WHO WROTE THE BIBLE?

[Dino246]

That's right, and I stated that in my comment. Other means such as dreams, visions, etc. were used by God to give his words to mankind to be recorded for us. But whatever method God used to record the creation account, we can be sure that they were all his own words and not mans. That is what separates the Word of God, which is perfect and pure, from the word of man, which is corrupted and fallible.

Agreed, on this one point.

We are given plenty of examples to know that every words spoken by men were the very words of God, even if we didn't read anywhere where God actually spoke to them first.

1 Kings 22:14 (KJV 1900)
And Micaiah said, As the Lord liveth, what the Lord saith unto me, that will I speak.

1 Kings 22:19–20 (KJV 1900)
And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. 20 And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.

Which part of verse 19 and 20 is the word of the Lord? Verse 19 where Michaiah describes what he saw, or verse 20 where he quotes what the Lord said? Of course, it all of it. That's why God put the phrase, "Hear thou therefore the word of the Lord" before describing what Michaiah said he saw. He did this so that we wouldn't confuse what a prophet sees and declares as being their own words.

And we are given many examples of the words of men recorded in Scripture. You are cherry-picking verses and not considering the whole counsel of Scripture. David had in mind to build a temple for the Lord; Nathan told him, "Whatever you have in mind, go ahead and do it, for the Lord is with you" (2 Samuel 7:3). Later, God spoke His words to Nathan for David, and contradicted Nathan's words. Clearly, Nathan's words were not God's words.

There are probably hundreds of other examples where the words recorded in Scripture were not God's words. However, the record remains God's Word. Confuse these things, and you will be unable to understand the nature of inspiration.

Here you are referring to Psalm 12:6-7. If you quoted what I stated prior to quoting this passage, it actually has everything to do with this topic. The fact that you don't agree is really just an opinion. Here is what I said:

"Either way, we know that every word came from the mouth of God, this is why it's called the word of God.

Psalm 12:6 (KJV 1900)
6 The words of the Lord are pure words:
As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. "

What you have here is a non sequitur fallacy; your conclusion does not follow from your assertions. That God's words are pure words does not lead to the conclusion that all Scripture came from the mouth of God.

Here you are speaking about 2 Timothy 3:16, but the word "inspiration" IS "DICTATION" if comes from someone's mouth

Changing the words of Scripture now, are we? No. The word "inspiration is not the word "dictation". They are two different concepts. Paul dictated Romans to Tertius; he did not "inspire" Tertius to write Romans.

, and here, we're told that all of scripture came from the mouth of God. In other words, God is defining the word "inspiration" for us if we look it up in the Bible which is derived from 2 other Greek words which is the word, "God" and the word "blow". Some translations have correctly translated this as "God breathed" which teaches us that all scripture came from the very mouth of God. This means that no matter by what means God gave his word to be written down, that they are all His words from his mouth.

God inspired the words of Scripture; He did not speak them all. You are engaging in circular reasoning and are ignoring the plain examples where the words recorded in Scripture were not God's words. Did God speak the words, "Did God really say to Eve, 'You shall not surely die'"? No. Enough of this folly.

 

[Noah761]

Thank you for your reply, but you have not provided me with what I have asked for regarding any biblical support for the historical grammatical method of biblical interpretation being the correct method. It is certainly derived by our own logic, which is foolishness when it comes to applying the same rules of understanding that we do to common books written by men, to understand a holy and spiritual book like the Bible. God emphasizes that our wisdom is foolishness.

1 Corinthians 3:19 (KJV 1900)
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

1 Corinthians 1:25 (KJV 1900)
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

How can it take the holy spirit to understand the scriptures if all we have to do is go by the plain rendering of the text? Unless, that is, logic, deems that the plain meaning doesn't make sense (like cut off your hand), and so then, in such cases, we should seek another meaning. But this man-made hermeneutic is absolute folly as it places each individual reader as the authority when it comes down to what makes logical sense and what doesn't. I have come across people who claim the name of Christ and spend their time snake handling poisonous snakes. Why on earth would someone do that? Because to them, this plain rendering of the text makes logical sense. God teaches us in his word that it isn't the plain rendering of the text that has the most value, but rather the spiritual meaning of the text. This is why Christ always taught in parables and without parables he did not teach.

Matthew 13:34 (KJV 1900)
All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

The purpose of parables is to use commonly understood words or phrases or accounts in order to conceal truth from those who do not have ears to hear spiritual truths.

Matthew 13:10–14 (KJV 1900)
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

And that which Jesus spoke is what we are reading in the scriptures, it is the word of God written in parables. Our job, therefore, is to search out the scriptures in order to find what God means by what he says. And the only way to do that is to go back to the one who gave us those words in the first place. We go back to the word of God for our understanding.

Mark 4:34 (KJV 1900)
But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he (the Word of God) expounded all things to his disciples.

Matthew 15:15 (KJV 1900)
Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.

You see that not even a true child of God is exempt from confusion when they read something in God's word. They still have to go to God in prayer and diligently search the scriptures for understanding using the method that God himself has laid out in his word (which I laid out in my previous post). But even if a person were to try and follow God's own hermeneutic, the Word of God would still, ultimately, be foolishness to him because he does not have the spirit of God within him who teaches us all things in the proper time and season.

Regarding your explanation of the word "logikos" as perhaps a prooftext that God wants us to use our own logic when it comes to hermeneutics. Romans 12:1 describes our spiritual conduct before the Lord.

Romans 12:1 (KJV 1900)
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

The word "service" comes from the word "worship". This teaches us that presenting our bodies as a living sacrifice (which is the same as taking up our cross and following Christ) represents how we, through our obedience to God's commandments, worship God. Obedience to God's commandments (the whole Bible) require daily self-sacrifice. This is what is being described as our "reasonable" (logikos) service (act of worship).

