All Scripture is NOT inspired!
All scripture is NOT inspired of YHWH
One of the passages of Scripture most often quoted to support the premise that “all Scripture” is given by “inspiration of YHWH[1], is II Tim 3: 16. The passage is invariably used as an authoritative Bible statement, that we can rest assured that all that we see written in the Bible, can be used with the assurance, that every word quoted in the passage, or sentence under consideration, is the inspired word and is therefore fully reliable. Notwithstanding, that there are many passages in Scripture, that record the words of very “un-inspired” folks, like from an “adversary” (a satan), or the words of various unscrupulous people (like the Pharisees) that are to say the least, quite remote from being, what one might consider inspired. There are also many Ancient writings, like civil documents, land sales, receipts, etc.
This being the case, is ALL Scripture really inspired? Or, is some Scripture inspired, and some not?
Let’s do an analytical study on the issue, and see for ourselves if ALL Scripture is inspired of YHWH.
A logical analysis of II Tim. 3:16, From the KJV of the Bible, we have the following quote:
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of YHWH, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
As we begin to correctly review this sentence, we immediately notice, (or should notice), that the word “is” is in italic, an indication in the KJV and most other versions of the Bible, that this word is NOT found in the original sentence. The verb “is” has been added by the translators in this sentence, because it was thought to be required for correct English. However, since this verb has been added, the question can be asked, is this verb “is” properly located in the sentence?
If we make the assumption that the verb “is” is correctly located, then it appears that we can assume that All Scripture “is” inspired by YHWH. In order to continue with our study, we should also review the word “scripture” since it is this that we are confirming as being “inspired.”
Upon further study we will discover that the word “scripture” is a Latin word, “from scriptural, or scriptum, a writing.” The basic root meaning of the Latin word “scriptum” in English is “writing.” Using the English definition of the word “writing” rather than the Latin word “scripture” our re-worded English translation of II Tim. 3: 16 would now read:
16 All writing is given by inspiration of YHWH, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Even though this is a correct translation of the passage in English, (if we use the added “is”) we are immediately struck with the realization, that this cannot be a correct or true statement. All writing cannot be given by inspiration of YHWH. Since we know without any doubt that there are many writings in this world which cannot be attributed as being inspired, this statement cannot be “true” as the KJV translated.
The conclusion we must make, is that the statement, “All writing is given by inspiration of YHWH …….” is false. However, if we remove the first added verb “is” from the passage; it will now correctly reads as:
16 All writing given by inspiration of YHWH, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
This is a correcEnglish translation of the passage, but reads a bit awkward because of the primary particle “and.” It is also awkward because of the location of the second verb “is” which was also added by the KJV translators, because it is printed in italic type.
If we take the liberty of removing the primary particle “and,” the passage will now read as:
16 All writing given by inspiration of YHWH is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
The passage now appears to read correctly and is in proper English, but we have removed a word. It is has been commonly acceptable to “add” words to make a Bible passage read correctly in English, but what about removing words? Are we now tampering with the original writing? Is there another solution? How does the passage under consideration really read in Greek, and will it stand correctly in English when directly translated from the Greek without additions of deletions?
The English word “writing” in Greek is “graph” from “grapho” (to ingrave), or to scribe, as to write. It is where we get our English word “graph.” The English word “writing” is a perfect use for the Greek word “graphe.” What about the primary particle the word “and.” In Greek the word translated “and” is “kai.”
Kai is a very common particle in Greek, and can be given may English alternates, subject to proper context. “Kai” is defined and used in English as “and, also, even, so, then, too, if, or, that, then, therefore, when, yet” etc. to quote a few examples.
If we replace the “and” with the word “also” and keep the second verb “is” the passage will now read:
16 All writing given by inspiration of YHWH is also profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
The passage now reads correctly and in proper English, correctly translated from Greek. We have not deleted any words, and have added only one English word for maintaining correct English. We have also shown that all writing is NOT inspired, and ALL writing is not profitable for doctrine. Only those writings that ARE inspired are profitable.
The correct rendering of II Tim. 3: 16 from Greek into English reads as follows:
16 Every writing inspired of YHWH, is also profitable for teaching, for proof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: so that complete may be the man of YHWH, having been thoroughly fitted for every good work.
