God Breathed

[Damien the Leper]

God breathed?

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

The Greek word is "theopneustos".

"Theo" meaning God and "pneustos" a variant of the word "pneuma" or spirit (as in 1 Cor 2:11) and it literally means spirited.

The word “breathed” in John 20:22 is translated from the Greek word "emphusaO" literally meaning 'He-IN-INFLATES'.

If you look at 2 Tim 3:16 in different English versions of the Bible you find;

American Standard Version = "inspired of God"

Darby Translation = "divinely inspired"

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition = "inspired of God"

Holman Christian Standard Bible = "inspired by God"

King James Version = "inspiration of God"

American King James Version = "inspiration of God"

Webster’s Bible Translation = "inspiration of God"

New American Standard Bible = "inspired by God"

New Century Version = "inspired by God"

New King James Version = "inspiration of God"

New Living Translation = "inspired by God"

English Revised Version = "inspired of God"

Wycliffe New Testament = "inspired of God"

Contemporary English Version = "God's Word"

21st Century King James Version = "inspiration of God"

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) = "inspired by God"

Weymouth New Testament = "inspired by God"

New World Translation = "inspired of God"

New Jerusalem Bible = "inspired by God"

Are all of those translations “infallible” or “inerrant”?

Dang you, Vance! You beat me to it. Jerk!!

[canard78]

There is nothing in the Bible itself that confirms that; and there are passages in in modern scripture that appear to contradict it, such as this from D&C 18:

9 For ye know that there is no unrighteousness in them, and that which is arighteous cometh down from above, from the Father of blights.

These do not make a distinction between the word of God, and "men's perception of the word of God". It is all the same. Assuming that all scripture is composed in the same way, then we must conclude that what is said of the D&C is equally applicable to other scriptures, including the Bible.

First, I spent a full minute trying to work out who the Father of Blights was (maybe we only have that word in UK. It relates to potatoes going green/bad etc).

Second, does this mean you feel there is a 'floating quill' - that all words in LDS scripture are the exact dictated words of God and the hand of man was simply transcribing the word of God? Even where mistakes are present?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I would imagine their answer would be "Since they aren't in the Bible they can't be the word of God".

Some have told me redundancy...but would not account for four gospels, 1&2 Kings, 1&2 Samuel.

[Vance]

Dang you, Vance! You beat me to it. Jerk!!

That would be my other twin half.

[pogi]

The problem with that interpretation is that it’s built on dark-age science. The wind is not immaterial nor is the Spirit.

Good point, my mind caught hold of the comparison of wind and spirit, which is often used, without looking closely at the specifics.

Interesting quote.

So, now that we know that wind and breath ARE MATERIAL, when will they go back and revisit their false assumption that "spirit" and God are immaterial?

Good question!

[thesometimesaint]

I like the way you phrase this. Would you say the same of the BoM. Recorded by men, translated (to the best of his ability) by a man.

I sometimes wonder why our 8th Article of Faith doesn't say:

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

If we don't believe God breathed for the BoM either, and accept Mormon's assertion that the errors within are the errors of men... Then it's not perfect.

I still love the words I read in it. Not God's Breath... Another "record of men's perception of the word of God?" The "most correct" one... But not a floating quill.

We do. Its in the Title Page of the Book of Mormon. No one I know of claims perfection of the Book of Mormon.

[Azariah]

What of the "lost books"?

What "lost books"?

Think of "God-breathed" in the sense of being carried or moved along by the wind. Kind of like a sailboat is moved by the wind. In this way, the author's of the individual books of the Bible were "moved along" aka "inspired" by God to write down His message. God did not "possess" them like some kind of poltergeist or demon. Rather, God uses each person and their individual talents, style and form to communicate His message.

[Azariah]

Good point, my mind caught hold of the comparison of wind and spirit, which is often used, without looking closely at the specifics.

Good question!