What is interesting is that the second passage you quoted, as you stated, also contains the same Greek word "logikos". But the translations you used to show this are both faulty. Please look in an interlinear and you will see that they left out the word "of the word". This is the word for "logikos" and not the word "reasonable" or "intelligent" as those Bibles suggest. The words, "reasonable" or "intelligent" are Strong's #G97 which actually means "not deceitfully" A sit comes from Strong's #G1388 (subtle) with an alpha prefix which negates the word (not subtle). Please take the time to examine this, whether it is so.

Here is the correct rendering of the text:

1 Peter 2:2 (KJV 1900)
As newborn babes, desire the sincere (adolos) milk of the word (logikos), that ye may grow thereby:

So, when we use the word of God to explain how a word is to be understood (as you did) then these two passages teach us that we can understand the word "reasonable" in "reasonable service" (Rom 12:1) to point us right back to the Word of God (1 Pe 2:2) and not to our own logic.

Eddie, I suggest you do some study in hermeneutics! The following two books are online to be studied for free. I'm beginning to suspect you are one who wishes to argue merely for arguments sake, but if not, you'd profit from the following:

From Principles of Interpretation by Clinton Lockhart:

"It is not hoped that any number of axioms and rules of interpretation will compensate the unfortunate interpreter who is lacking in good judgment and sound common sense. Laws of all sciences presuppose ability in him who would use them. "Rules of interpretation can no more make a good interpreter than rules of poetry can make a good poet"; yet it is a poor interpreter or a poor poet that observes no rules. Rules without genius and genius without rules are alike unsuccessful; while only moderate talents wisely directed often achieve remarkable success." page 13
https://icotb.org/resources/PrinciplesofInterpretation.pdf

From Biblical Hermeneutics, Milton S. Terry:

"First of all, the interpreter of Scripture, and, indeed, of any other book, should have a sound, well-balanced mind. For dullness of apprehension, defective judgment, and an extravagant fancy will pervert one's reason, and lead to many vain and foolish notions. The faculties of the mind are capable of discipline, and may be trained to a very high degree of perfection; but some men inherit peculiar tendencies of intellect. Some are gifted with rare powers of imagination, but are utterly
wanting in the critical faculty. A lifetime of discipline will scarcely restrain their exuberant fancy. Others are naturally given to form hasty judgments, and will rush to the wildest extremes. In others, peculiar tastes and passions warp the judgment, and some seem to be constitutionally destitute of common sense. Any and all such mental defects disqualify one for the interpretation of the word of God." p 151

"In distinction from all the above-mentioned methods of interpretation, we may name the grammatico-Historical as the method which most fully commends itself to the judgment and conscience of Christian scholars. Its fundamental principle is to gather from the Scriptures themselves the precise meaning which the writers intended to convey. It applies to the sacred books the same principles, the same grammatical process and exercise of common sense and reason, which we apply to other books. The grammatico-historical exegete, furnished with suitable qualifications, intellectual, educational, and moral, will accept the claims of the Bible without prejudice or adverse prepossession, and, with no ambition to prove them true or false, will investigate the language and import of each book with fearless independence. He will master the language of the writer, the particular dialect which he used, and his peculiar style and manner of expression. He will inquire into the circumstances under which he wrote, the manners and customs of his age, and the purpose or object which he had in view. He has a right to assume that no sensible author will be knowingly inconsistent with himself, or seek to bewilder and mislead his readers." p 173
http://www.thestairview.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/milton_terry_biblicalhermeneutics.pdf

I think the following advice may be best here:

"Have nothing to do with stupid and senseless controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.' (2Tim 2:23, NRSV)

 

[Pureness]

A human being wrote the bible.

 

[arthurfleminger]

One thing to consider when asking 'Who Wrote the New Testament', the Gospels and letters, it is clear that they were not written hundreds of years after the fact. They are historical documents written at the very latest a few decades after Jesus' death and resurrection. This conclusion can be arrived at with common sense. In the last year of Christ's ministry on earth, around 33AD, He foretold/prophesized the absolute and utter destruction of Jerusalem, it's people, and the Temple.

That destruction occurred in the year 70AD, an historical fact. Over 1 million inhabitants of Jerusalem were killed and the Temple was destroyed by Roman armies.

You may ask, of what significance is this? It let's us know with certainty that the Gospels and Letters of the New Testament were written before the great destruction in 70AD. If the Gospels and New Testament were written after 70AD, the writers would surely have written how Jesus' prophy had come true.

Yet, for all the importance/significance of the destruction of Jerusalem, not a word or a hint that this event actually happened in the New Testament. That's because the New Testament was written/completed before the destruction of 70AD. Most likely all the Gospels/Letters/NT were written and finished within about 30 years of Jesus death. This would make them accurate historical records.

For sure, they weren't written after the destruction of Jerusalem.

Also, scholars agree that the books of the New Testament, as we have them today, are accurate copies of the original writings.

 

[EddieRamos]

Here is something for anyone to consider regarding this topic.

In the creation account there were no eyewitnesses, neither in the garden of Eden when the serpent spoke to Eve. But somehow, the creation account (along with every word that God wanted recorded) was indeed recorded in the Bible. When I said that every word came from the mouth of God, (as I explained in my previous posts), I meant, whoever the scribes were, that they received God's word by a number of possible ways. That being by, either by dreams, visions, by God putting his words in their mouth, or by God audibly dictating them that scribe.

When the serpent said, "You shall not surely die", there was no one recording those very words from the mouth of the serpent. It was recorded at a later time by a scribe (some think by Moses which would have been thousands of years later). The point is, the events that took place historically were not recorded as they were taking place, unless we're told that they were being spoken directly by God at the time to be recorded. That means that When God wanted the scribe to record the creation account, that God and God alone had to dictate (by any of the 4 ways mentioned above) every word that he wanted recorded this account. So, in order for God to provide every word he wanted recorded, why would anyone think that these words, as recorded in the scriptures, were not given by God?

