It is also plain that the inspiration of Scripture extends to every part of it. Even its historic records must be treated in the same way as its doctrinal statements. In fact, we can draw no line of separation between the two here, for some of the most important views of divine truth which the Bible contains, are embodied in the incidents which it narrates.
If we may not, then, speak of inspired facts, it is nevertheless evident that divine wisdom was needed by those who record these facts, lest they should be so stated as to intercept or obscure the light of divine truth which was let in upon the world in this way.
Nor can it be denied that divine wisdom was also needed for the selection of the facts which were to be recorded. In one word, we must recognize, from the first page of Scripture to the last, the presence of the Spirit of God, not destroying the individuality of the writers, but superintending its actings, prompting the communications which it was needful to make, restraining them from those which would have marred the design of their revelations, letting mind meet mind in the sacred page, and yet so pervading every portion with heavenly wisdom and divine grace, as to make the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, a volume which is all given by inspiration of God.
— Alexander MacEwan, ‘The Revelation Embodied in Scripture Supernatural, as Contradistinguished from the Productions of merely Human Thought and Genius’ in Patrick Fairbairn et al., Divine Revelation Explained and Vindicated: A Course of Lectures for the Times, Delivered in Glasgow in the Spring of 1866
MMM, yummy! Word salad with bullshit dressing!
Well, I think it’s an elegant statement of what I once believed. And I still believe that if it isn’t true, Christianity is utterly false. That’s why I couldn’t turn myself into a liberal Christian, though I made a good effort.
People who say things like that generally haven’t read the Bible and those who have read it will have read it through their rose colored glasses. Confirmation bias is an ugly thing that we all should work very hard to suppress seeking instead to learn as many true things as possible.
They haven’t read the bible, eh!
Well here’s what your bible says in 1 Samuel 15. Yahweh, through the false prophet Samuel, tell Saul to attack the Amalekites for what they were supposed to have done to Israel when they came up out of Egypt, nearly 400 years earlier.
This god commands the Israelis to attack the Amalekites, to kill not only their soldiers, but also their non combatant men, all their women, little children and babies with the sword. They were to murder the little children and babies for something that they were not responsible for.
Saul carries out his task by killing the whole population (except for King Agag and some of the animals which he was commanded to destroy). He killed all the little children and babies. Yahweh, through this false prophet Samuel. is displeased with Saul for not doing a thorough enough job.
This “bastard”, Samuel picks up the sword and hacks the captive King Agag to pieces. What a vile wretch he was!
You are the one who is reading the bible through rose coloured glasses. Didn’t Jesus tell his disciples to love their enemies, not kill them? Didn’t Jesus say that his heavenly Father is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked? Aren’t you commanded to be kind and compassionate like your Father in heaven?
The bible is a thoroughly evil book in much of the OT and in the NT book of Revelation. This book was not inspired by any god but much of it was written by bloodthirsty, violent, and very ignorant savages who created god in their own likeness.
Just commenting on the title, because honestly, I didn’t understand a word of the article. Does the book Songs of Solomon (I think) come directly from god? I’ve been told it represents god’s love for his people. God must have a dirty mind to think that way of us.
The quote was quite the word salad. ? The author is saying that, yes, humans wrote the words of the Bible, but they wrote exactly every word God wanted them to write. (Where can be find these inspired words? Not in translations. Not in the extant manuscripts. Only in the “original” manuscripts that, presently, do not exist.)
So, even if you believe (which I don’t) that God inspired the original authors of the Bible (whom we do not know, since we know only the names that have been attached to them by tradition), although we no longer have the original manuscripts, the ones we have now (including the translations) should still be considered as God-inspired and without error? Why? It’s clear from comparing the hand-written copies of Biblical manuscripts, written before the invention of the printing press, that scribes made omissions, additions, and just plain mistakes all the time.
I especially don’t get the adulation of the King James Version. Even the translators admitted they were subject to error, and included a preface outlining their points of view. Does that just get omitted from the Fundy versions?
Evangelical scholars believe that the sum of the extant manuscripts get us “close” to the originals. Thousands and thousands of differences in the manuscripts. Hard to say with a straight face that they are “close” to the originals.
Proponents of KJV-onlyism live with a lot of cognitive dissonance when it comes to their views on the Bible. Believing the KJV is inspired/inerrant is intellectually unsustainable.
Churches say a lot of silly things to try to clean up The Song of Solomon. It’s better for your mental health to admit that the Bible contains a variety of literary genres: advice, poetry, history (as history was then understood), prophecy, and others. This one looks like love poetry, so it’s likely to be just that–a pair of lovers, talking to each other, that somehow made it into the Bible, and has had to be “explained” ever since.
I read it as ‘don’t let the facts get in the way of the divine message’.
It reads much better than Matthew Henry.
Pointless comment. I used to go to Matthew Henry church in the walled city of Chester. It was an ugly modern building on a very rough estate. It had moved out of the city centre due to redevelopment, so this 1960s sanctuary incongruously had the rare 17thC organ and MH’s pulpit than drew ‘pilgrims’ to us. It had become unitarian, which must have had MH spinning in his grave. Then some fundies bought it. The estate was violent and sad. There was also a CofE church trying to survive there, it too had come from within the city walls, so, ‘St Andrews-within-the-walls’ had become ‘St Andrews-without-the-walls.’ Vandalism was rife, my children dubbed MH as ‘Matthew Henry-without-the-windows,’ because it regularly was, after the pubs closed on a Saturday night.
I would like to take a poll to see how many Christians (those whose traditions rely on solar scriptura, that is) have read Habakkuk or Haggai in full.
I’m sure I’ve read both more than once because I used the One Year Bible in the 90’s.
It really is true, though, that you lose what you don’t use. I thought for an instant I would tell you Habakkuk was my favorite OT prophet. But it was another H: Hosea. Didn’t Habakkuk prophesy the Babylonian captivity? I seem to remember the point of his prophecy was that God will use evil people to punish less wicked people. I can remember listening to J Vernon Magee teach Habakkuk.
Hi Bruce,
“Samuel said to Saul, ‘Yahweh sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of Yahweh. Thus says Yahweh of hosts, ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”
This barbaric savagery, supposedly commanded by God, is said by religious nutters to be the inspired Word of God. This command to exterminate children and babies is a command to murder totally defenceless ones in warfare.
The OT was written largely by very violent, barbaric and grossly ignorant savages totally lacking in compassion, healing-mercy and kindness. So if it was inspired by God, then their God is a violent and barbaric savage, and worse than the so-called devil.
These kind of stories are diabolical and any religious group that thinks that they are inspired by God has rocks in their head.
The highest proof Kool-Aid is hardly sufficient to warrant the gobbledegook Mr. MacEwan deviises. What disturbs me perpetually is that the people who wrote the Bible, the savages eloquently named by John Arthur above in his post, these same savages have children and abuse them with these horrible tales of mayhem and destruction. The triune God is a monster terrorizing children daily and used by whacko believers to ruin young lives. Praise be to the one God, the all-merciful (and other such cowflop) amen.