The fact: Only those writings “inspired” by YHWH (God) are inspired. These writings are only found in the Hebrew Bible where the prophets claim inspiration. NOT in any of the Greek NT writings, where no one claims to have been inspired.
All rights reserved, Assembly of Yahweh, Cascade
http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com
This document may be freely reproduced without changes for educational purposes.
Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.
"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!
Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!
HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation.
Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.
MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)
Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser! Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen!
Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.
Smart Meter Cover - Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video).
| Online: | |
| Visits: | 1,599,910,811 |
| Stories: | 8,140,684 |
Whistler Blowers, Insiders
Well if putting to paper the apostles letters to the church’s and Jesus’s preaching to the gentiles is not inspired, I would say the OT has it’s own set of problems with being inspired.
In as much as you have translated the Greek to English, you might not want to leap to
You’re going to come up against it, Joke-annan, cherry picking scripture here in the bins.
You see 2 Tim 3:15 makes it very clear what “writings” carry the inspirational qualifier ie the Holy Scriptures.
Now if you could only prove the NT contradicts the OT then you might better be able to make your case.
As much as I appreciate the depth at which you have challenged biblical insertion, your opening statement regarding the devils words and that of the Pharisees was enough to convince me that something is wrong. We could also add a question mark regarding the advice of Jobs friends.
But what really is the goal of scriptural interpretation? Is it not to support a relationship with Yeshua and isn’t it the Holy Spirit’s job to lead us into all truth? When relationship with YHWH is the goal we learn to automatically dismiss any and all interpretation that fails to place Him first. In other words the interpretation of men fails to support that which is inspired and made alive in him.
Friend, you really are a mess. Let’s try to keep things in order, shall we?
You wrote:
“From the KJV of the Bible, we have the following quote:” (bold added)
See there, Johnny? When I changed your quotation, I made a point of noting that fact. Because a quotation is meant to be rendered verbatim and completely unchanged from the source quoted. Yet here we have your supposed quotation from the King James Version:
“…All scripture is given by inspiration of YHWH…”
Now is that really how the King James Version reads? Or have you changed it somewhat to suit your purposes…
You continue:
“As we begin to correctly review this sentence, we immediately notice, (or should notice), that the word “is” is in italic, an indication in the KJV and most other versions of the Bible, that this word is NOT found in the original sentence. The verb “is” has been added by the translators in this sentence, because it was thought to be required for correct English. However, since this verb has been added, the question can be asked, is this verb “is” properly located in the sentence?”
Wouldn’t it be better to go directly to the Greek at a time like this? Why even bother contemplating a middleman like the King James Version? But no – you’d rather insert still other middlemen into your equation and bring up LATIN – which had nothing to do with the original text or the King James Version and has nothing to do with either of them today.
How about THIS – let’s go directly to the Greek and ignore both the King James Version and Latin.
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ Α΄ 3:16
(We’ll take this directly from the Textus Receptus, from which the King James Version is derived, but it should be noted there are textual variants in this verse, though none of them impact the portion of the verse here being discussed)
πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν πρὸς ἔλεγχον, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ
So to begin with:
πᾶσα — ALL γραφὴ — SCRIPTURE – θεόπνευστος – GOD-BREATHED
As you rightly note, the Greek verb ‘is’ (estin) is not included in the clause. Does that matter? Not at all. Very often ‘is’ ‘and’ or ‘the’ are implied in the original and because Greek grammar involves different forms and constructions than English grammar, this is not considered a problem. Conversely, the definite article ‘the’ very often appears in the Greek yet is not translated into the English; for example THE Jesus or THE Paul often appears in Greek, but since that’s not how we communicate in English, we render the verses accordingly as people will more easily comprehend them in their native tongues. This is basic translation.
Next you raise a complaint about the definition of the Greek word γραφὴ (graphay) – or, you would have done, but you opted instead to complain about Latin, which has nothing to do with this issue one way or another. So your problems are compounded by the inclusion of unnecessary and irrelevant material. Do you ever hope to arrive at a meaningful understanding of Truth in such ways?