It should be pointed out that a spirit does not have flesh and blood or for that matter "flesh and bone" as Jesus had shown His disciples after His resurrection. Even LDS will recognize that the Holy Ghost does not have a physical body. This is all Evangelicals are saying with regard to God being Spirit. No where in the Bible does it ever say that God the Father has a physical body. Nothing to debate here, it's just a simple fact.

[Calm]

What "lost books"?

Think of "God-breathed" in the sense of being carried or moved along by the wind. Kind of like a sailboat is moved by the wind. In this way, the author's of the individual books of the Bible were "moved along" aka "inspired" by God to write down His message. God did not "possess" them like some kind of poltergeist or demon. Rather, God uses each person and their individual talents, style and form to communicate His message.

Sailboats use that wind to move in the direction their pilot chooses to go though, they are not forced into one direction only. Therefore how can one be sure that the message is what God intends and isn't simply the direction the author wants to go in?

[Calm]

It should be pointed out that a spirit does not have flesh and blood or for that matter "flesh and bone" as Jesus had shown His disciples after His resurrection. Even LDS will recognize that the Holy Ghost does not have a physical body. This is all Evangelicals are saying with regard to God being Spirit. No where in the Bible does it ever say that God the Father has a physical body. Nothing to debate here, it's just a simple fact.

So you are okay with saying God has a material body, just not a physical one?

[Jude2]

No where in the Bible does it ever say that God the Father has a physical body. Nothing to debate here, it's just a simple fact.

Wrong,

Jesus referred to his body as a temple, he said if they killed him he would raise it up again.

Now turn to Rev 21 where the city New Jerusalem comes down out of heaven. You’ll notice in verse 22 it says;

“And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.”

Now go back to verse 3

“And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes”

God has a tabernacle, a body of flesh and bone with hands to wipe away out tears and arms to hug us too!

[Vance]

This is all Evangelicals are saying with regard to God being Spirit.

God being Spirit doesn't preclude Him having a body of flesh and bones.

No where in the Bible does it ever say that God the Father has a physical body.

Neither does it say that He is immaterial.

So, now what?

[Azariah]

Sailboats use that wind to move in the direction their pilot chooses to go though, they are not forced into one direction only. Therefore how can one be sure that the message is what God intends and isn't simply the direction the author wants to go in?

I agree that the pilot chooses which direction he wants to travel. However, if he wants to be propelled by the wind, he must make his choices in cooperation with the wind. In other words, if the wind is blowing in an eastwardly direction, I cannot simply "choose" to travel in the opposite direction as if I had the power to force the wind to my bidding. Likewise, the authors of the scriptures would be submitting their will to the Father's will and allow the Spirit to direct them. The did not simply just "choose" any which way to go "willy nilly". They recorded the events that happened in their lives and the Spirit guided them into all truth. Even Jesus promised them that the Spirit would bring to their remembrance all those things which they experienced during Jesus' ministry here on earth.

[Azariah]

So you are okay with saying God has a material body, just not a physical one?

Since I believe Jesus is God, then I would say "yes, God has a material body". But let me clarify, the "material" is both Spirit and Flesh. And no, I do not believe Jesus is the Father.

[Azariah]

Wrong,

Jesus referred to his body as a temple, he said if they killed him he would raise it up again.

Now turn to Rev 21 where the city New Jerusalem comes down out of heaven. You’ll notice in verse 22 it says;

“And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.”

Now go back to verse 3

“And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes”

God has a tabernacle, a body of flesh and bone with hands to wipe away out tears and arms to hug us too!

You are most welcome to your own interpretation (just as I am). However, in the gospel of John, it clearly says that God is Spirit. Jesus also confirmed in the gospel of Luke that a Spirit does not have flesh and bones. The "God" who will wipe away our tears and "hug us too" is Jesus. The Father is in Jesus just as Jesus is in the Father, so if Jesus hugs you, so does the Father.

[Azariah]

God being Spirit doesn't preclude Him having a body of flesh and bones.

Neither does it say that He is immaterial.

So, now what?

