I was listening to a lecture on the psalms and the lecturer was getting around the "violent" psalms by saying that "after all, the psalms were written by humans, so they're not actually scripture".
But all scripture is written by humans! (as far as I know!) How can something written by humans be "inerrant"?
My belief is that the Scriptures, including the Psalms, were written by people who were inspired by God to write them, and are therefore inerrant.
While God inspires many people, to the point that virtually nothing is written without some kind of inspiration from Him, the inspiration of the Scriptures is in a class by itself. The Scriptures are Divine Revelation, meaning that every word is directly from God.
The Scriptures are therefore God Himself speaking to the human race, despite the fact that they were written by people who used terms and concepts that made sense to them, and despite the fact that the literal accuracy of Scripture is not what we would consider to be literal accuracy.
I would not consider the Bible to be very factually accurate. Nor would I consider all of it to be literally true. For example, the first 11 chapters are, I think, ancient myths - which in no way detracts from them being the Word of God.
The inerrancy of the Bible resides in the spiritual truth that it contains, which it communicates to people who understand it. While many individual statements are literally untrue in theological terms, such as that God is jealous and angry, these statements nevertheless convey a part of an overall truth - which can be understood when the Bible is considered as a whole.
Even its most immoral aspects, such as God ordering the annihilation of whole cities, or the Psalmist praying for Babylonian children to be dashed on the rocks, essentially communicate fundamental truths.
For example, the annihilation of so-called "wicked" cities communicates the power of God and the danger of opposing Him. Dashing even small children on the rocks means that even the smallest and most apparently harmless of evils are to be removed from your life. Literally, however, these actions and desires on the part of the Israelites were wicked to the extreme.
The purpose of the Bible is to lift the human race out of evil and lead them towards heaven. It can do this very effectively if it is understood and loved. However, since the human race has been, and in many ways still is, in a quite primitive and uncomprehending spiritual level, the imagery and examples of the Bible are often drawn out of and speak to those states. The Israelites were not good people, at least as they are portrayed in Scripture, but they could be used by God to teach eternal truths and to represent the path that every imperfect ordinary person can follow to heaven.
Well, I could go on and on. But that is my basic view of biblical inerrancy.
Great topic. It is important to clarify ideas on this subject on a religious website like this ship.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
My belief is that the Scriptures, including the Psalms, were written by people who were inspired by God to write them, and are therefore inerrant.
My belief is that the Scriptures, including the Psalms, were written by people who were inspired by God to write them, and are therefore capable of being errant. Mistakes have been made in transcriptions and mistakes in translations.
It seems that it is the nature of people to manage to stuff up anything that we get our hands upon.
The Bible is a continuing revelation of God to his people, God explaining himself and his nature to us. This being most fully explained in the person of Jesus.
bb
Humans will often color things their own way, even if they don't mean to, even if it is simply subconscious. That's the same reason why, when conducting drug research using people, it is important that, not only should the test subjects not be told whether they were given a real drug or a placebo, but the researcher administering the tests should not be told either. Otherwise, they might subconsciously administer drug-effectiveness tests to the subjects in such a way as to alter the results toward his bias. (i.e.- If a doctor was doing tests for a muscle pain relieving drug that he wanted to work, he might subconsciously touch the drugged patients back more softly than the placeboed patient's back when he says "Does this hurt?")
I have a rough time accepting that what we have today is still 100% without some error.
I think scripture is very valuable and contains very much truth but is neither inerrant or the supreme authority for some of the reasons held above. I don't believe God used people as human dictaphones when recording the scriptures but that the authors walked closely with God and his spirit.
I'd argue that supreme authority belongs to God alone, but that his authority is mediated to us thru the bible. It has authority because he does. I'm often struck by how seriously Jesus took the scriptures throughout the whole of his life. Those who follow him will surely want to do likewise.
Carys
quote:
Originally posted by Steve G:
Inerrancy always strikes me as rather a defensive position. Surely there are more positive things we can say about the bible than that it has no errors.
Good point. Maybe I am misunderstanding the thrust of the word, but I had connected it mainly with the absolute truth of the Bible's theological teachings, when these are properly understood.
