Theopneustos; "God-breathed"

[thesometimesaint]

Hoops:

We don't have the original to compare against, and all subsequent translations are of varying reliability. The Church is not tied to any one translation. But for commonality purposes in English speaking countries we use the KJV.

[Sargon]

I'll be more clear. What in The Bible is translated correctly?

I'd suggest that the large majority of the Bible has been correctly translated from what manuscripts exist.

I'm not sure why we are talking about this though. I'd rather discuss the OP, which asks what "God-breathed" means.

[Ron Beron]

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"?

While using different languages the OT recounts how God "breathed" life into Adam. This is also discussed in other earlier Mesopotamian writings. I am not looking for any corollary. Just interesting to think that if EV's find this evidence of inerrancy then would they say that man is equally inerrant or just inspired?

EDIT: I found a bit more...

Such an account is quite compatible with the two main passages in the New Testament which speak of the inspiration of Scripture. 2 Timothy 3: 15 speaks of every 'scripture' (naturally, the reference is to every part of the

Hebrew Bible

, so far as the canon was then widely accepted) being 'divinely inspired and useful for instruction'. The word used for inspired is

theopneustos

, breathed out by God. This has often been understood to mean that God literally created the words himself, and so implied a passive reception view. Perhaps the best biblical parallel, however, is at Genesis 2: 7: 'The Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Thus the man became a living creature.' Here, what is breathed out by God is the breath of life, which gives life and animation to the formed body. One may think of the breathing-out of Scripture in a similar way as the giving of life and power to the formed words of human writers.

Religion and Revelation: A Theology of Revelation in the World's Religions.

Contributors: Keith Ward - author. Publisher: Clarendon Press. Place of Publication: Oxford. Publication Year: 1994. Page Number: 216.

More...

The concept of divine inspiration was perhaps first worked out in detail among the leaders and writers of the early Christian Church. The first attested occurrence of the term

theopneustos

'inspired (or breathed) by God', as applied directly to the sacred writing, is in 2 Tim. 3:15-17. Elsewhere it is rare, applied to a person, a river or the like (Sib. Or. 5:308), but here it applies to Jewish scripture. Later, in the patristic literature it covers the Gospels, Letters of Paul and all the other Christian additions to scripture as well. The notion that the writings of scripture are 'inspired' is frequently expressed by reference to the activity of the Holy Spirit. Thus, for example, the Psalms are attributed to David and the Holy Spirit almost in equal proportions: 'Sovereign Lordâ?¦who by the mouth of David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit' (Acts 4:25). Elsewhere the process is described in the formula 'the Holy Spirit spoke through the mouth of David' (Acts 1:16), or 'God spoke through the mouth of his prophets' (Acts 3:21). After three centuries or so of theological debate, the Church encapsulated its doctrine of inspiration in the briefest of formulas in the Nicene Creed: 'And I believe in the Holy Spiritâ?¦who spake by the Prophets'.

Sacred Languages and Sacred Texts

. Contributors: John F. A. Sawyer - author. Publisher: Routledge. Place of Publication: London. Publication Year: 1999. Page Number: 108.

One final thing that might provoke some interest. There is an older article by William Ross Schoemaker in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 23, No. 1 (1904), pp. 13-67 The Use of <RLE>רוח<‎PDF> in the Old Testament, and of πνευ̑μα in the New Testament: A Lexicographic... which discusses the corollary between "god breathed" in the Old and New Testaments.

[Hoops22]

I'd suggest that the large majority of the Bible has been correctly translated from what manuscripts exist.

Okay, what, specifically then?

I'm not sure why we are talking about this though. I'd rather discuss the OP, which asks what "God-breathed" means.

Because it addresses the original question, to a degree.

Hoops:We don't have the original to compare against, and all subsequent translations are of varying reliability. The Church is not tied to any one translation. But for commonality purposes in English speaking countries we use the KJV.

What in the KJV is reliable and what isn't?

