A. Scott Berg had Katharine Hepburns approval to write this book...he spent much time with her...and much of the book is her own words. Mr. Berg also interviewed employees, friends, co-workers and much of the book contains stories of their interaction with her. Mr. Berg likewise wrote about his conversations with Ms. Hepburn and brought his interpretation of the stories into the writings after studying her papers, contracts, etc...
So, this book is "inspired" by Katharine Hepburn, but written by A. Scott Berg. Is everything in this book exactly as it happened? Probably not...many musings were stories told by others of their interpretation of events...many musings are Mr. Bergs thoughts about the lady.
II Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is given by inspiration of God...likewise the Bible was inspired by God...but, written by human beings. Why can you not realize that these authors brought into their writings their own ideas, prejudices and customs of the day into their book.
2007-05-04 03:35:48 · 5 answers · asked by G.C. 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The stories in the Bible were handed down..many times through unwritten stories handed down from generation to generation...
The Bible was not written by God..but, inspired by God...why can't fundamentalists accept this fact and accept the Bible for what it is....not God's specific words...but, humans words about God...
...just using Katharine Hepburn's book as an example...no, she is not God..no, her book is not on the level with the Bible...just trying to draw the correlation between "inspired"...
2007-05-04 03:36:23 · update #1
LOL...way to make a point, but I definitely agree with you. "Literalists" so-called are imbeciles. See - as always! - primoa. "It has no mistakes, it is 100% accurate and genuine." These people remind me of OJ Simpson...lol. As if repeating a blatant lie enough times makes it true.
There are plain errors of fact in the Bible, there are discrepancies in accounts of events, there are obvious fables that idiots mistake for history.
This is not to say that the Bible is devoid of Truth-with-a-capital-T - Truth of a "mystic" or "spiritual" order; but it IS to say that people who attempt to derive (e.g.) their cosmology from Genesis are backwards troglodytes with a complete misconception of both spiritual and intellectual truth.
2007-05-04 03:40:22 · answer #1 · answered by jonjon418 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I've had this discussion before, and it usually get's nowhere because the people who use the bad analogy you've written (noting your additional comments), assume that the men who were inspired to write as they were, somehow draw the conclusion that they've also injected their biases, own ideas, predjudices, and customs-all of which have nothing to do, obviously, with the text. Paul's own admission that he was a fallible man and unworthy of the calling of God certainly doesn't translate into including his own fallible biases, ideas, predjudices, etc into a text as enormously important as the bible. To do so would be for Paul or any of the apostles to deny the fact that they admitted that their revelations were from Christ, and that no interpretation of scripture was for private purposes. God is not the author of confusion-1 Colssians, 14:33.
2007-05-04 11:08:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
bottom line. i'm not going to make any of you change your mind. so i won't get into semantics. just food for thought. i'm just trying to put this into "context"....a concept many of you totally misunderstand and misuse
so..moving on. you wrote a whole question concerning one word..."inspire". one context is from current day. one is from around 2000 years ago or so....at least we think. here's the problem....
inspire means "to breathe IN...to". similar to respiration (breathing out), and perspire. same root. it had this meaning for many centuries. however, you are using a more recent definition. just as technology has increased at an exponential rate, (especially within the last 50 years give or take), the english language has morphed/evolved at an exponential rate recently, as today we experience the greatest percentage of english speaking people that the world has ever known (i.e. more probability for additional uses of words...slang and such)
take for instance "love". centuries ago, it would be difficult to use this as slang. (read shakespeare, or any other book that wasn't written in the last 100 years). However, NOW, we say such trivial things as "i LOVE ice cream". we have definitely "downgraded" the definition of love. that doesn't mean that we're bad. we've just taken the seriousness and immensity off a concept as big as love by equating it to a fancy for ice cream.
before you make such a grandiose comparison based on one simple word, and the literary works in which it was used, you have an obligation to the intellectual community to put it into the context of the times that it was written.
i mean, shoot, my nephew is "inspired" by Lebron James. Just a TAD bit of difference between the relationship he has w/ Lebron James, and a guy who supposedly saw his teacher feed 5,000 people out of 5 loaves and 2 fish. (John and Jesus).
how about a little perspective? don't forget that.
2007-05-04 11:57:03 · answer #3 · answered by blackhawks4life 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What we have in scripture is a direct result of God Almighty...
It all came by His sovereign will.
It has no mistakes......it is 100% accurate and genuine
If there are any minor textural errors, does that really negate the general message of salvation by grace through faith? I think not.
2007-05-04 10:39:41 · answer #4 · answered by primoa1970 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
very well put
2007-05-04 10:39:44 · answer #5 · answered by violet369 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