I don't believe at all that the Bible is free of factual and redactive errors, or that it is always literally true. The simple fact that several different versions have come down to us, and that the various gospels disagree on minor points, should demonstrate that.
But the differences between the various versions are mostly trivial, as are the disagreements between books. And finds such as the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Bible has been remarkably accurately preserved over the years.
I take great comfort in the Bible as a reliable source of the truth in theological matters. This is what inerrancy means to me.
I'm not sure the clock is right.
For a Christian book to be inspired by God does not mean that it's author got it 100% right.
What distinguishes the Bible is it's subject material. It contains the stories behind the evolution of the jewish faith, which set the scene. But most importantly it contains the stories which surround Jesus, written in some cases by eye witnesses. It is because Jesus was special that the Bible is special.
That's what makes the Bible important in my faith. I take what it has to say seriously, but I don't tell myself that I must believe every word. If it seems to my conscience that it is saying something wrong, I generally believe that what is said is meant, and that it is most probably wrong.
I think, in such cases, Christians often look for clever ways of interpreting what the Bible says, when the most obvious explanation is that it is plain wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
I see no reason to treat the Bible as any different from any other man made account, written by men of God.
Is there any Christian denomination that makes this idea their official stance on the Bible? My impression is that most denominations officially consider the Bible to be the revealed Word of God.
I know that many church leaders and theologians would take this stance, but I wonder if any denomination has made it official. Probably it would be an unpopular move in many circles.
My position is that the letters (romans on...) are not inspired. I also do not believe they claim to be inspired. There is one verse that claims that all scripture is inspired, but that is obviously referring to scripture, at the time ie: OT.
Whether or not Acts is inspired is irrelevant, because it is a historical account, not necessarily inerrant, but not theological in nature.
I see no reason to believe in a literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis. I am willing to concede that the rest of the events in the OT might very well have happened. There is certainly credible evidence pointing towards the fact that the stories were NOT in fact made up at a late date to give the Israelites a "history" as a nation.
Shakespearean ASIDE:(this evidence would be that prices, ie the price of Joseph, when sold into slavery, is accurate for the culture of his time, but not for the time when critics would have us believe it is written, hence making it improbable that they knew the going rate of slaves hundreds of years after the event. Also Abraham's grim split-goat covenant with God was a common way of sealing a pact in his time, but would have been strange and remotely barbaric to the later jews.)
IMHO of course...
Atticus
Your other thoughts almost precisely echo my own.
I have never thought the letters were inspired, but were simply the doctrinal writings of the early church. I do consider them basically true, however, except a few of Paul's statements about women.
I think i was jooking... what I meant to say was the making of the looooove. And also to let us know that He's not such a stiff after all...It always means what the person using it requires it to mean, no more, no less. 
quote:
Originally posted by Ham 'n' Eggs:
"Inerrancy", when used in this context, never has a single specific meaning.It always means what the person using it requires it to mean, no more, no less.
This thread has got me thinking about "Biblical Inerrancy" -- which is, I confess -- not something I normally think much about. In particular it's got me thinking about the notion of what it would me to say the Bible contains "errors."
To take an example: While I think the first two chapter of Genesis do not give an accurate scientific account of the world's formation, I also do not think this is a matter of "error." It is not like God wanted to give us a scientific account but muffed it. It's bad science, but then it is not intended to be science. So no "error" is involved.
Similar examples could be taken from the New Testament: e.g. the two genealogies of Jesus. Maybe the point of the genealogies is something other than giving us an accurate account of Jesus' bloodline (which they obviously can't be trying to do, since they trace the genealogies through Joseph, whom Matthew and Luke both deny is the biological father of Jesus). So it isn't as if one or the other of them has made some mistake.
I guess my general approach to the Bible is that of Origen: it is all inspired (even the Epistles and (gasp) the Apocalypse). But the difficult passages (in this case, those that cannot be literally true) are there in order to push us to read beyond the literal, to grasp the "spiritual" or "mystical" meaning of the text. Perhaps Origen learned this from the rabbi that taught him Hebrew, since it is very close to rabbinic midrash.
My point here is that "error" may not be a very helpful category when approaching the Bible.
FCB
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Well then, what do we mean when we say, at the end of each reading, "the word of the Lord."? Is it really that or might is be not quite that?