[Sargon]

Hoops,

I think your insistence on an identification by LDS of which parts of the Bible are reliable or "translated correctly" is avoiding the issue and diverting attention from the true questions of this thread. That being said, I grant that it was not you who initially made mention of the issue of biblical translations.

I don't think this discussion needs to have anything to do with bible translations. Paul certainly was not contemplating the future existence of various translations and the pros and cons of each when he penned the word theopneustos. If you want to talk about bible translations and how the LDS approach it, start a new thread.

So, at the moment in which Paul wrote that the scriptures are theopneustos, what did he mean? Did he have in mind inerrancy or infallibility? I don't think he did.

Also, modern Evangelicals and many Protestants in general emphasize the supreme importance of the scriptures as the sole rule of faith. I simply don't see that attitude represented in the writings of the biblical authors.

I'll repeat what I said before, which went unaddressed:

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.

[Sargon]

Thanks Ron! Those are some interesting quotes.

[Bill Hamblin]

So, at the moment in which Paul wrote that the scriptures are theopneustos, what did he mean? Did he have in mind inerrancy or infallibility? I don't think he did.

He probably was thinking of the Septuagint, which is cites most frequently in his letters.

[mfbukowski]

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

But there is a question we should ask before that, and that question is: "How would we know if it is or is not congruent?" And the only possible answer to that is "the spirit". How else would we know? What other "evidence" can we have for spiritual truths than spiritual evidence?

[Lightbearer]

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"?

I hope that I am not derailing the point of the thread but as I have pondered over this threads some points have become obvious to me. First all scripture is revelation from God, call it inspiration or "God-breathed" or whatever. The entire argument of "inerrant" scripture seems to revolve on the idea that God can guide the Church through the written word alone. God has never intended such, that is why He calls Prophets and Apostles and why each member is given the gift of the Holy Ghost. Even if the words in the scripture are 100% accurate, correct and true... without the spirit of revelation and discernment then the interpretation will not be of any real value. For example, just because someone gets up and preaches or reads the words of the Bible, or any other scripture does not mean they are inspired of God, for example:

(Acts 16:16-18) "And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour."

Now although her testimony was true it was not given by inspiration from God. Much as the following teaches:

(D&C 50:17-22) "Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way? And if it be by some other way it is not of God. And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way? If it be some other way it is not of God. Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth? Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together."

Meaning that you can have an infallible book but it is useless unless you have the infallible discernment of the spirit of God. I think the following indicates that some things cannot be communicated through "written words" alone:

(2 Nephi 33:1-2) "And now I, Nephi, cannot write all the things which were taught among my people; neither am I mighty in writing, like unto speaking; for when a man speaketh by the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men. But behold, there are many that harden their hearts against the Holy Spirit, that it hath no place in them; wherefore, they cast many things away which are written and esteem them as things of naught."

In fact some things cannot be written or spoken:

(3 Nephi 19:32-34) "And tongue cannot speak the words which he prayed, neither can be written by man the words which he prayed. And the multitude did hear and do bear record; and their hearts were open and they did understand in their hearts the words which he prayed. Nevertheless, so great and marvelous were the words which he prayed that they cannot be written, neither can they be uttered by man."

This explains why different people have different interpretations and understandings according to the portion of the spirit they have. The Church cannot be guided by the written word alone, without the spirit of inspiration and revelation you would have the same organization that existed among the Jews at the time of Christ. They believed in the written word and their traditions but did not have prophets or apostles and in fact persecuted and killed those who came among them claiming the gift of prophecy. In our dispensation this living words has been emphasized:

(D&C 68:2-6) "And, behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forthâ?? And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. 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. Behold, this is the promise of the Lord unto you, O ye my servants. Wherefore, be of good cheer, and do not fear, for I the Lord am with you, and will stand by you; and ye shall bear record of me, even Jesus Christ, that I am the Son of the living God, that I was, that I am, and that I am to come."

