Origin of the Bible

[Tatterdemalion]

What are the orgins of the Bible? I know that christians belive and state that the Bible is the word of God, but how was it given to mankind? Did he, like in the case of the 10 commandments, just create the book and give it to a human, or did he give "divine inspiration" in order to get christians to write it?

 

[ProphetMark]

I think he gave divine inspiration for people to write it.

 

[Sparkey]

Christians are taught (and I believe) that each word of the Word of God originates from the Holy Spirit. I remember being shown where the bible itself speaks of "how" the Bible is inspired. An analogy was given (but I forget the actual scripture at the moment) where the person who was doing the writing was compared to a log floating on a river. The idea was that the river and current was the only factor that determined direction and flow - the log itself was carried along, meaning that the various men who wrote the sacred writ were guided directly by the Holy Spirit and nothing of themselves entered into the causative formation of the writing.

One of the most inspiring things that I notice about the bible is how it is interrelated and interlinked. When we first begin to learn how to read the word of God we are told to take "line upon line" and "precept upon precept," "here a little and there a little."

This is just the beginning though because as we diligently ask God to be with us while we inquire of Him what He said to all mankind, including us individually, we become actively involved with the living word. That's quite a distinction between the Bible and any other book. God made it so that His Word, given through holy men throughout the ages is able to transform us and when we accept and act on it, to conform us into His purpose and plan.

One word response? I wish I knew how to spell Hallelujah! Praise GOD! Because He is reaching toward us "we" are only required to continue in belief and follow Him. That's a pretty good deal, eh?

~Sparrow


PS. Welcome to the forum, Tatterdemalion! Hope to hear more from you.

 

[mondar]

Christians are taught (and I believe) that each word of the Word of God originates from the Holy Spirit. I remember being shown where the bible itself speaks of "how" the Bible is inspired. An analogy was given (but I forget the actual scripture at the moment) where the person who was doing the writing was compared to a log floating on a river. The idea was that the river and current was the only factor that determined direction and flow - the log itself was carried along, meaning that the various men who wrote the sacred writ were guided directly by the Holy Spirit and nothing of themselves entered into the causative formation of the writing.

One of the most inspiring things that I notice about the bible is how it is interrelated and interlinked. When we first begin to learn how to read the word of God we are told to take "line upon line" and "precept upon precept," "here a little and there a little."

This is just the beginning though because as we diligently ask God to be with us while we inquire of Him what He said to all mankind, including us individually, we become actively involved with the living word. That's quite a distinction between the Bible and any other book. God made it so that His Word, given through holy men throughout the ages is able to transform us and when we accept and act on it, to conform us into His purpose and plan.

One word response? I wish I knew how to spell Hallelujah! Praise GOD! Because He is reaching toward us "we" are only required to continue in belief and follow Him. That's a pretty good deal, eh?

~Sparrow


PS. Welcome to the forum, Tatterdemalion! Hope to hear more from you.

The text you are talking about is this one.....

Hebrews 1 (American Standard Version)
1 God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners,
2 hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds;

 

[mlqurgw]

If God is going to reveal Himself to man He must do so by some medium. In His infinite wisdom He inspired men to write what He has revealed of Himslf to us in the Bible. So how do we know that the Bible is the inspired Word of God? Several ways. It was written over several hundred years by several men and all have one theme and one focus, the Godman our Mediator Christ Jesus. Where it speaks of history it is true history, where it speaks of science it is true science, where it speaks of anything naturally it is true but it is about one thing from beginning to end, the person and work of Christ Jesus the Lord. He is the express image of God and all that can be known of God is found in Him. He is pictured and typified in all the Scriptures and no other book can be said to do so. More than that when men write of themselves they don't show thir faults often but the Bible has nothing good to say about man by nature even the ones who wrote it point out that they are wretched sinners. It has the stamp of the Spirit on it like no other book and no other book has ever had so much onfluence in the lives of men than the Bible. Either its origen is God or it is a false and lying document. There can be indifference to it.

 

[Sparkey]

[To: Sparrowhawke]The text you are talking about is this one.....

Hebrews 1 (American Standard Version)
1 God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners,
2 hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds;

I did a quick look-up and found the text I was trying to cite:

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.

Greetings, mondar!