I never say that. The Word of God is most definitely Jesus. "The Word was made flesh and live with us for a while."
bb
To argue that anything that is not literally true is either a mistake or a lie simply doesn't make sense and rather falls into the literalist trap.
Consider poetry - 'hail to thee blithe spirit, bird thou never wert'. Is this true? Literally, no - a nightingale is in fact a bird. So is the statement a lie or a mistake? Well neither, it's an attempt to communicate what a marvellous creature the nightingale is. The categories of true and false are modified by literary genre. The tricky bit is deciding which bits of scripture fall into which genre.
No matter what the purpose of the statement is, if it is false, then it is false. Poetry is accepted because we know that the author is not actually saying that the bird is literally not a bird. We know he is trying to explain how he sees it as something more than it is. But anyone would have a difficult time of explaining how giving the created order of things in the incorrect order could ever be considered a poetic or metaphorical statement of any similar measure.
To me, it is evidence that when a story gets passed by mouth over time, it gets altered a little bit here and there, even by accident in very small amounts. And no one can deny that if one part of a wholly true story has been altered, then we can call that part a "falsehood" as it relates to what was originally told.
What it all comes down to is that this "falsehood" was either placed in the Bible on purpose or by accident. If someone knew that it was an "elaboration" when they said/wrote it, then it was done on purpose. If someone thought they were doing it the right way, but messed it up, then it was done by accident. There is no escaping that fact.
To me, the only logical and resonable options are that either Moses goofed up God's original story, or it was slowly altered over time, while being passed by word of mouth, or someone responsible for passing it along changed it on purpose.
I do not see how it could have been any form of poetic statement or anything other than either a direct purposeful alteration (lie) or an accidental alteration (mistake) from the original story, given by god with the correct order.
quote:
But anyone would have a difficult time of explaining how giving the created order of things in the incorrect order could ever be considered a poetic or metaphorical statement of any similar measure.
But you have a different order in Genesis 1 from Gen 2. I find it hard to take the actual words of the Bible serioulsy, and hold to most theories of inerrancy. (I try to take the first of those options, but often fail.)
I think you're right to point out the crucial factor of people recognising the literary genre they are reading. The original readers would have found this easier than us (Hebrew readers would have looked for parallelisms in poems, whereas our forms of poetry are somewhat different).
I still think you need to broaden your categories beyond literal truth, lie, or mistake. In everyday speech (not just in poetry) we say things that aren't literally true but communicate truth meaningfully (phrases like 'the sun rises in the morning', as well as irony and sarcasm). I'd be surprised if you took everthing anyone says to you as either literally true, a lie or a mistake, so why apply only these criteria to the Bible?
quote:
Originally posted by nemo:
No matter what the purpose of the statement is, if it is false, then it is false.
How about allegory, parable, metaphor, or the way that you explain to a child that the reason that the sky is blue is to match her eyes?
The early Genesis stories relate the early spiritual history of the human race. There was a Golden Age. People fell away from those idyllic times - so drastically that it was predicted that God would need to come to earth. There weren't really any magic trees or talking snakes!
This doesn't make the story untrue. It is simply not a book about natural factual knowledge, as Astro points out:
quote:
Astro writes:
The Bible is not a book of facts, nor is it as Babybear has pointed out the word of God
But the Bible is the Word of God. It claims this for itself repeatedly, and Jesus many times refers to it that way. Churches traditionally regard it that way. The miracle is that Jesus was in the flesh what had previosly only been in a book.
A journalist who has a law degree made it his task to proove that the claims about Christ were false but after his research became a Christian.
Now he has written a book about the toughest issues that face Christians.
He interviewed a number of top scientists etc and theologists concerning issues like evolution and "apparent" contradictions in the Bible.
Basically I think that we make judgements on things we don't have the full facts. More & more scientist actually believe God created the world. If you read the bible properly and apply set rules that are applied to all historical accounts then you won't find contradictions in scripure.
Isn't it worth holding on to such judgements as "the bible has many inerrancies" etc until we get our facts right!! 
quote:
Originally posted by gkbarnes:
pick up deadly snales
Sorry, I meant snakes 
I would argue that Gen 1 is intended to help us see the pre-fall creation as ordered according to God's sovereignty, with humans as part of creation, but ruling it as God's vice-regents. The fall then substantially messed this up, with the relationships between humans and creation, other humans, and God all marred.
