Jump to content

Theopneustos; "God-breathed"


Sargon

Recommended Posts

2 Tim 3:16

All Scripture is God-breathed (theopneustos) and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

What does this mean? Evangelicals believe it means that the text is "inerrantly" communicated from God to man. LDS tend to interpret it to mean something more along the lines of "inspired".

Is the LDS view of scripture compatible with such strong wording by the apostle Paul? What does Paul mean by "God-breathed"?

:P

Link to comment
Sargon:

I think the key is understanding what the word Scripture meant to Paul. It most probably did not include the NT.

I absolutely agree. Paul did not have the NT in mind.

Nonetheless, what is the meaning of "theopneustos"?

Link to comment
2 Tim 3:16

All Scripture is God-breathed (theopneustos) and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

What does this mean? Evangelicals believe it means that the text is "inerrantly" communicated from God to man. LDS tend to interpret it to mean something more along the lines of "inspired".

Is the LDS view of scripture compatible with such strong wording by the apostle Paul? What does Paul mean by "God-breathed"?

:P

For something to be counted as scripture it must be spoken or written under the direct influence of the power of the Holy Ghost. That makes it the word of God. That is the breathing of God if you will.

D&C 68:4

4. And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of god unto salvation.

Link to comment
I absolutely agree. Paul did not have the NT in mind.

Nonetheless, what is the meaning of "theopneustos"?

It means literally "god-breathed" = Theos + pneuma. The phrase "inspired by God" is a good way to translate it, since "in-spiration" means literally "breathed in" (as in re-spiration). There is nothing in the term that implies inerrancy. Evangelicals assume inspired means inerrant, so if scripture is inspired it is must be inerrant. However, this is, of course begging the question, which is: is inspiration inerrant.

Link to comment
It means literally "god-breathed" = Theos + pneuma. The phrase "inspired by God" is a good way to translate it, since "in-spiration" means literally "breathed in" (as in re-spiration). There is nothing in the term that implies inerrancy. Evangelicals assume inspired means inerrant, so if scripture is inspired it is must be inerrant. However, this is, of course begging the question, which is: is inspiration inerrant.

Thanks. I was aware that Theopneustos literally means "god-breathed", but I hadn't made the obvious connection to "in-spiration." :P

Now, as you pointed out, "is inspiration inerrant"? Is"God-breathed" necessarily defined as inerrant, and Evangelicals hold?

I certainly don't think so, as many things can be said to be inspired by God but clearly are not inerrant. Since this seems to be the most popular proof-text for the doctrine of inerrancy, could one of our friendly Evangelical posters help us out here?

Link to comment
Now, as you pointed out, "is inspiration inerrant"? Is"God-breathed" necessarily defined as inerrant,

It would have to be. What else is there that would prove useful?

I certainly don't think so, as many things can be said to be inspired by God but clearly are not inerrant.

A lot of things can be said to be inspired by but are clearly not inerrant. Can you name something that actually IS inspired by God yet not inerrant?

Link to comment
2 Tim 3:16

All Scripture is God-breathed (theopneustos) and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

What does this mean? Evangelicals believe it means that the text is "inerrantly" communicated from God to man. LDS tend to interpret it to mean something more along the lines of "inspired".

Is the LDS view of scripture compatible with such strong wording by the apostle Paul? What does Paul mean by "God-breathed"?

:P

The HRV has the words reversed a bit, which kind of changes the whole meaning:

Every writing inspired by God is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction which is in righteousness,

I donâ??t know how accurate this word order is, but it tends to have a First Grand Fundamental Principle of Mormonism kind of flavor to it.

----------

On another note, this scripture is the only time this word appears in the Greek NT. Does anyone know if it appears elsewhere during that time frame, or is/was it a newly created word?

Link to comment
Hoops:

What is translated correctly is translated correctly. :P

The LDS are perfectly comfortable with an ongoing system of revelation that clarifies, and adds new knowledge of God, and His purposes.

What in the bible is translated correctly? Be specific. Let's have a common point of reference (that is, that which you agree has been translated correctly and that which you claim has not been) by which we (all) can discuss.

Link to comment
It would have to be. What else is there that would prove useful?
Since we no longer have the actual inerrant text, though, I suppose the Bible is not useful to you?
Can you name something that actually IS inspired by God yet not inerrant?
The Bible.
The HRV has the words reversed a bit, which kind of changes the whole meaning:Every writing inspired by God is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction which is in righteousness,I donâ??t know how accurate this word order is, but it tends to have a First Grand Fundamental Principle of Mormonism kind of flavor to it.----------On another note, this scripture is the only time this word appears in the Greek NT. Does anyone know if it appears elsewhere during that time frame, or is/was it a newly created word?
Good q.
Link to comment
The HRV has the words reversed a bit, which kind of changes the whole meaning:

Every writing inspired by God is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction which is in righteousness,

I donâ??t know how accurate this word order is, but it tends to have a First Grand Fundamental Principle of Mormonism kind of flavor to it.