So, while historically, God didn't speak those words to Eve (but rather he said the opposite), when it came time to record this historical event, it had to be dictated to someone word for word. And it was, it was dictated by God. This means that every word came from the mouth of God at the moment it was given to men to record. And this agrees with 2 Timothy 3:16.

2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV 1900)
All scripture is given by inspiration of God (God breathed), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

This means that all scripture did indeed come from the mouth of God as far as the written record is concerned. This is called "dictation". This includes what Nathan said to David as well as any falsehood spoken by men in the scriptures. The historical account is not the word of God as many more things were said and done that could ever be written about, but every specific word that was recorded in the biblical text, did indeed come from the mouth of God.

And this is what makes every word of God pure, because all the scriptures came from the mouth of God as God had them recorded after the actual historical account took place. This is one way to understand that every word came from the mouth of God (or was God breathed). Some scriptures may have likely been recorded in real time, meaning, as the historical event was taking place. For example, when king David sinned with Bathsheba and God struck his newborn son, so that he died, David wrote a Psalm regarding his grief in Psalm 51. But this does not mean that these were David's own words and that God accepted them. There is no scriptural evidence that points to that idea. But there is scriptural evidence that teaches us that when holy men spoke, that they did so as they were moved by the Holy Ghost to speak.

2 Peter 1:21 (KJV 1900)
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.

If we study this passage closer, we will notice that the word "came" and the word "moved" are the same Greek words. They are both Strong's #G5342. This word is often translated as "brought forth" or "carried". This helps understand that to be "moved" by the Holy Ghost denotes something that is brought forth. And in the case of 2 Peter 1:21, the focus is on the spoken word of God. That it did not come by the will of man, but God's Word was spoken as it was brough forth by the Holy Spirit, meaning by God himself.

 

[EddieRamos]

A human being wrote the bible.

Actually, while many human beings penned the Bible (as scribes), God is the one who gets the credit for writing the Bible. God teaches us this by using the book of Romans, for example. The contents of this book are attributed to the great mind of Paul the apostle, but he wasn't the one who actually wrote the words, it was his scribe named Tertius.

Romans 16:22 (KJV 1900)
I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.

The fact that Paul, as the one who dictated these words, is given the credit for the contents, teaches us that it is not the scribe who gets the credit but the one who actually spoke the words. Well, the same is true of every book of the Bible, including the books that Paul himself wrote.

Galatians 6:11 (KJV 1900)
Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.

Paul, as the scribe of the book, likewise gets no credit for writing these words down. The only one who gets the credit for the content of this book is God alone as these are all his words. All scripture came from the mouth of God (God breathed) (2 Tim 3:16).

I hope this helps.

 

[EddieRamos]

Eddie, I suggest you do some study in hermeneutics! The following two books are online to be studied for free. I'm beginning to suspect you are one who wishes to argue merely for arguments sake, but if not, you'd profit from the following:

From Principles of Interpretation by Clinton Lockhart:

"It is not hoped that any number of axioms and rules of interpretation will compensate the unfortunate interpreter who is lacking in good judgment and sound common sense. Laws of all sciences presuppose ability in him who would use them. "Rules of interpretation can no more make a good interpreter than rules of poetry can make a good poet"; yet it is a poor interpreter or a poor poet that observes no rules. Rules without genius and genius without rules are alike unsuccessful; while only moderate talents wisely directed often achieve remarkable success." page 13
https://icotb.org/resources/PrinciplesofInterpretation.pdf

From Biblical Hermeneutics, Milton S. Terry:

"First of all, the interpreter of Scripture, and, indeed, of any other book, should have a sound, well-balanced mind. For dullness of apprehension, defective judgment, and an extravagant fancy will pervert one's reason, and lead to many vain and foolish notions. The faculties of the mind are capable of discipline, and may be trained to a very high degree of perfection; but some men inherit peculiar tendencies of intellect. Some are gifted with rare powers of imagination, but are utterly
wanting in the critical faculty. A lifetime of discipline will scarcely restrain their exuberant fancy. Others are naturally given to form hasty judgments, and will rush to the wildest extremes. In others, peculiar tastes and passions warp the judgment, and some seem to be constitutionally destitute of common sense. Any and all such mental defects disqualify one for the interpretation of the word of God." p 151

"In distinction from all the above-mentioned methods of interpretation, we may name the grammatico-Historical as the method which most fully commends itself to the judgment and conscience of Christian scholars. Its fundamental principle is to gather from the Scriptures themselves the precise meaning which the writers intended to convey. It applies to the sacred books the same principles, the same grammatical process and exercise of common sense and reason, which we apply to other books. The grammatico-historical exegete, furnished with suitable qualifications, intellectual, educational, and moral, will accept the claims of the Bible without prejudice or adverse prepossession, and, with no ambition to prove them true or false, will investigate the language and import of each book with fearless independence. He will master the language of the writer, the particular dialect which he used, and his peculiar style and manner of expression. He will inquire into the circumstances under which he wrote, the manners and customs of his age, and the purpose or object which he had in view. He has a right to assume that no sensible author will be knowingly inconsistent with himself, or seek to bewilder and mislead his readers." p 173
http://www.thestairview.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/milton_terry_biblicalhermeneutics.pdf

I think the following advice may be best here:

"Have nothing to do with stupid and senseless controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.' (2Tim 2:23, NRSV)

Thank you for your suggestion, but I'd rather not take the time to read suggested resources from others. If I followed this suggestion from everyone who asks me, I would have no time for Bible study. But if you read them and are able to provide for me the scriptures they present as evidence for their hermeneutic, then I would be more than glad to compare it against the scriptures to see if the Bible agrees.

