Verbal plenary inspiration vs thoughts inspiration

So, I presume, that we all know/believe that Scripture is inspired by God.

Now some of us (group no 1) believe in

1. Verbal plenary (all, whole) inspiration (means that all of Scripture is inspired, and the inspiration extends to the words used and not just general thoughts (“verbal”).

• That means that we literally believe that Jonah was swallowed by big fish, and we stubbornly rebut every attempt of free interpretation in sense that it could of be anything else but big fish.
• 
  
• And it also means that for us the whole creation process took day by day as it is written and not years or thousands of years.
• 
  
• We tend to look down on group no.2 (thought inspiration believers) sometimes we openly doubt their Christianity or even condemn them.
• 
  
• We love to point out that thought inspiration believers (group no 2) are in the same group with Ellen White and therefore completely heretical.

Group no 2
2. Partial or abbreviated inspiration, so inspiration related to thoughts or general ideas only (thoughts inspiration)

• We don’t really care that much if Jonah was swallowed by big fish, or whale or Loch-ness monster. And our faith is not shaken a bit if we might find discrepancies or mistakes in historical events and geographical locations, because what matter is that main thoughts are correct, divine and inspired by God.
• We know that no where does the Bible claim to be inerrant and that most of the “big” Christians during history (starting with St. Augustine and ending with Karl Bath) didn’t read the Bible literally.
• Sometimes we love to tease our sisters in group no 1 with big smile and question if they literally believe that Jesus is the door - physical wooden door with doorknob. etc. and we tend to view group no 1 as weaker in their faith.
• We are not thrilled to be in the same group with Ellen White at all, but that doesn’t scare us off.

My question for you, are you plenary verbal inspiration believer or thoughts believer?

NOTE 1: you can’t be in both groups
NOTE 2:
“As to the verbal side of the discussion, one point I want to make is that any connection between verbal inspiration and the words used can only apply to the original Greek and Hebrew. God did not inspire the words, “For God so loved the world.” Inspiration extends to οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον.
In other words, translations are outside the scope of the discussion. No translation is inspired, despite what certain pockets of people think about the KJV. English wasn’t a language until centuries into the second millenium, and the KJV translators certainly never claimed that their work was inspired.”
Bill Mounce

I believe Jonah was literal and in old earth creation. So I guess, for whatever bizarre reason, I'm disqualified.
Oh well.

I voted for option #1

I believe Jonah was literally swallowed by a big fish.
I also believe in a LITERAL creation account.

I take the Bible literally and I do stubbornly rebut any idea to the contrary. ESPECIALLY the satanic doctrine of evolution. What a dumb theory that is.
Evolution is against Scripture 100%.
I believe the creation story was LITERAL. And it was 24hour days. Why? Because the Sabbath was based on that

I do not believe there is one kind of inspiration applicable to all the Bible. I think it depends on the genre of the Book, if its a poetry, a prophecy or a letter to churches. There are also metaphors, anthropomorphisms and other literary instruments used in the Bible.

Sometimes, just the message is inspired. Sometimes even words. There can be also added texts to the original readings that are wise, but do not have to be specially inspired. There are also some purely human changes in the texts, originated in bad copying or simply by people putting their commentaries into the text.

Ah there is the problem with group 2 as well! "big" Christians, I like you how you put it in " ". Because Augustine had terrible doctrine. He believed in getting rid of original sin by baptism, he is the church father that calvinists go back to. (Note: Calvinist church history stops at Augustine, because the earlier church fathers contradict the calvinist teachings, therefore when they talk church history, its only Pelagius vs Augustine zzz).
He is heralded as a great theologian by the same people who make a big deal of "THA GREEK" yet Augustine didnt even bother to learn greek, he spoke Latin. Hence why the failure in the Latin Vulgate on Romans 5:12.
And you are CERTAINLY right that Augustine did NOT read the Bible literally. You read what some of these guys write and comment, and the entire OT is just an allegory to them.

When it says God will gather Israel again, it doesn't really mean that.
When it says mount of Olives will split in half, it doesnt really mean that. When it says people will go to Jerusalem, it doesn't really mean that, it means they "join The Church". Or something like that.
Any time you see Jerusalem or Israel in the OT its often spiritualized into "The Gospel Church". Ridicilous really. Good luck trying to evangelize jews with that story.

"Hey guys, you know how the Bible says you were scattered, and then will be regathered? Yeah thats not gonna happen, see, you were scattered literally, but a DIFFERENT group of people will be regathered, spiritually. Isnt it great?"