The principle of authorial intent also makes sense, for example, of some of the differences between John and the synoptics. John declares his intent in 20v31 as being to convince his readers who Jesus is. He doesn't claim to be writing biography or history, in the way that Luke does (1v1-4). That's not to say John made stuff up, but that his intent needs to influence the way we interpret what he wrote. This is true of all literature, of course, and not just the Bible.
quote:
Originally posted by nemo:
To me, it is evidence that when a story gets passed by mouth over time, it gets altered a little bit here and there, even by accident in very small amounts. And no one can deny that if one part of a wholly true story has been altered, then we can call that part a "falsehood" as it relates to what was originally told.
However there are at least two ways of reading author intent. They answer the questions
What does the human author intend to communicate?
What might God see as important in this passage?
There are equally two reader intents:
What would the originally intended (by the human author) readers have heard from this passage?
What do we in the light of the full Bible and our understanding of modern society hear from this passage?
When all four agree I am suspicious that we are deluding ourselves.
Jengie
Now try putting the above in a languauge that will be understood by a pre-scientific culture.
I wouldn't want to drive a wedge between your first 2 questions. What God intends in a passage may be more than what the human author intended (eg Psalm 22 or Isaiah 53), but the divine intent doesn't contradict the human, rather it supplements or fulfills it. Naturally, it is in the light of Christ that all scriptures take on their fullest meaning.
As for your second 2 questions, they express quite well the important difference between interpretation and application, or between what the bible meant and what it means. Again, the answer to the 2nd question cannot contradict the answer to the 1st. And obviously, what the original readers would have understood from a text should correspond closely to what the original author intended them to understand. Unless you want to go down a reader response road (which I certainly do not).
None of these questions are necessarily easy to separate from each other
and just to make matters worse I think the last one is covering two different reader interpretations
1) What has this passage been understood to mean historically by the Church?
2) What do I as a twentieth century christian understand by it?
If you want passages where these meanings Kaleidoscope into a complex pattern then look at the suffering servant passages in Isaiah.
Jean
One might also note that Jesus stated quite clearly that the Second Coming would be in the lifetime of the Disciples. So even Jesus was capable of error. Is this alarming? Not at all! He couldn't be fully human without making a few mistakes.
Jesus' reference to seeing "the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom" (Matt 16v28) is widely understood to refer to his resurrection appearances (as well as to his 2nd coming). If Jesus could be wrong about something so fundamental, I'd have trouble accepting much of what he said.
quote:
Originally posted by Gauk:
One might also note that Jesus stated quite clearly that the Second Coming would be in the lifetime of the Disciples. So even Jesus was capable of error.
I have to dissagree here. He was talking in a metophorical sense about His crucifixtion.
quote:
originally posted by gkbarnes:
The Bible is the word of God, and is therefore His word's to us. While I belive that there aresome errors, there is NO THEOLOGICAL error.
Surely you can't be serious?
When, for example, the Israelites entered the promised land, according to the Bible God told them to ethnically cleanse the land! If you are suggesting that this is the nature of God then you must know some other God than the one I know.
quote:
appreciate the replys guys.
Hmmmmmm....looks like I gotta try to defend my way out of this eh?Firstly, on a very personal note, I want to say that doctrines/beliefs don't just stay in the realm of the cerebral, but they have to be lived out. And I'll admit that my belief in the inherrancy and infallibility of scripture is tough. Questions like, 'what about the apocrypha?' or 'what about genesis 1 in light of evolutionary theory?' are very challenging questions.
But I will say that there are 3 main reasons for not abandoning the belief that the Bible is a whole, perfect, and trustworthy source of God's truth:
1) First, the Bible says that it is the perfect, whole, and trustworthy word of God. While this may sound like circular reasoning, the fact is that if we believe in any part of scripture, then we by very defenition MUST believe in ALL the scripture. (I can hear the objections already ) If Isaiah says that the word of Yhwh will never pass away and we reject that idea, then what gives us the right to accept any part of Isaiah's message??? If Jesus claimed that heaven/earth would pass away before His words would, and we say 'well, some of it is here and maybe some of it is covered over there,' then why can we trust anything that he has to say???