You cannot separate the prophets from the scriptures they are the same and it takes revelation to understand revelation, it cannot be done with the intellect alone.

[Sargon]

Can any inerrantist fill us in on why we should interpret "God-breathed" to mean "inerrant"?

Hoops has argued that inerrancy is the only (best?) way for knowing exactly what God wants us to know. He rhetorically asks, how else can we know God's truth? But the presence of a dilemma among Protestants if inerrancy is dropped doesn't really serve as an argument for inerrancy.

[Bill Hamblin]

Can any inerrantist fill us in on why we should interpret "God-breathed" to mean "inerrant"?

Hoops has argued that inerrancy is the only (best?) way for knowing exactly what God wants us to know. He rhetorically asks, how else can we know God's truth? But the presence of a dilemma among Protestants if inerrancy is dropped doesn't really serve as an argument for inerrancy.

The choice is never between absolutist inerrancy and utter skepticism. This is an Evangelical rhetorical posturing to create a straw man.

[mfbukowski]

Yep. Judging by this thread, I would say the phrase "God breathed" just leads to a lot of hot air.

[Zakuska]

I hope that I am not derailing the point of the thread but as I have pondered over this threads some points have become obvious to me. First all scripture is revelation from God, call it inspiration or "God-breathed" or whatever. The entire argument of "inerrant" scripture seems to revolve on the idea that God can guide the Church through the written word alone. God has never intended such, that is why He calls Prophets and Apostles and why each member is given the gift of the Holy Ghost. Even if the words in the scripture are 100% accurate, correct and true... without the spirit of revelation and discernment then the interpretation will not be of any real value. For example, just because someone gets up and preaches or reads the words of the Bible, or any other scripture does not mean they are inspired of God, for example:Now although her testimony was true it was not given by inspiration from God. Much as the following teaches:Meaning that you can have an infallible book but it is useless unless you have the infallible discernment of the spirit of God. I think the following indicates that some things cannot be communicated through "written words" alone:In fact some things cannot be written or spoken:This explains why different people have different interpretations and understandings according to the portion of the spirit they have. The Church cannot be guided by the written word alone, without the spirit of inspiration and revelation you would have the same organization that existed among the Jews at the time of Christ. They believed in the written word and their traditions but did not have prophets or apostles and in fact persecuted and killed those who came among them claiming the gift of prophecy. In our dispensation this living words has been emphasized:You cannot separate the prophets from the scriptures they are the same and it takes revelation to understand revelation, it cannot be done with the intellect alone.

I think this verse goes right along with what you said...

John 6: 68

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

A living breathing being has the words of eternal life... because a living breathing being has the spirit... which gives life. Not words on a page...

2 Cor. 3: 6

6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Living breathing beings have authority and the spirit. Its better to have the spirit than it is to have every letter Paul ever wrote!

Matt. 7: 29

29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

Modern Christian preachers teach as the scribes did giving all authority to written words rather then being guided by the spirit.

[Hoops22]

The choice is never between absolutist inerrancy and utter skepticism. This is an Evangelical rhetorical posturing to create a straw man.

And yet my question remains unanswered.

[Sargon]

And yet my question remains unanswered.

As does mine. And, strangely enough, my question was posed in the OP, and is the subject of this thread.

Yours is not.

[mfbukowski]

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

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?

Is that your unanswered question? How about Jonah and the whale? Song of Solomon? Do you consider any of the apocrypha inspired? Did Noah really get ever species of beetle and butterfly that only live on an island in the pacific into the ark? Did that donkey really talk?

[johndoe]

And yet my question remains unanswered.

Oh, for Pete's sake! If you don't want to discuss anything the rest of us have raised, just say so.

I'll give you your answer, though I certainly don't speak for all LDS.

Here's your question:

What in the Bible can we trust is congruent with the original?

The vast majority of it is congruent with the original, I believe. In practice, LDS tend to treat the Bible as if it were inerrant. A more precise and correct answer would be: everything that the Spirit confirms is true. If you are looking for a list of chapters and verses, such is simply not available.