I am not here to argue with anyone, as that profits nothing to anyone. I am here merely to present what the scriptures say regarding this topic I started. As the one who started this discussion, I feel obligated to respond to as many comments as I can. This does not mean I am trying to argue with anyone. If I personally slandered anyone here with my words, then I would ask that you show me. But neither can I "go with the flow" if the flow is going contrary to the word of God. Then, I feel obligated to respond. If this develops into an actual biblical dialogue, then praise God. Anyone who is following along can read and do their own comparisons against the scriptures with all of the information that has been provided and be fed.

But when someone no longer wishes to continue the dialogue, which I gather is what you wish to do, then I completely understand. You are welcome to post again at anytime if you would like to continue the discussion at any point in time and I will do my best to respond with the Bible. I know that my previous posts can be rather lengthy, so I will try to be more concise in the future.

 

[Dino246]

Here is something for anyone to consider regarding this topic.

In the creation account there were no eyewitnesses, neither in the garden of Eden when the serpent spoke to Eve. But somehow, the creation account (along with every word that God wanted recorded) was indeed recorded in the Bible. When I said that every word came from the mouth of God, (as I explained in my previous posts), I meant, whoever the scribes were, that they received God's word by a number of possible ways. That being by, either by dreams, visions, by God putting his words in their mouth, or by God audibly dictating them that scribe.

When the serpent said, "You shall not surely die", there was no one recording those very words from the mouth of the serpent. It was recorded at a later time by a scribe (some think by Moses which would have been thousands of years later). The point is, the events that took place historically were not recorded as they were taking place, unless we're told that they were being spoken directly by God at the time to be recorded. That means that When God wanted the scribe to record the creation account, that God and God alone had to dictate (by any of the 4 ways mentioned above) every word that he wanted recorded this account. So, in order for God to provide every word he wanted recorded, why would anyone think that these words, as recorded in the scriptures, were not given by God?

So, while historically, God didn't speak those words to Eve (but rather he said the opposite), when it came time to record this historical event, it had to be dictated to someone word for word. And it was, it was dictated by God. This means that every word came from the mouth of God at the moment it was given to men to record.

Further down in your post, you claim that there is no scriptural evidence to support the idea that Psalm 51 was David's words that God accepted. In the same way, there is no scriptural evidence that every word of the account of creation came from the mouth of God at the moment it was given to men to record. You're playing on both sides of the fence; get some integrity!

There are still other means by which God can inspire men to record what He wanted recorded, without it being dictation. Please, instead of displaying your ignorance and promoting wrong ideas, do your homework.

And this agrees with 2 Timothy 3:16.

2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV 1900)
All scripture is given by inspiration of God (God breathed), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

This means that all scripture did indeed come from the mouth of God as far as the written record is concerned. This is called "dictation". This includes what Nathan said to David as well as any falsehood spoken by men in the scriptures. The historical account is not the word of God as many more things were said and done that could ever be written about, but every specific word that was recorded in the biblical text, did indeed come from the mouth of God.

You're repeating your errors and ignoring correction. Dictation IS NOT THE SAME THING as inspiration... PERIOD.

And this is what makes every word of God pure, because all the scriptures came from the mouth of God as God had them recorded after the actual historical account took place.

No; again, you are cherry picking. The record of creation is one account where God was the only witness; there are many other cases where any one of many persons could have been the recording witness.

This is one way to understand that every word came from the mouth of God (or was God breathed). Some scriptures may have likely been recorded in real time, meaning, as the historical event was taking place. For example, when king David sinned with Bathsheba and God struck his newborn son, so that he died, David wrote a Psalm regarding his grief in Psalm 51. But this does not mean that these were David's own words and that God accepted them. There is no scriptural evidence that points to that idea.

My goodness, man, how much more lunacy are you going to promote? Exactly who was grieved? David, or God?

But there is scriptural evidence that teaches us that when holy men spoke, that they did so as they were moved by the Holy Ghost to speak.

2 Peter 1:21 (KJV 1900)
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.

If we study this passage closer, we will notice that the word "came" and the word "moved" are the same Greek words. They are both Strong's #G5342. This word is often translated as "brought forth" or "carried". This helps understand that to be "moved" by the Holy Ghost denotes something that is brought forth. And in the case of 2 Peter 1:21, the focus is on the spoken word of God. That it did not come by the will of man, but God's Word was spoken as it was brough forth by the Holy Spirit, meaning by God himself.

You claim to have studied the passage, but you have completely overlooked what the verse actually says: prophecy. When God gave a prophetic word to someone, that word (words) did not come about by the will of man, but the holy men of God spoke as they were moved. This is not talking about Scripture in general. Not all of Scripture is prophecy.

 

[Nehemiah6]

A human being wrote the bible.

Actually many human beings wrote the Bible. But they were special human beings. All the writers of the Old Testament are deemed to be prophets. The writers of the New Testament were evangelists or apostles, but even so, they were technically prophets (as Peter informs us in his second epistle). A prophet was one who spoke or wrote by divine inspiration. The total number of writers may have amounted to perhaps 40, since many books do not tell us exactly who the writer was. But the Author of all the books was God.

 

[Nehemiah6]

So, in order for God to provide every word he wanted recorded, why would anyone think that these words, as recorded in the scriptures, were not given by God?

No one has suggested this on CC to the best of my knowledge. By the same token the method of divine inspiration is not really disclosed. Some was clearly plain dictation, but much of Scripture was simply divine inspiration.

 

[Dino246]

I am not here to argue with anyone, as that profits nothing to anyone. I am here merely to present what the scriptures say regarding this topic I started.