2)Secondly, Jesus' views of the OT scriptures were that of a very 'literalist' and very authoritative interpretation.
Jesus claimed that He was the fullfilment of OT prophecy regarding the messiah (I don't deny that most of the prophecies were somewhat metaphorical). Next, Jesus used the scriptures to 'fight' the temptations of Satan. Jesus defended the doctrine of a 'literal' resurrection of the dead before the 'liberal' saducees from the OT. Jesus often said, "So that all that has been written in the scriptures may be fulfilled......" Again, in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, Jesus ends the story by saying that the truth of the OT scriptures 'should' be more convincing proof of God then even a resurrection from the dead. Need I go on?
As a Christian, I cannot deny what my master has believed about the nature of revelation/scripture. To Jesus, the OT was the exclusive truth of God on earth. (apart from His incarnation and general revelation, of course.)3) Now I feel that I have barely scratched the surface as far as a defense goes (there are much more qualified CHristians who could do a much better job). But I want to end by saying that God can, if He wanted to, protect His scriptures through many centuries. I mean, He is God, right? Also I want to say that I would not even want to be a Christian if the Bible is not the perfect and inspired and kept word of God. Why? Because how would we ever know what parts were what? How can I trust my salvation to a book that might be wrong?
It can seem very "intellectual" and "mature" of us to say that we have to 'wade' through and critically find out what parts are true ot not, but its foolishness. Either God can and has kept HIs promise to maintian His word, or we are playing a guessing game with our souls at stake.
You can do whatever you want, but I can't have peace without first affirming (by faith, as is everything when it comes down to it) that the Bible is God's message that He has kept for us to give us light and a path to follow.
"Let God be True, and every man a liar."
Romans 3:4
thanx for be patient.--------------------
"'If I were sure that I loved God, what would I do?' When you have found the answer, go and do it."
- C.S. Lewis
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Surely you can't be serious?
When, for example, the Israelites entered the promised land, according to the Bible God told them to ethnically cleanse the land!
No question that this is an error. God would not do such a thing.
But the Bible is also where you discover that God would not do such a thing.
It is no small thing to understand the Bible and how it works. You have to look at it as a whole to understand what is going on in those places where God supposedly directs the Israelites to mass slaughter.
Jesus several times "corrects" or reinterprets Old Testament laws. In one case He says, "Moses gave you this law allowing you to do this thing because of the hardness of your hearts" or words to that effect (Matthew 19). So the place in the Old Testament where Moses gave that law would be wrong as stated, but true as reinterpretted by Jesus.
So I do believe that the Bible is God's Word and therefore inerrant on theological matters - but only when those matters are understood in the light of all biblical teaching. A particular statement taken out of context can be untrue or misleading, but perfectly true when it is properly understood.
But of course who would be so conceited as to think that they had a correct grasp of biblical teaching? It is an area that demands humility and patience, both of which I am often short of...
quote:
Gauk posted:One can only identify the Son of Man coming in his kingdom with the brief appearances of Jesus after his resurrection if one is determined to read into the text something that avoids the possibility of Jesus being incorrect. In other words, the approach is: "Here is a difficult text...
quote:
Originally posted by Gauk:
One might also note that Jesus stated quite clearly that the Second Coming would be in the lifetime of the Disciples. So even Jesus was capable of error. Is this alarming? Not at all! He couldn't be fully human without making a few mistakes.
I find it too much of a stretch to see this as a reference to the resurrection.
In addition, after describing events that are usually understood as the second coming (and he is not referring to the resurrection) Jesus says in Matthew 24:34 "Truly I say to you this generation will not pass away, till all these things take place." The most straightforward meaning here would be that "this generation" is the generation that Jesus is among now. Those who want to avoid Jesus thus being mistaken argue that "this generation" means the generation around at the time these things happen. Again I find this a stretch (and a bit of an odd, almost tautologous, thing to say if thats what he meant).
I think that the doctrine of the bible being inerrant in all that it affirms whether it be geography or history etc. is mistaken and unnecessary. I am short of time at present but I hope to post some reasons soon.