<Thanks for the assist> :waving

The word (GK: φέρω, transliterated as: pherō) that was translated into the English phrase, "as they were moved" came from God through His Apostle, Peter, an exemplary man of faith. The phrase "as they were moved by" is pretty good but may be further explained as "carried" by. The root of the analogy (that escaped my recall for a moment) came to me from my teacher/instructor/comforter and can be supported from an examination of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance:

pherō:

[*] to carry

a) to carry some burden​

[*] to bear with one's self

to move by bearing; move or, to be conveyed or borne, with the suggestion of force or speed
​

[*] of persons borne in a ship over the sea

[*] of a gust of wind, to rush


[*] of the mind, to be moved inwardly, prompted

[*] to bear up i.e. uphold (keep from falling)​

We see from other passages that Scripture is "God Breathed".


Cordially,
~Sparrow


FOOTNOTES, ACCREDATIONS, CITATIONS:
Blue Letter Bible. "Peter's Second Epistle - 2 Peter 1 - (KJV - King James Version)." Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2010. 28 Oct 2010. < 2 Peter 1 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version) >

 

[mlqurgw]

Peter seems to think that what has been written in the Scriptures is more to be believed than even what he saw and heard on the mount of transfiguration:
(2Pe 1:16) For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
(2Pe 1:17) For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
(2Pe 1:18) And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
(2Pe 1:19) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
(2Pe 1:20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
(2Pe 1:21) 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.

 

[Sparkey]

Peter seems to think that what has been written in the Scriptures is more to be believed than even what he saw and heard on the mount of transfiguration:
(2Pe 1:16) For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
(2Pe 1:17) For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
(2Pe 1:18) And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
(2Pe 1:19) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
(2Pe 1:20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
(2Pe 1:21) 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.

I don't follow you. Are you saying that Peter thought there was some discrepancy between what was seen and what was written? He clearly states that what he saw was evidence that he has not followed some cunningly devised fable and further states that he saw and witnessed what had happened, showing that Christ is exalted.

Then he points that he ALSO has a more sure word of prophecy (that is in agreement with everything He declared) and admonished his readers to "take heed."

 

[mlqurgw]

I don't follow you. Are you saying that Peter thought there was some discrepancy between what was seen and what was written? He clearly states that what he saw was evidence that he has not followed some cunningly devised fable and further states that he saw and witnessed what had happened, showing that Christ is exalted.

Then he points that he ALSO has a more sure word of prophecy (that is in agreement with everything He declared) and admonished his readers to "take heed."

Peter said that the Scriptures are more sure and to be believed even more than what he saw with his eyes and heard with his ears from heaven. The point being that the Scriptures trump even our experience. He didn't discount the truth of his experience but placed the Scriptures above it.

 

[Sparkey]

Peter said that the Scriptures are more sure and to be believed even more than what he saw with his eyes and heard with his ears from heaven. The point being that the Scriptures trump even our experience. He didn't discount the truth of his experience but placed the Scriptures above it.

I have the assurance of what you say in this?
But I also have the assurance of what the Bible says about what happened on the Mount of Transfiguration.

You want me to accept your word about this? What Peter said about what He witnessed was actually spoken by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps you do have a point, but this is hardly the best example. I do understand what you mean though. For instance, if everything I saw when I looked about me, suggested that the path to success was to acquire money at all costs but I also read in the word of God that blessed are the poor -- the conflict would be obvious.

My point was that there was no conflict between what Peter saw and experienced first hand and what the "more sure word" said, in point of fact, Peter's word about what had happened to him was (is) the more sure word.

 

[mlqurgw]

I have the assurance of what you say in this?
But I also have the assurance of what the Bible says about what happened on the Mount of Transfiguration.

You want me to accept your word about this? What Peter said about what He witnessed was actually spoken by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps you do have a point, but this is hardly the best example. I do understand what you mean though. For instance, if everything I saw when I looked about me, suggested that the path to success was to acquire money at all costs but I also read in the word of God that blessed are the poor -- the conflict would be obvious.

My point was that there was no conflict between what Peter saw and experienced first hand and what the "more sure word" said, in point of fact, Peter's word about what had happened to him was (is) the more sure word.

I seem to be makeing the waters more muddy for you and I am sorry for that. I never said or intened that there was a conflict between the two things but that Peter was saying, since this is the origens of the Bible thread, that the Bible is more to counted on than even our experience. He experienced some wonderful things to be sure and wrote about them by the inspiration of the Spirit. But while his experience can be trusted, it was an inspired experience, ours can't. We do not look to our experience of things to find truth but to the Scriptures. That is what Peter was saying in the passage.