Ignoring BOTH Latin and English, let us seek our information where it matters most:
The Greek word γραφὴ used in 2 Timothy 3:16 and rendered into English as ‘Scripture’ is defined as follows by first the Strong’s Concordance:
Original Word: γραφή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: graphé
Phonetic Spelling: (graf-ay’)
Short Definition: a writing, passage of scripture, the scriptures
Definition: (a) a writing, (b) a passage of scripture; plur: the scriptures…
…and additionally by HELPS Word-Studies:
1124 graphḗ – properly, writing. 1124 (graphḗ) is used 51 times in the NT – ALWAYS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE, i.e. the inspired, inerrant writings of the Bible (the 66 books of Scripture, 39 in Hebrew, 27 in Greek). (bold and all-caps added)
[But note this, which you claim does not exist…]
[The NT generally uses 1124 (graphḗ) for the Hebrew Scriptures (the OT) – but see also 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Pet 3:16. 1124 (graphḗ) was used for the Hebrew Scriptures as early as Aristeas
http://biblehub.com/greek/1124.htm
That’s an acceptable way to uncover true word meaning, friend. Leave Latin and English out of it completely. We are interested in what the authors of Scripture meant. ONLY. We are not interested in what translators or Catholic scribes have to say on these matters.
Continuing, you wrote:
“The conclusion we must make, is that the statement, “All writing is given by inspiration of YHWH …….” is false.”
But it is plainly apparent that to reach your meaningless conclusion, you had first to consult meaningless information. Again, that is no way, ever, to arrive at a solid understanding of Truth – not when considering the Word of God, but neither when considering the things of the world.
“Kai is a very common particle in Greek…”
Really? A particle is a word that has a particular grammatical function but does not obviously belong to any particular part of speech. KAI is a conjunction (most commonly rendered as ‘and’). It is not a particle.
Now THIS is simply stunning:
“The passage now reads correctly and in proper English, correctly translated from Greek.”
That is a bold-faced lie, friend. The Greek is easy to translate into English. What is not so easy, are the machinations needed to twist simple language in order to make IT fit what you believe. That is always the problem when considering errant teaching, such as yours. We find, in all cases, folks who labor to deform the Word of God in an effort to protect personal beliefs or personal wants. WHY, for the sake of everything decent, isn’t it better to simply get out of the way and let the Word of God do the teaching?
ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD-BREATHED AND IS PROFITABLE FOR TEACHING (but not if we deform it), FOR REPROOF (but not if we warp it), FOR CORRECTION (but not if we contaminate it by viewing it through the lens of foreign and irrelevant material) AND FOR TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS.
And yes, friend – that last ‘and’ was inserted into this perfectly viable and healthy translation because it is implied in the original Greek.
Beef Supreme…My hero…
Assembly of true Israel … shaking head back and forth while crossing fingers over -> Shame Shame on you.
I don’t get it.
Please expound.
Beef: The offending article was beyond my reach to filet layer by layer. I only could only think, why does he start out translating the word Scripture into the word “writing”, when we use the word scripture as given.
Reading your thoroughly delightful autopsy report on this body of twisted conclusions by Assembly of True Israel, I could only applaud the level of expertise you brought to bare with your comments of clarification and saving another from erring in Assembly’s favor. Ergo… Hero …
Got it. And much obliged.
But it’s all in a day’s work down here in the BINs!!!
To those reading the exchanges with the individual named “Beef Supreme” be careful, he sounds like he is familiar with Greek, but he is not. A simple example is his comment “against me” for me calling the Greek word “kai” a principle particle. The fact is, the “Greek” word “kai” is a principle or primary Greek “particle.”
When translated into English the “Greek” word “kai” it is often substituted with a “conjunction” such as “if” “and” “but” “also” “so” “then” “indeed” “likewise” “moreover” “or” “so” “that” “then” “therefore” “when” “yea” “yet,” (some examples of the choices).
The problem is, when “KAI” is translated into English, it gives a lot of “liberty” to deceptive translators, or it gives individuals the freedom to use the word to their advantage. The point I am making, is to be careful. I have seen a lot of giberish in the comments made to my documents, some do have merit, but many others use inapplicable words and technical sounding words that do nothing but comdemn and complicate, and attempt to puff themselves up with their word usage.