The problem is that you are presenting an erroneous interpretation of Scriptures cited. While you may not be here to argue, you also don’t get a free pass to promote error.

You already stated that you won’t read material outside Scripture, which means you have truncated your education and are willfully ignorant. I sincerely hope you retreat from your dogmatic position.

 

[Noah761]

The problem is that you are presenting an erroneous interpretation of Scriptures cited. While you may not be here to argue, you also don’t get a free pass to promote error.

You already stated that you won’t read material outside Scripture, which means you have truncated your education and are willfully ignorant. I sincerely hope you retreat from your dogmatic position.

Dino, I agree. You can't merely list verses, read into them your own thoughts and think you've presented truth. You must study, and even Paul in 2 Tim. 4:13 requests that his "books" be brought to him, so Paul was educated from a broad perspective. You can get bogged down trying to reply to long lists of verses, but let me give an explanation of one verse used to deny that Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans.

"I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord." (Rom 16:22, KJV)

But the epistle to the Romans begins with these words:

"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, ... To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." (Rom 1:1, 7, KJV)

So, is Paul the author of the epistle attributed to him or not? It does require study to clarify the matter.

Robertson's Word Pictures:
"I Tertius (εγω Τερτιος). The amanuensis to whom Paul dictated the letter. See 2Thess 3:17; 1Cor 16:21; Col 4:18."

Matthew Poole, 17th century Puritan in his commentary:
"Tertius; this was the apostle’s scribe or amanuensis,

who wrote this Epistle, either from his mouth, or from his papers: he put in this salutation by the apostle’s licence."

Heinrich Meyer, the 19th century German Greek scholar has a more full comment on this:
"Rom 16:22. Tertius, probably an Italian with whom the readers were acquainted, was at that time with Paul in Corinth, and wrote the letter, which the apostle dictated to him. The view that he made a fair copy of the apostolic draught (Beza, Grotius) is the more groundless, since Paul was wont to dictate his epistles (1Co 16:21; Gal 6:11; Col 4:16; 2Th 3:17). In his own name Tertius writes his greeting; for it was very natural that, when he called the apostle’s attention to his personal wish to send a greeting, his own greeting (which Grotius and Laurent, without sufficient ground, relegate to the margin) would not be dictated by the apostle, but left to himself to express. In Rom 16:23, Paul again proceeds with his dictation. Quite groundlessly, Olshausen (following Eichhorn) thinks that Paul wrote the doxology immediately after Rom 16:20, and did so on a small separate piece of parchment, the other blank side of which the scribe Tertius used, in order to write on it in his own name Rom 16:21-24. But how incontestably ὁ συνεργός μου, Rom 16:21, points to Paul himself!"

Translated by the Revised English Bible, an 1989 UK version:

"(I Tertius, who took this letter down, add my Christian greetings.)" (Rom 16:22, REB)

The REB has v22 in parentheses, inserted between v21 & 23 which seems to clarify the meaning well.

Shallow proof texting without understanding the real meaning of each particular text within its context can be very misleading and can be disastrous if dealing with the likes of a Watch Tower false prophet. I am NOT calling anyone on CC a JW, but merely alerting to the danger of shallow proof texting when you are encountering a cult.

These type arguments remind me of twice in the past arguing against Conspiracy Theorists that it was a plot of the US Government who set explosive charges instead of the Islamic Terrorists who attacked the WTCs, bringing them down. LOL

 

[Dino246]

Dino, I agree. You can't merely list verses, read into them your own thoughts and think you've presented truth. You must study, and even Paul in 2 Tim. 4:13 requests that his "books" be brought to him, so Paul was educated from a broad perspective. You can get bogged down trying to reply to long lists of verses, but let me give an explanation of one verse used to deny that Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans.

"I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord." (Rom 16:22, KJV)

But the epistle to the Romans begins with these words:

"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, ... To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." (Rom 1:1, 7, KJV)

So, is Paul the author of the epistle attributed to him or not? It does require study to clarify the matter.

This is an elementary matter: Paul is the author, and Tertius is the penman. Only fools and those with a foolish agenda would attempt to argue anything else.

 

[EddieRamos]

Further down in your post, you claim that there is no scriptural evidence to support the idea that Psalm 51 was David's words that God accepted. In the same way, there is no scriptural evidence that every word of the account of creation came from the mouth of God at the moment it was given to men to record. You're playing on both sides of the fence; get some integrity!

There are still other means by which God can inspire men to record what He wanted recorded, without it being dictation. Please, instead of displaying your ignorance and promoting wrong ideas, do your homework.


You're repeating your errors and ignoring correction. Dictation IS NOT THE SAME THING as inspiration... PERIOD.


No; again, you are cherry picking. The record of creation is one account where God was the only witness; there are many other cases where any one of many persons could have been the recording witness.


My goodness, man, how much more lunacy are you going to promote? Exactly who was grieved? David, or God?


You claim to have studied the passage, but you have completely overlooked what the verse actually says: prophecy. When God gave a prophetic word to someone, that word (words) did not come about by the will of man, but the holy men of God spoke as they were moved. This is not talking about Scripture in general. Not all of Scripture is prophecy.

I suppose it's normal for people not to agree on what they are able to see from the scriptures, however, from my point of view, I have laid out multiple times my position from the scriptures and will continue to do so as I am able. In the totality of your comments on this thread you have alluded to only 2 verses which didn't prove that all of scripture is not God breathed. That's fine and it's your choice to reply as you will, but when I compare what you say against the scriptures, it doesn't line up, at least not to me. No need for me to keep reiterating what I already wrote, so I suppose I can move on to additional scriptures which also speak to this issue so that anyone following along can do their own research.