[Hoops22]

The vast majority of it is congruent with the original, I believe.

If you can not point to what is acceptable translation and what is not acceptable, then you are left with nothing. You will never know what can be trusted and what can not.

In practice, LDS tend to treat the Bible as if it were inerrant. A more precise and correct answer would be: everything that the Spirit confirms is true.

Well, the Spirit has confirmed to me that the bible is inerrant.

If you are looking for a list of chapters and verses, such is simply not available.

Why not? I would think a prophet would be able to tell us such. Are you saying that God is allowing the vast majority of professed christians to rely on something so unreliable when He has a prophet that can set the record straight?

Is that your unanswered question? How about Jonah and the whale? Song of Solomon? Do you consider any of the apocrypha inspired? Did Noah really get ever species of beetle and butterfly that only live on an island in the pacific into the ark? Did that donkey really talk?

What about them? Are you answering my question with a question?

As does mine. And, strangely enough, my question was posed in the OP, and is the subject of this thread.

No.

[mfbukowski]

And this

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

Was answered here perfectly:

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.

There can be no better answer.

Dang. We have to do something about this Hamblin guy. He keeps getting it right, and I feel like I end up kissing up to the guy every time. Grrrrr.

[Hoops22]

:(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.

Okay, so what do we have that is correctly understood?

[mfbukowski]

Are you answering my question with a question?

In my opinion, God taught the lesson about Jonah and the whale without miraculously actually preseving someone's life without air for three days, the Song of Solomon is largely allegorical, some of the apocrypha is inspired but not necessarily true, and Noah did not necessarily get every species of beetle and butterfly that only live on an island in the pacific into the ark.

I don't think that this is the point of these stories in the bible and they are therefore "inspired" stories but by no means "inerrant".

And if you have ever translated anything you know that there is no such thing as a "perfect" translation since each language carries with it a cultural context which is impossible to correctly convey completely. The best translation is no translation at all.

[mfbukowski]

Okay, so what do we have that is correctly understood?

That Jesus is the Son of God, that he atoned for our sins, that God is responsible for bringing about this earth, and many other things. I really don't feel like going through the entire bible at this moment. Why don't you ask?

[johndoe]

If you can not point to what is acceptable translation and what is not acceptable, then you are left with nothing. You will never know what can be trusted and what can not.

I have never considered it important to go through, verse by verse, and try to divine what is inerrant and what is not. As I stated before, most LDS (including myself) generally treat the Bible as if it were inerrant.

How do you know that your interpretation of what the Bible says is correct? If you cannot point to some reliable way to know that your interpretation is accurate, then you are left with nothing. You will never know what interpretation can be trusted and what cannot.

Well, the Spirit has confirmed to me that the bible is inerrant.

The Spirit has confirmed to me that the Book of Mormon is true. I have no greater need to accept your claim about the Spirit's witness to you than you have to accept my claim about the Spirit's witness to me.

Why not? I would think a prophet would be able to tell us such.

Why would you think such a thing? Do you think prophets should somehow automatically know everything there is to know about God and scripture?

Are you saying that God is allowing the vast majority of professed christians to rely on something so unreliable when He has a prophet that can set the record straight?

How is this different from God allowing the vast majority of professed Christians to have to stumble around trying to find the correct interpretation of the Bible? For the record, I never stated the Bible is signficantly unreliable. As has already been pointed out to you, this is not a black and white question. The Bible can be extremely accurate/correct without need for it to be inerrant.

[Hoops22]

That Jesus is the Son of God, that he atoned for our sins, that God is responsible for bringing about this earth, and many other things.

Why should those claims be any more trustworthy than any other significant, or insignificant for that matter, portions.

I really don't feel like going through the entire bible at this moment. Why don't you ask?

[Sargon]

Hoops,

Please start your own thread, since you are diligently ignoring the purpose of this one.

Sincerely,

Sargon