Glenn
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy
So I do believe that the Bible is God's Word and therefore inerrant on theological matters - but only when those matters are understood in the light of all biblical teaching.
So If the israelites theology was wrong when they invaded the promised land, and is corrected by the 'correct' theology of the New testament. Why is it that you can't believe that the writers of the new testament were wrong on, say, the role of women, why can't God's revelation of true theology be an ongoing thing?
The point is that the theology of the bible is inconsistent, a developing theology. It simply doesn't make sense to say it stopped developing in the first century after Christ.
The fact is that it is absurd to talk of the plain meaning of scripture, it is full of paradox and eternal truths hidden behind powerful imagery. I believe in the integrity of its message, which tells us how we can go from slavery to this world and our attachments to it, to freedom in the Promised Land of God's Kingdom, but that doesn't have to mean its all pure history. The apostle John, for example, who survived to old age and was the only gospel writer to be an eye witness to the life of Jesus, wrote his gospel 50-60 years after the events, when he'd had a lifetime to meditate on the significence of Christ's words and deeds, so while I respect the integrity of his narrative, I believe many of the theological discourses given by Jesus are the results of John's meditations rather than Jesus actual words. If we are to believe the synoptic descriptions of the disciples, they wouldn't have understood a word of it during Jesus ministry.
I think that the issue being raised about God commanding the Israelites to 'cleanse' specific people groups is tough, but if an argument is trying to be made in favor of 'errancy' (for lack of a better term), then I suggest that this wouldn't be a strong way to go about it.
Even if we establish that the text really is saying that GOd wanted the Jews to kill a bunch of people it doesn't mean that scripture is flawed or errant. Such an argument is 'non sequitur' (it doesn't follow).
There may be many reasons why God would want a people group killed by the Jews. This isn't really about justifying God's apparantly 'immoral' behaviours in the Bible, but I might suggest that.......
1) He is God. He creates and He is allowed to kill at anytime. We are the clay, and He is the potter
2)We all see through 'glass darklings' this side of heaven.
3)We might be misinterpreting or confusing the text apart from the context of the OT narratives and redemption history as a whole.
So as you can see, there are good explanations out there that keep the integrity of the Bible and its' inerrancy in tact.
quote:
There may be many reasons why God would want a people group killed by the Jews. This isn't really about justifying God's apparantly 'immoral' behaviours in the Bible, but I might suggest that.......
1) He is God. He creates and He is allowed to kill at anytime. We are the clay, and He is the potter
2)We all see through 'glass darklings' this side of heaven.
3)We might be misinterpreting or confusing the text apart from the context of the OT narratives and redemption history as a whole.So as you can see, there are good explanations out there that keep the integrity of the Bible and its' inerrancy in tact.
That's rubbish isn't it?
1. How does the theology of 'go and slaughter your neighbour' fit with 'Love your enemies'? Your first point makes God out to be a vengeful monster who kills when he pleases and instructs humans to do his dirty work for him.
2. Your second point says that whatever the Bible says about God, we must accept it because if it appears wrong it's because we don't understand it properly! That's trying to prove it's inerrant by starting from the premise that it's inerrant.
3. ditto. except that you mention 'redemption history as a whole'. This might imply that you believe in a gradual revelation of God's nature - which is my point entirely and it's illogical to assume that the revelation should stop at the end of the first century AD.
So as you can see, you have provided no good explanations that keep the integrity of the Bible and its' inerrancy intact.
Who wrote the Bible? - fallible men.
Who decided which books went into the Bible? - fallible men.
It's a very limited view of God's sovereignty that doesn't allow him to work his will through human beings. It's effectively saying 'God can't do that', which is always a dangerous thing to say. The question isn't 'can he?' but 'has he?'. To which the church through history has always answered 'yes'. As you say, it is often our presuppositions that shape how we read scripture.
Another thing to bear in mind is the process by which we received the Bible. It was not written all of a piece. Most of it was composed long after the events described. Its chaotic nature is consistent with what we know historically about how it came to be written: a process of accretion from different fragments of source materials.
If you believe that the whole thing was dictated by God word for word, then you have to believe that God works in very mysterious ways indeed and has distorted His own message in very strange ways.