Always look for truth and always do your own diligent study.
I will be limiting my comments on this forum, it is not worth my time
For comments to me please use the comment link found on:
http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com
Yet another tell-tale mark of the self-anointed masters who enter into these waters to teach, but never to learn…
…is when they begin talking ABOUT their opponents, as if speaking past an unruly house guest in an effort to address an adoring audience. Am I blocking your light? Will the simple ones fail to see your brilliance on account of my incessant flailing?
John. These are not your waters. You are new here. If were not new, you would know by now there are plenty of folks here who observe the CONTENT of all exchanges. In other words – you do not need to inform the readers how to make their decisions. The readers are more than capable of making their own decisions without you guiding them every step of the way.
“The problem is, when “KAI” is translated into English, it gives a lot of “liberty” to deceptive translators…’
And? Does that do anything to mollify the bluntness of your grammatical error? There are rules to New Testament Greek 101. Follow them or break them. You made a mistake, John. I called you on it. Wouldn’t it have been easier to simply admit: WHOOPS!!! I said καί is a particle. I should have said conjunction. Honest mistake.
???
You could have, for instance, accused me of making an error the last time I included καί in a post, because I inadvertently utilized a grave accent mark, rather than an acute, which, considering the application in which I was using the Greek word, even in a conversation written in English, was erroneous. Why didn’t you call me on the error, John?
“I have seen a lot of giberish (sic) in the comments made to my documents, some do have merit, but many others use inapplicable words and technical sounding words that do nothing but comdemn (sic) and complicate, and attempt to puff themselves up with their word usage.”
Let us say, for the sake of argument, that what you just said is true. WHY, then, haven’t you attempted to address the portions of the commentary which even you admit have merit? Why? Because you are unequal to the task. You have imagined yourself as someone special. But we have seen all of you come and go – and make no mistake about it, friend… you are all alike. You all say the same things, you all take offense at the same objections, and you all utterly fail to offer a defense for your beliefs. You come here ONLY to preach your own private doctrine. You do not come to engage in conversation with brethren. You have NO humility. You have NO willingness to even admit the possibility that your doctrine MIGHT be lacking. You put yourself in a category with God, and you relegate the rest of Adam-kind to a sub-category. Who is your equal, John? Not even Christ is your equal, because you have no regard for the things He said.
“Always look for truth and always do your own diligent study.”
Diligent study is worthless unless we adhere to the guidelines for study given to us in the Word of God. You are not your own savior, John. No amount of study will ever be able to gain you access into the Kingdom of Heaven. The right thing done for the wrong reason amounts to the wrong thing done. Always. No exceptions.
“I will be limiting my comments on this forum, it is not worth my time…”
And no wonder!!! You’ve seen the reception you earn!!! Why, even our Preterist sister Gina was not smitten with your sentiment for very long. She sniffed you out in a hurry. Boo? She knew you to look at you. Who then? For whose benefit would you remain here? Introduce me to this receptive audience to whom you’ve taken to speaking past this, your opponent.
Why not take stock of our exchange? Why not consider your ways? Why not go away and at least contemplate the possibility that you’ve been given some appropriate and sensible responses to the material you’ve made available for our examination?
Why? Because it’s beneath you to do so. Because you are in a class above the rest of us. Because, by virtue of some *unseen* power even you admit you cannot comprehend or even identify (danger…danger…danger), you’ve been made a master of the doctrine you preach.
Reel it in, man.
Take a deep breath and see for yourself – you dwell down here in a fallen and cursed world with the rest of us. You do not soar aloft on angels’ wings. You are a hapless and misbegotten creature, like the rest of us. You stand in need of a savior, just like the rest of us. You are NOT your own savior. You never will be. Look UP – not in.
DENY YOURSELF.
[Break the pattern, John. Be the first of your kind to meet the board on equal terms. Engage us in conversation. Condescend from your perch and have a dialogue with us. Stop teaching for a minute and take care how you hear…]
“…relegate the rest of Adam-kind to a sub-category…”
I would add…
…it’s been trending lately, this execrable notion of all descendants of Adam being WHITE.