In Isaiah 1:1, we see that Isaiah was given a vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem. In this vision, we also see that God spoke and then sent him to speak to the nation of Israel.

Isaiah 1:1–2 (KJV 1900)
The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. 2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: For the Lord hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, And they have rebelled against me.

This vision became the record of the book of Isaiah, but perhaps written by a scribe, as verse 1 denotes that it's not being written in the first person. Nevertheless, it's not the scribe who is of importance, but rather it's who gave the words and whose words were written down. If God gave a vision and spoke and Isaiah either wrote the words himself or dictated these words to a scribe, then whose words are these that were penned? God's or Isaiah's? Gods of course.

Then we begin reading of Isaiah actually going forth to proclaim the word of God which he saw in the vision. But this was more that Isaiah describing in his own words, what he saw or heard in the vision. In the scriptures, God equates a vision with His word. This means that when Isaiah went forth to describe what he saw in the vision, that it was actually God speaking through him the words of God and certainly not his own.

Isaiah 59:21 (KJV 1900)
As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, And my words which I have put in thy mouth,
Shall not depart out of thy mouth, Nor out of the mouth of thy seed, Nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, From henceforth and for ever.

This passage assures us that Isaiah did not speak his own words when he went to declare the word of God against Israel and that then his words were considered scripture. Not at all, this teaches us that the words he spoke were the result of God putting his very words in Isaiah's mouth to speak.

The same goes for Jeremiah, as God teaches us this same principle another way.

Jeremiah 1:9 (KJV 1900)
Then the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth.

So, not only did Jeremiah, at time, receive direct dictation from God, but every other word he spoke to the nation of Israel recorded for us in the scriptures, were the words from the mouth of God, not Jeremiah's.

What about the visions given to Ezekiel? They are to be viewed in the same light as Isaiah's and every other prophet.

Ezekiel 1:1–3 (KJV 1900)
Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river of Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God. 2 In the fifth day of the month, which was the fifth year of king Jehoiachin’s captivity, 3 The word of the Lord came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand (the will) of the Lord was there upon him.

Ezekiel 3:17 (KJV 1900)
Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning FROM ME.

What about all the words that came to Hosea? Once again, all God's words.

Hosea 6:5 (KJV 1900)
Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets (PLURAL); I have slain them by the words of MY mouth: And thy judgments are as the light that goeth forth.

What about king David? Was it his words that were recorded or was David speaking Gods words? Well, if we only look at the surface then we might conclude that a grieving man would only speak his own words (in the Psalms) and then God must have accepted them as scripture. But this is not the case.

2 Samuel 23 (KJV 1900)
Now these be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, And the man who was raised up on high, The anointed of the God of Jacob, And the sweet psalmist of Israel, said,
2 The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, And HIS WORD was in my tongue.

There is much more that can be posted as examples that serve for us to comprehend that when God says that all of scripture is inspired by him, that it means that it came from God's own mouth in any of the many ways we see God giving his words to man. This is what is meant by "God breathed". When all we can see is the prophets speaking and then God accepting their words as scripture, then we have sorely missed the mark. And since God is the one who is actually speaking, then he is most certainly the one dictating what is being said.

God teaches us that when people, who believed they were people of God (because God calls them, "my people") prophecy out of their own heart and not out of the mouth of God, then they are in grave error.

Jeremiah 23:16 (KJV 1900)
Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord.

You have given me no biblical reason to conclude that what you have suggested in any way shape or form is true. But I am more than confident in what I have put forth. If you or anyone still don't agree, then that is out of my hands.

 

[John146]

I suppose it's normal for people not to agree on what they are able to see from the scriptures, however, from my point of view, I have laid out multiple times my position from the scriptures and will continue to do so as I am able. In the totality of your comments on this thread you have alluded to only 2 verses which didn't prove that all of scripture is not God breathed. That's fine and it's your choice to reply as you will, but when I compare what you say against the scriptures, it doesn't line up, at least not to me. No need for me to keep reiterating what I already wrote, so I suppose I can move on to additional scriptures which also speak to this issue so that anyone following along can do their own research.

In Isaiah 1:1, we see that Isaiah was given a vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem. In this vision, we also see that God spoke and then sent him to speak to the nation of Israel.

Isaiah 1:1–2 (KJV 1900)
The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. 2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: For the Lord hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, And they have rebelled against me.

This vision became the record of the book of Isaiah, but perhaps written by a scribe, as verse 1 denotes that it's not being written in the first person. Nevertheless, it's not the scribe who is of importance, but rather it's who gave the words and whose words were written down. If God gave a vision and spoke and Isaiah either wrote the words himself or dictated these words to a scribe, then whose words are these that were penned? God's or Isaiah's? Gods of course.

Then we begin reading of Isaiah actually going forth to proclaim the word of God which he saw in the vision. But this was more that Isaiah describing in his own words, what he saw or heard in the vision. In the scriptures, God equates a vision with His word. This means that when Isaiah went forth to describe what he saw in the vision, that it was actually God speaking through him the words of God and certainly not his own.

Isaiah 59:21 (KJV 1900)
As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, And my words which I have put in thy mouth,
Shall not depart out of thy mouth, Nor out of the mouth of thy seed, Nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, From henceforth and for ever.

This passage assures us that Isaiah did not speak his own words when he went to declare the word of God against Israel and that then his words were considered scripture. Not at all, this teaches us that the words he spoke were the result of God putting his very words in Isaiah's mouth to speak.

The same goes for Jeremiah, as God teaches us this same principle another way.

Jeremiah 1:9 (KJV 1900)
Then the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth.

So, not only did Jeremiah, at time, receive direct dictation from God, but every other word he spoke to the nation of Israel recorded for us in the scriptures, were the words from the mouth of God, not Jeremiah's.

What about the visions given to Ezekiel? They are to be viewed in the same light as Isaiah's and every other prophet.