----------

On another note, this scripture is the only time this word appears in the Greek NT. Does anyone know if it appears elsewhere during that time frame, or is/was it a newly created word?

This is the only occurrence in the NT or Septuagint. However, it is used in other Greek writings.

There's a problem with the translation you give. The Greek reads:

pasa grafē theopneustos kai ōfelimos pros

all/every writing/scripture god-breathed and beneficial for

Note that there is no explicit is in this passage, and the translation you cite dropped the and.

It could be translated a number of different ways, [with implied text inserted in square brackets].

Any writing [that is] God-breathed [is] also beneficial (which is essentially what the HRV has)

All of scripture [is] God-breathed and [is therefore] beneficial

Grafē simply means a written text, not technically scripture, but most frequently in the NT it is used to refer to scripture, but in this case it usually the article prefix (the writing/scripture), which it doesn't have in this passage, making it more generic and less specific in this passage. When used as scripture in the NT, it always refers to the OT.

Most importantly, however, Evangelical interpretations hinge on two assumptions, neither of which is well-founded on the text:

1- that grafē here includes the NT; it clearly doesn't, since much of the NT had not yet been written. In other words, the Evangelicals must add to the grafē to include the NT.

2- that God-breathed/inspired means inerrant.

In other words, the passage does not mean what EVs claim it means.

Thus, translated correctly does make a difference.

Link to comment

As always, thank you Rabbi Hamblin.

It's this sort of willingness to share your knowledge with an underling such as I that makes me feel bad about spreading all of those rumors behind your backâ?¦ sort of.

Are the other Greek writings mainly Christian, or are there non-Christian writings that utilize this word as well?

Link to comment
As always, thank you Rabbi Hamblin.It's this sort of willingness to share your knowledge with an underling such as I that makes me feel bad about spreading all of those rumors behind your backâ?¦ sort of.Are the other Greek writings mainly Christian, or are there non-Christian writings that utilize this word as well?
Both. I thought you were saying good things behind my back. Have you been talking to Kerry Shirts again? :P
I'll be more clear. What in The Bible is translated correctly?
A translation is correct when it conveys the original intent of the author in a way that is properly understood by the reader. Thus no translation is correct in and of itself, but only when correctly understood.
Link to comment
It would have to be. What else is there that would prove useful?

Are you claiming that something that is not inerrant is necessarily useless? If so, why?

How has God inspired the writers of scripture (specifically the Bible in this case)? And does that method allow for errors to be in the actual writing due to errors made by the human recipients of inspiration? What about where Paul indicates he has no commandment of the Lord, but gives his opinion (1 Cor. 7:25)? Is that opinion inspired? If so, is it inspired by the same method as the rest of scripture?

Also, exactly what would be inerrant? If there is text that can be interpreted many different ways, is the text only inerrant when interpreted per its original intent? How can one be certain that the actual, presumably inerrant meaning of the text is the same as the interpretation we give to it?

Link to comment
Since we no longer have the actual inerrant text, though, I suppose the Bible is not useful to you? The Bible.Good q.
I have a question on the table.
The Bible.
And what are the mechanics that make the bible in it's errant state profitable?
Link to comment

Hoops:

I can't think of a single verse that has not undergone some type of translation. That always introduces the possibility of human error. My object is not to call into question the message of the Bible, or even its individual authors. But to show that ANY introduction of men into the text presents the possibility of error. The LDS do not believe in the inerrancy of any mortal man, or of the things he produces. That is why we have modern day Prophets to help in our understands of what it is that God wants for us.

Link to comment
It would have to be. What else is there that would prove useful

Thanks for biting Hoops. I know you are addressing multiple people at once, and that isn't easy.

My suggestion is that without an inerrant text a useful way of learning true doctrine would be living prophets who can continually watch over the doctrinal purity of the Church. Such was the daunting, but extremely important, task that Paul had. I don't see any indication that Paul considered what he was writing to be inerrant, though certainly inspired.

I further suggest that the doctrine of inerrancy as understood by modern Evangelicals is the product of a lack of ultimate ecclesiastical authority. Without a conduit to God through a living prophet/apostle you are left only with the words of previous generations which suddenly become of utmost importance. Thus "inerrancy" is born.

A lot of things can be said to be inspired by but are clearly not inerrant. Can you name something that actually IS inspired by God yet not inerrant?

Haven't you ever felt that a sermon on Sunday morning was inspired? I have. However, nothing suggests that the pastor was speaking inerrantly.

Link to comment
Hoops:

I can't think of a single verse that has not undergone some type of translation. That always introduces the possibility of human error. My object is not to call into question the message of the Bible, or even its individual authors. But to show that ANY introduction of men into the text presents the possibility of error. The LDS do not believe in the inerrancy of any mortal man, or of the things he produces. That is why we have modern day Prophets to help in our understands of what it is that God wants for us.

That's not what I asked. What in the Bible can we trust is congruent with the original?

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...