I cannot imagine a more disgusting perversion of the Word of God and I will assail this wicked doctrine wherever I encounter it. ONLY those who believe Moses, the Apostle John, the Apostle Paul, and GOD HIMSELF are all liars…
…could ever entertain this notion for more than two seconds time.
Not only have you relegated Adam-kind to a category beneath you…
…you’ve relegated all non whites to a category beneath Adam-kind.
This is wickedness.
Tell us Mr. Know-it-all, was the individual named “Adam” in Genesis 2, from the “Adam-kind” race, since he was the origin man of all the races on the Globe that you appear to believe were wiped from the globe during the flood of Noah?
Was Eve really the mother of all the living? I mean….think about that for a minute?? Was the enchanter (who some call a snake, or Satan), the one in the garden; the one that deceived Eve, part of a race of people, or was he a loner? Did Noah have a Negro son, an oriental son, an Indian son, and a completely mixed racial wife? Noah himself must have been Adamic right? After all he was perfect in his genealogy and walked with the Alueim (powers). Genesis 6:9. So he couldn’t have been of mixed blood.
Can you explain this “literally translated” (into English) Hebrew passage?
Gen 1:26 and Alueim (Powers) said, we will make an Adam in our image like our likeness and he will rule in the swimmers of the seas and in the flyers of the sky and in the beast and in all of the land and in all of the treaders treading upon the land,
Gen 1:27 and Alueim (Powers) fattened (created) the Adam-kind in his image, in the image of Alueim (Powers) he fattened him, male and female he fattened them,
Gen 1:28 and Alueim (Powers) respected them and Alueim (Powers) said to them, reproduce and increase and fill the land and subdue her and rule in the swimmers of the seas and in all the living ones treading upon the land,
Notice: All of this in Genesis 1, even before the Creation of the so-called First Adam-man in Genesis 2: 7.
Strong’s 119 -aw-dam’ – To show blood (in the face), that is, flush or turn rosy: – be (dyed, made) red (ruddy).
I suppose Strong’s is wrong eh.
[email protected]
“Tell us Mr. Know-it-all…”
Whose boat is being rocked?
“…was the individual named “Adam” in Genesis 2, from the “Adam-kind” race…”
That is noisome on its face. Adam isn’t from the Adam-kind race. Rather, man is so called after their original ancestor.
“…since he was the origin man of all the races on the Globe that you appear to believe were wiped from the globe during the flood of Noah?”
There is only one Adam in Genesis. All of Adam-kind comes from him. He was the first and only man created from the dust of the ground and given breath (spirit) by God. ALL other men come from Adam. All flesh was indeed destroyed in the flood, save for everything living on Noah’s Ark.
“Was Eve really the mother of all the living?”
Clearly. One man. One woman. He made them male and female.
“Was the enchanter (who some call a snake, or Satan)…”
The Word of GOD calls the נחש the נחש, John. You may translate that however you like. All of your imagined authority fails in the face of God’s authority. Did you come here to confuse? I’m afraid you’ll have to do a better job.
You wrote:
Was the Serpent “…part of a race of people, or was he a loner?”
You think the נחש was a race of people? Surely you’re just pretending to be as ignorant of Genesis. God wrote: The נחש was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD GOD had made.
Does that make the נחש a beast of the field, or something AKIN to the beasts of the field? Of this last question I am uncertain, but it seems clear to me it is either the one or the other.
“Did Noah have a Negro son, an oriental son, an Indian son, and a completely mixed racial wife?”
Your question fails on account of its being asked anachronistically. In the days of Noah’s flood, was there an Orient? Was there an India? How then could Noah’s sons be classified as such? You’re as careless with your language in debate as you are with your studies. I’ll ask the question you should have asked: Were Noah’s three sons White, Black and Yellow? And my answer is this: I have no idea because the Bible is silent on the matter. What the Bible is not silent about is the fact that the Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid ethnicities trace their roots to Noah’s three sons. Were the sons in fact as different in appearance as the facts of their progeny would seem to require? I have no idea, John. I wasn’t there and the Bible doesn’t get specific.
“Noah himself must have been Adamic right?”