Ezekiel 1:1–3 (KJV 1900)
Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river of Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God. 2 In the fifth day of the month, which was the fifth year of king Jehoiachin’s captivity, 3 The word of the Lord came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand (the will) of the Lord was there upon him.

Ezekiel 3:17 (KJV 1900)
Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning FROM ME.

What about all the words that came to Hosea? Once again, all God's words.

Hosea 6:5 (KJV 1900)
Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets (PLURAL); I have slain them by the words of MY mouth: And thy judgments are as the light that goeth forth.

What about king David? Was it his words that were recorded or was David speaking Gods words? Well, if we only look at the surface then we might conclude that a grieving man would only speak his own words (in the Psalms) and then God must have accepted them as scripture. But this is not the case.

2 Samuel 23 (KJV 1900)
Now these be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, And the man who was raised up on high, The anointed of the God of Jacob, And the sweet psalmist of Israel, said,
2 The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, And HIS WORD was in my tongue.

There is much more that can be posted as examples that serve for us to comprehend that when God says that all of scripture is inspired by him, that it means that it came from God's own mouth in any of the many ways we see God giving his words to man. This is what is meant by "God breathed". When all we can see is the prophets speaking and then God accepting their words as scripture, then we have sorely missed the mark. And since God is the one who is actually speaking, then he is most certainly the one dictating what is being said.

God teaches us that when people, who believed they were people of God (because God calls them, "my people") prophecy out of their own heart and not out of the mouth of God, then they are in grave error.

Jeremiah 23:16 (KJV 1900)
Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord.

You have given me no biblical reason to conclude that what you have suggested in any way shape or form is true. But I am more than confident in what I have put forth. If you or anyone still don't agree, then that is out of my hands.

I'm in agreement that ALL SCRIPTURE is given by the inspiration of God. Not one word is the thought of man in which God gave His consent.

 

[EddieRamos]

... but let me give an explanation of one verse used to deny that Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans.

"I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord." (Rom 16:22, KJV)

But the epistle to the Romans begins with these words:

"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, ... To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." (Rom 1:1, 7, KJV)

So, is Paul the author of the epistle attributed to him or not? It does require study to clarify the matter.

The reason it's correctly denied that Paul wrote the book of Romans is because we can be 100% sure that he did not without turning to outside sources. But even though Paul did not write this book, he is still given the credit as the writer. The fact that you (among many) are not sure whether this is true or not, tells me that you think it could have been Paul who actually wrote it because of how he speaks in the first person (as you gave examples). But the Bible is clear that Tertius wrote the book of Romans.

Romans 16:22 (KJV 1900)
I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.

I've never heard of Tertius being preached from any pulpit as having anything to do with the book of Romans. All the credit was always given to the brilliant mind of Paul because he was so educated. But now that we know the truth here, as to the who the actual writer was, what do we do now with this part of the word of God? Do we put in our mental file as another fact we've learned and then move on? There may be some that do, but this is the Holy Word of God and God doesn't put words in His Holy Word just to fill space or only to give us a historical fact. If we stop here, we've missed the whole point of God giving us this bit of information.

God is teaching us that just as we "naturally" give the credit to Paul as the writer of this book, because the words were coming from Paul's mouth and being recorded by his scribe, Tertius, that we ought to do the same with every word of God, as ultimately, every word spoken in God's Word came from the mouth of God, and that we ought to view every writer of the Bible the same way we do Tertius, as merely a scribe.

 

[EddieRamos]

I'm in agreement that ALL SCRIPTURE is given by the inspiration of God. Not one word is the thought of man in which God gave His consent.

Agreed.

 

[Nehemiah6]

The reason it's correctly denied that Paul wrote the book of Romans is because we can be 100% sure that he did not without turning to outside sources. But even though Paul did not write this book, he is still given the credit as the writer.

There are a lot of errors in these statements, so let's set the record straight.

1. Only the fools and apostates deny that Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans.

2. Paul wrote by divine inspiration, not by turning to "outside sources". Peter confirms in His second epistle that ALL of Paul's epistles are to be regarded as Scripture, and puts them on the same level as the Hebrew Tanakh (OT).

3. Using a scribe or amanuensis to write your thoughts does not negate the fact that you are the writer and he is simply your secretary. So Paul did use others in some instances to write his epistles.

4. The Author of every book in the Bible is God. Therefore it is called "the Word of God". The apostles and prophets simply wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

5. The Holy Bible has been under severe attack since the 19th century by (1) Higher Critics, (2) Lower Critics, (3) apostates in mainline denominations, (4) various so-called "scholars", (5) Muslims, (6) evolutionists and (7) atheists. This is similar to the attacks on Jesus of Nazareth -- the Word of God.

 

[Dino246]

I suppose it's normal for people not to agree on what they are able to see from the scriptures, however, from my point of view, I have laid out multiple times my position from the scriptures and will continue to do so as I am able. In the totality of your comments on this thread you have alluded to only 2 verses which didn't prove that all of scripture is not God breathed. That's fine and it's your choice to reply as you will, but when I compare what you say against the scriptures, it doesn't line up, at least not to me. No need for me to keep reiterating what I already wrote, so I suppose I can move on to additional scriptures which also speak to this issue so that anyone following along can do their own research.

In Isaiah 1:1, we see that Isaiah was given a vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem. In this vision, we also see that God spoke and then sent him to speak to the nation of Israel.

Isaiah 1:1–2 (KJV 1900)
The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. 2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: For the Lord hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, And they have rebelled against me.

This vision became the record of the book of Isaiah, but perhaps written by a scribe, as verse 1 denotes that it's not being written in the first person. Nevertheless, it's not the scribe who is of importance, but rather it's who gave the words and whose words were written down. If God gave a vision and spoke and Isaiah either wrote the words himself or dictated these words to a scribe, then whose words are these that were penned? God's or Isaiah's? Gods of course.