So, now we choose to believe what makes the most sense to us. I choose to believe what the Bible says. Some choose to believe what latter-day revelation says and interpret the Bible through that lens.

[thesometimesaint]

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/reisno.htm

[bluebell]

You are most welcome to your own interpretation (just as I am). However, in the gospel of John, it clearly says that God is Spirit. Jesus also confirmed in the gospel of Luke that a Spirit does not have flesh and bones. The "God" who will wipe away our tears and "hug us too" is Jesus. The Father is in Jesus just as Jesus is in the Father, so if Jesus hugs you, so does the Father.

This confuses me a little. After all, I am spirit, right? But I am also flesh and bone (and since currently mortal, blood too).

Also, Jesus commands all of us to be one with Him, in the same way that He is with the Father. This would seem to indicate that having a body of flesh and bone does NOT hinder anyone from being one in the way that Christ uses the phrase.

[bluebell]

So, now we choose to believe what makes the most sense to us. I choose to believe what the Bible says. Some choose to believe what latter-day revelation says and interpret the Bible through that lens.

Everyone interprets the bible through some lens. For protestants, it's almost always the lens of the nicene creed.

It sounds good to declare 'i choose to believe what the bible says,' but those are just words meant to put someone who disagrees with them in their place. In reality, most people, especially those who attend a specific denomination, believe what they've been taught the bible says.

[Azariah]

This confuses me a little. After all, I am spirit, right? But I am also flesh and bone (and since currently mortal, blood too).

Also, Jesus commands all of us to be one with Him, in the same way that He is with the Father. This would seem to indicate that having a body of flesh and bone does NOT hinder anyone from being one in the way that Christ uses the phrase.

I view it more as a spiritual union, moreso than a physical union. Being "in Christ" does not mean I am physically in the body of Jesus. When I say Jesus is in me, I do not mean He is physically inside of me. IOW, my Spirit is united with Him, just as the Father is united with the Christ, so we should be united to one another.

[Azariah]

Everyone interprets the bible through some lens. For protestants, it's almost always the lens of the nicene creed.

It sounds good to declare 'i choose to believe what the bible says,' but those are just words meant to put someone who disagrees with them in their place. In reality, most people, especially those who attend a specific denomination, believe what they've been taught the bible says.

And what of those who have never read the nicene creed? I came to my beliefs about who God is from reading the Bible and this was before I had even heard of this creed or read anything from the ECFs.

[bluebell]

And what of those who have never read the nicene creed? I came to my beliefs about who God is from reading the Bible and this was before I had even heard of this creed or read anything from the ECFs.

Then they get their interpretation from somewhere else. Usually, it's what makes sense to them, or what they learned from their parents, in my experience.

[bluebell]

I view it more as a spiritual union, moreso than a physical union. Being "in Christ" does not mean I am physically in the body of Jesus. When I say Jesus is in me, I do not mean He is physically inside of me. IOW, my Spirit is united with Him, just as the Father is united with the Christ, so we should be united to one another.

That makes sense.

It would be difficult for Jesus to be physically inside of you, since He has a resurrected body of flesh and bone.

[LDS Curious]

God breathed?

Are all of those translations “infallible” or “inerrant”?

No one believes that any TRANSLATION is "infallible" or "inerrant" except for the KJV only crowd, as far as I'm aware. "God breathed" (theopneustos) is the Greek way of saying "inspired" (Latin: spirare -- to breathe). The expression in Greek is simply meant to convey the idea that God is the "cause" of scripture.

[Azariah]

http://www2.ida.net/...tail/reisno.htm

Are you Kerry Shirts? I haven't had much contact with him, but I seem to vaguely recall seeing him on the old AOL Religion forum in the mid 1990's. Concerning this quote, from the link you provided: " Through research various Christian scholars have concurred with the anthropomorphism of Mormonism and have noted that the Bible is exactly teaching the same thing." What are the names of these "various Christian scholars" who concur or agree with Mormonism's anthropomorphic view of God? Do you have any primary sources you (or Kerry) could site?