All mankind who ever lived in this world, and every man woman and child alive today, are Adam-kind. Therefore, Noah was most certainly of that classification himself.
“After all he was perfect in his genealogy and walked with the Alueim (powers). Genesis 6:9. So he couldn’t have been of mixed blood.”
The problematic blood mixing which occurred at that time was between the בני האלהים and the daughters of men. The mingled seed which resulted from that union was a major reason for the judgment God sent on the entire world.
“Can you explain this “literally translated” (into English) Hebrew passage?”
There’s no need. We can cut right to the chase because your point is THIS:
“Notice: All of this in Genesis 1, even before the Creation of the so-called First Adam-man in Genesis 2:7…”
And we know because we study carefully that the Bible ONLY and EVER relays information to us in a rectilinear and chronological fashion, 1…2…3…4…etc. Right? The Bible NEVER relays information, then back-tracks to flesh out that information. Is this what I’m hearing from you? Is this really the quality of your hermeneutic?
“…Strong’s 119 -aw-dam’ – To show blood (in the face), that is, flush or turn rosy: – be (dyed, made) red (ruddy)…
“I suppose Strong’s is wrong eh.”
I grow weary of your juvenile capacity for comprehension. Because Adam was reddish or ruddy means that ONLY WHITE MAN is descended from him? THAT is your answer?
Pathetic.
Read again. Adam didn’t even have SKIN until the LORD GOD ejected him from the Garden. He had no flesh as you and I count flesh today. The flesh came later and it was a VERY important part of the curse, which you have utterly botched and completely misunderstood.
The only way you can ever hope to sustain your clownish doctrine is by rendering VACANT huge swaths of the remainder of the Book. Oh yeah. That’s precisely what you’ve done.
I think we’re about finished here. You’re not advanced enough in your thinking to have a meaningful conversation, even about language – so certainly not about the things God has revealed to us in His Word.
Before I take my leave, John…
Whether the source of your doctrine is indeed some unseen force outside of yourself, or merely the effluvium bubbling to the surface of your imagination, should be of some concern to you. It is possible you are getting your information from some source which is not your imagination. If that is the case, you need to address the question head-on and learn what you can about the source in order to identify it properly.
Because, fella… you are trafficking in devilish doctrine. And if it’s not coming from your imagination, then you had better get busy learning where it’s coming from.
God does not speak to us in such ways. I can tell you this both from first-hand experience and because I believe the Bible.
I’ll address you henceforth, or not, as I see fit. If I see you doing damage to any BIN readers, I will step in to offer countermeasures to your illicit teaching. But it doesn’t look to me like that will be necessary. No one here is buying what you’re selling. Just witness the effect you’ve had on everyone who has engaged you directly. Everyone has shown you their backs. As well they should have done.
You may be correct : the book of Esther
You are correct that God’s (YHWH)’s word is inspired, and any one of His agents, or messengers relaying His word did so as they were moved (directed) by the Holy Spirit. But we have to recognize who is speaking and to whom. If God or His prophets spoke, then the words were inspired. If another man not authorized to speak for God was speaking, such as Job’s friends, or Saul’s words to David, etc. then those were words of fallible men. And, we must recognize that the words of the Adversary (Satan) are lies, as he is the father of all lies and the truth is not in him (John 8:44).
So, if the Adversary was speaking, then we immediately know those words are lies. But, the Holy Spirit recorded everything that was presented in the Bible accurately. That is why the Bible is infallible, because the record was a true record of what God, men, and the Adversary said and did. We are expected to know who was speaking to be able to discern God’s inspired word from the lies of the Adversary, or the words of uninspired men.
However, your claim that none of the Greek NT is inspired is not correct, and you should reconsider your position. It was Christ himself that gave the Holy Spirit to His apostles before He ascended to the Father.
Christ told His disciples not to worry about what they were to say because their heavenly Father would direct them.
Matt. 10:19-20, “19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. 20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.” (KJV)
John 20:21-22,”And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” (KJV)
The disciples were then baptized (immersed) with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). The Holy Spirit was directing them in their teaching of the gospel of Christ from that point on. Christ sent them the Comforter just as He promised (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7).