Then we begin reading of Isaiah actually going forth to proclaim the word of God which he saw in the vision. But this was more that Isaiah describing in his own words, what he saw or heard in the vision. In the scriptures, God equates a vision with His word. This means that when Isaiah went forth to describe what he saw in the vision, that it was actually God speaking through him the words of God and certainly not his own.

Isaiah 59:21 (KJV 1900)
As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, And my words which I have put in thy mouth,
Shall not depart out of thy mouth, Nor out of the mouth of thy seed, Nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, From henceforth and for ever.

This passage assures us that Isaiah did not speak his own words when he went to declare the word of God against Israel and that then his words were considered scripture. Not at all, this teaches us that the words he spoke were the result of God putting his very words in Isaiah's mouth to speak.

The same goes for Jeremiah, as God teaches us this same principle another way.

Jeremiah 1:9 (KJV 1900)
Then the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth.

So, not only did Jeremiah, at time, receive direct dictation from God, but every other word he spoke to the nation of Israel recorded for us in the scriptures, were the words from the mouth of God, not Jeremiah's.

What about the visions given to Ezekiel? They are to be viewed in the same light as Isaiah's and every other prophet.

Ezekiel 1:1–3 (KJV 1900)
Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river of Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God. 2 In the fifth day of the month, which was the fifth year of king Jehoiachin’s captivity, 3 The word of the Lord came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand (the will) of the Lord was there upon him.

Ezekiel 3:17 (KJV 1900)
Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning FROM ME.

What about all the words that came to Hosea? Once again, all God's words.

Hosea 6:5 (KJV 1900)
Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets (PLURAL); I have slain them by the words of MY mouth: And thy judgments are as the light that goeth forth.

What about king David? Was it his words that were recorded or was David speaking Gods words? Well, if we only look at the surface then we might conclude that a grieving man would only speak his own words (in the Psalms) and then God must have accepted them as scripture. But this is not the case.

2 Samuel 23 (KJV 1900)
Now these be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, And the man who was raised up on high, The anointed of the God of Jacob, And the sweet psalmist of Israel, said,
2 The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, And HIS WORD was in my tongue.

There is much more that can be posted as examples that serve for us to comprehend that when God says that all of scripture is inspired by him, that it means that it came from God's own mouth in any of the many ways we see God giving his words to man. This is what is meant by "God breathed". When all we can see is the prophets speaking and then God accepting their words as scripture, then we have sorely missed the mark. And since God is the one who is actually speaking, then he is most certainly the one dictating what is being said.

God teaches us that when people, who believed they were people of God (because God calls them, "my people") prophecy out of their own heart and not out of the mouth of God, then they are in grave error.

Jeremiah 23:16 (KJV 1900)
Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord.

You have given me no biblical reason to conclude that what you have suggested in any way shape or form is true. But I am more than confident in what I have put forth. If you or anyone still don't agree, then that is out of my hands.

Perhaps if you take the time to study logical fallacies, you will see them in your own arguments. I can't convince you of that which you refuse to learn.

Just because some verses, or even many verses, are the literal words of God, it does not mean that every verse is the literal words of God. You cannot make an exhaustive case out of a few examples. You have not made your case by a long shot.

Isaiah called himself a man of unclean lips. Was God calling Himself a man of unclean lips? Hardly. Your position is simply untenable.

 

[EddieRamos]

I believe that those who criticize the King James Bible and tell us that the Hebrew Scriptures have been corrupted because of the example you stated, “And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, HE SAITH, AND LET ALL THE ANGLES OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.” are entirely missing the point.

The inspired writer to the Hebrews is NOT quoting from some mythical Greek Septuagint but rather is referring to something that has not yet happened that WILL BE SAID at the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Holy Ghost is not referring to a past event, but rather to the future and no specific quote from the Old Testament is in the mind of the writer of the book of Hebrews.

It's not easy to keep up with all the comments made here, as I'd like to. As a result, I missed this until I went back to check. If I can help, I would like to point out that Hebrews 1:6 is not a quote from the Old Testament (as you said). Usually (but not always), we can tell if it's an Old Testament quote because the text says, "as it is written". In this case, it helps if we study the tenses in which the words were spoken. This will also help us to correctly place this declaration in its proper place in time.

Hebrews 1:6 (KJV 1900)
And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

The first word to examine here is the word "bringeth". This word is Strong's #1521, and if we look up the tense of the word, we will notice that it is in the Aorist Subjunctive tense. The aorist is the past tense, and the subjunctive denotes purpose. The next word to examine is the word "saith". This word is in the present indicative active tense, not future tense. So, then how can we have Christ (the first begotten) brought forth, in the past tense, while is God actively declaring in the present tense, "let all the angels of God worship him"?

It helps is we understand when Christ was the first begotten, and it wasn't in the New Testament era. Even though the word "first begotten" and "firstborn" are the same Greek words, and Christ was the firstborn child of Mary, the Bible takes it back much farther than that, as it declares that Christ was the first begotten (firstborn) of every creature.

Colossians 1:15 (KJV 1900)
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn (firstbegotten) of every creature:

The words, "every creature" can also be understood as "all creation". Christ is the firstborn of all creation. This helps us understand John 1 where we're told that it was Christ who made all things. The next verse of Colossians 1 agrees with this.

Colossians 1:16–17 (KJV 1900)
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

So, God is placing the bringing forth of Christ as the firstbegotten into the world at some point very early on in creation, which agrees with the word, "bringeth" or "brought forth" which is in the past tense. It was since that time that God was and is, actively and presently declaring (even today) that all the angels of God are to worship him.

I hope this can be of some help.