Augustine being part of Group 2 i dont think is a great "positive"

Umm... yeah... that whole post by the OP didn't sound biased at all.





For the record, there are many many many different views on inspiration and inerrancy, but not all of them are considered orthodox or Biblically supported.

On the other hand, if you have a weak view of inspiration, you probably aren't concerned about your view being Biblically supported.



This whole issue is rooted in some serious differences in epistemology.





---

Also, though I'm sure the OP only had good intentions, and was only trying to share her thoughts and opinions,...
this is really an extraordinarily complex set of issues that can't be dealt with in a little forum poll.

There is enormous contention just over the definitions of words like "inspiration" and "inerrancy".
So if scholars have trouble even agreeing on definitions, then these really aren't issues we can tackle so casually.


Coming Problems:


1. The first thing we're going to see are very broad, or haphazard definitions and explanations of the key words.

2. The next thing we're going to see are people arguing over nuances of terms that have never even been satisfactorily defined in the first place.

3. Then we're going to see people conflating entirely different terms, like inspiration and inerrancy, along with all of the supporting terms.

4. Then we're going to see people with differing views completely mistating and misapplying the purported views of their opponents.

5. And when it all comes down to brass tacks, we're going to see it all hinges on differences in epistemology which are never going to be rectified in a forum debate.

6. Essentially, we've just opened up something every bit as complicated and nuanced as the Calvinist/Arminian debate.


So it's fine to discuss these things... but the definitions aren't really settled by these cursory definitions; the poll doesn't really explain what is being polled; and the people arguing aren't going to be clear on what their opponents are arguing.


I just wish we didn't start this on a Sunday when people are trying to relax!!!






...

There was pleny of it going on

I didn't and won't vote, because the options are neither complete nor adequately representative even as they are. It's essentially a false dichotomy with an extra option.

God inspired all Scripture. He doesn't say exactly how, and He doesn't say exactly what that means. It is clear that some of Scripture is literal, some is poetic, some is representative (metaphorical or allegorical), and some is expressed through the emotions of humans and therefore may be all, some, or none of the above.

The danger with "verbal plenary" is that it leads to problems with interpretation and arguments about precise wording in English, which is patently ridiculous as God didn't inspire the Bible in English. Some KJV-only advocates take this view. The danger with "restricted thoughts" is that it leaves far too much room for the reader to interpret it according to their own worldview and disregard what they find obscure or uncomfortable. Neither is sound.

Instead of taking an all-or-nothing approach on this matter, it is better to learn about different genres and the contexts in which the various books were written, trust that it really is inspired by God as Paul wrote, and do the homework to understand it both in its original application and its present application.

There can only be ONE kind of Bible believer -- the one who believes that every word in the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures was a word of God and a word from God.

In the KJV, the translators were very careful to ensure that no reader would mistake their words for the words of the Holy Spirit. Therefore they placed their own helping words in italics, and one could take them or leave them.

For example "unknown" in italics as related to "tongues" (which should have consistently been "languages") has created more confusion than anything else. But we can ignore "unknown" since that is not is the Greek text, and also substitute "language(s)" for tongues.

Which means that only a word-for-word translation (as far as possible within the limits of translating) can ever be a true Bible. Dynamic equivalence (as presented in the NIV) is merely a paraphrase, and frequently quite misleading.

Wow, "I" think I'll just heap condemnation on everyone who doesn't see things exactly as "I" do.

What rot.

Not really. Just take some time to compare the words of the NIV to the actual Greek text and what it says. Here's one example (Acts 17:26)

New International Version
From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.

King James Bible
And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

What does the actual text say? Is it a reference to Adam ("one man") or is it a confirmation that the human race is actually one race ("one blood")?

ἐποίησέ τε ἐξ ἑνὸς αἵματός πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων, κατοικεῖν ἐπὶ πᾶν τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς, ὁρίσας προτεταγμένους καιροὺς καὶ τὰς ὁροθεσίας τῆς κατοικίας αὐτῶν·

Of course, since the NIV is based upon the corrupted critical text, "one blood" was chaged to "one man". But that is a huge change of meaning.

ἐποίησέν τε ἐξ ἑνὸς πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων κατοικεῖν ἐπὶ παντὸς προσώπου τῆς γῆς, ὁρίσας προστεταγμένους καιροὺς καὶ τὰς ὁροθεσίας τῆς κατοικίας αὐτῶν,

Blah blah blah. You have a very critical and self-righteous tone towards anyone who holds a different opinion on any matter.

I'm not interested in your arguments about translations in a thread about inspiration.

I believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible.

Quantrill