The apostles were inspired, and so were those who received the gifts of the Holy Spirit who were baptized and then who had the laying on of the hands of the apostles. They prophesied, and spoke of visions, and spoke in foreign languages (tongues), interpreted foreign languages, etc. so that the people would believe the words as they were directed by the Holy Spirit.
Cornelius understood that Peter was speaking as he was commanded by God.
Acts 10:30-33,
“30 And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing,
31 And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.
32 Send therefore to Joppa, and call hither Simon, whose surname is Peter; he is lodged in the house of one Simon a tanner by the sea side: who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee.
33 Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.” (KJV)
Peter testified that the apostles were speaking as they were moved by the Holy Spirit throughout the preaching of the gospel of Christ, and in the letters to the churches.
1 Pet. 1:12, ” Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.” (KJV)
Peter was linking the teachings of the apostles with the OT prophets. Futher, Peter declared that the word was revealed to the apostles by the Holy Spirit, which the apostles then taught to the people.
2 Pet. 1:16-21:
“16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 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.” (KJV)
Peter, an apostle of Christ with the Holy Spirit, further testified that Paul was also preaching the word by the Holy Spirit.
2 Pet. 3:15-16, “And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (KJV)
Peter called Paul’s writings scriptures.
Paul was given the same wisdom by the same source as the first twelve also received it… from Christ. And, we can read again of Saul’s conversion to Paul as an apostle on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-20). He further testified that he spoke the testimony of God.
1. Cor. 2:1-5, ” And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” (KJV)
Gal. 1:11-12, ” But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (KJV)
Christ had the Spirit from His Father (Matt. 3:16) , and gave the Holy Spirit to His apostles. There can be no other conclusion but the apostles were inspired of God. There are many testimonies of the inspiration of the New Testament writings. Do not disregard them.
Gina, can you provide me with any “writings” in the Greek NT, where the author (by name) claims to be quoting the words “directly” revealed to Him by or through YHWH, that he is presenting and revealing to the people?
As a few examples, read: Isaiah 1:24; 3:16; 8:1,5,11; Jeremiah 1:1,2,4,7,11,13,14; 2:2,2,5; Ezekiel 1:3; 4:13; 6:1; 7:1, and I could go on, but do you get the picture don’t you?
Prophets must always be tested…….This is how the Hebrew Bibles teaches “you” to do it!
http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/Documents/Prophettesting3folder.pdf
http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/
You have to give consideration for a change in Covenants and what that means for the role of the prophet. The law and the prophets were given to us until the Messiah was to come; that was Yeshua. But as Yeshua past from deaf unto life he set precedent for a New Covenant. Within that order we see the emergence of the Apostle who administrated in the new covenant church. The old order was set aside for a better Covenant and that led us to hear the voice of Yah for ourselves.
“past from deaf unto life???” LOL ——- you know what I mean.
gordon
How is it you do not know Jesus Christ did not come to DO HIS OWN WILL?
Christ only spoke, taught and did the WILL of HIS FATHER. The words Christ spoke HE heard from HIS Father.
Christ came NOT to set aside the Torah, the Prophets and the Psalms. What part of “Think NOT’ do you not understand.
Do you not understand 2/3 of the prophecies in the Old Testament are for our day NOW?
Paul states the first contract IS passing away not that it HAS passed.
And How is it you do not understand the ONLY changes from the old to the new are the promises?/
The Parties to the contract remained the same and the “Consideration” remained the same except the Law was completed, it was only physical and Christ completed the Law by making it spiritual as well.
Now when you hate me you have transgressed the commandment “Thy shall not murder”.
The Promises were only physical and were increased to spiritual — that is the only change.
Gordon you will be judged by the Torah as was Jesus Christ.
If you are going to argue that Christ did not give the same Holy Spirit to the apostles that also moved and directed the prophets of the OT, then you are taking the position that Christ did not have the Holy Spirit, and was not the Son of God (YHWH). Be very careful, because you are denying Christ, and calling Him a liar which is blasphemy!
Please read my post “When Jesus Called Peter ‘Satan’!” – https://shreddingtheveil.org. Also here at the BIN /religion/2015/08/when-jesus-called-peter-satan-2494850.html