesman, solemnly declares to men what he has received by inspiration,..." and used of "men filled with the Spirit of God, who by God's authority and command in words of weight pleads the cause of God and urges salvation of men".

Where did you get this definition from? I don't believe the OT prophet is the same as the NT prophet. John was a Prophet and Apostle, as depicted in the NT. Paul and Peter were Apostles. As we are now directed by the Holy Spirit we have in our lives when we receive the infilling, Paul makes it clear in 1 Cor 12 & 14 how prophesy works.

Maybe if we depended more on the Spirit of God and less on the letter of the Bible, we would all be moved to fulfill more fully our purpose in life.

I think we need both equally, but a clear mandate needs to be given to new believers, of the importance of reading and digesting God's Word.
Paul warns about 'new converts' in 1 Tim 3:6, and this extends, I believe, not just to the ministry of overseer.