The argument that the Bible must be the word of God because it says it is has another problem besides circular reasoning. If you reason thus, then you must be consistent. If the Koran says that it is the word of God, then it must be also, because the same argument applies.
quote:
If we accept that God's nature and character are fully revealed in the person of Jesus, then it's not illogical to assume that God's self revelation ended when the witnesses Christ appointed had finished their work.
A large part of the New Testament is written by Paul who was, we are told, converted on the road to Damascus and not appointed by Jesus during His lifetime. It certainly is illogical to assume that God's revelation ended when the witnesses Christ appointed had fisnished their work. There is simply no basis for this assumption.
quote:
If we accept that God's nature and character are fully revealed in the person of Jesus, then it's not illogical to assume that God's self revelation ended when the witnesses Christ appointed had finished their work. Except of course that he continues to reveal himself by his spirit through the living word of their testimony in scripture.
A common but ultimately unscriptural view - for Jesus assures his disciples that the Holy Spirit will will reveal things in the future which they are not yet ready to hear or understand.
Thus the idea of continuing revelation is scriptural; or, as a friend of mine once put it, The Bible is paramount; and the Bible tells us that the Church is paramount.
John
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
So If the israelites theology was wrong when they invaded the promised land, and is corrected by the 'correct' theology of the New testament. Why is it that you can't believe that the writers of the new testament were wrong on, say, the role of women, why can't God's revelation of true theology be an ongoing thing?
The point is that individual statements in the Bible need to be tested against the combined testimony of the Bible as a whole. I agree that this applies to New Testament writers as well as Old Testament ones.
You need to have a very good understanding of the whole of Scripture in order understand any one part of it. Despite its chaotic history it is an incredibly unified work, both as to message and imagery. Inconsistent elements can be isolated and explained by comparison with the rest.
And I agree that Paul was simply wrong when he spoke about the role of women. I don't think his statements are consistent with the rest of Scripture, but I don't have time to list the reasons now.
quote:
Gauk writes:
The argument that the Bible must be the word of God because it says it is has another problem besides circular reasoning. If you reason thus, then you must be consistent. If the Koran says that it is the word of God, then it must be also, because the same argument applies.
This is right. Lots of people claim to be inspired by God, but aren't. The claim is meaningless by itself.
However, if the claim is true it is more than a little significant. This, of course, was Jesus' claim, and the stated reason for His subsequent crucifixion.
A claim of this nature has a watershed effect. If it is accepted, it has the effect of magnifying the significance of the information. If it is rejected, it is difficult for people even to take seriously even the good ideas in the information.
Christianity has traditionally accepted the claims of divine authorship. I guess that one way of looking at it nowadays is neither to accept or reject the claims, but to see them as a common feature of ancient writing.
quote:
The point is that individual statements in the Bible need to be tested against the combined testimony of the Bible as a whole.
Yes, but most importantly, against your own concience.
quote:
Originally posted by Gauk:
it was never required for anyone to travel to their birthplace to be taxed; this was a plot device to get Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem.
In the book of Daniel, Baltezer (spealing?) is mentioned as King of Babylonia. For years no-one could find any histiorical records for him, so it was presumed the book of Daniel was just a myth. Then archeologists found something that proved beyond doubt that Baltezar existed. The point is that we will find something that proves the Gospel of Luke, and we will all go "of course."
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Surely you can't be serious?
When, for example, the Israelites entered the promised land, according to the Bible God told them to ethnically cleanse the land! If you are suggesting that this is the nature of God then you must know some other God than the one I know.
I agree that it seems very shoking to our eyes to read it. Remember, God is right. I apologise in advance for the anger that this will cause, but please let me try to explain. Physical death is never the same as eternal death (this is sounding really evil, and I apologise. It ism't meant to). What I am trying to say is that this was God's just punishment on a people who He had given ample chances to repent. Remember Jonah? I belive God would have destroyed Ninevah, if they hadn't repented.
Jesus words to the 12 in John 16 that "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the spirit, comes he will guide you into all truth" are widely understood as being fulfilled in the writing of the New Testament. Jesus was granting his Apostles (including Paul) unique status as his witnesses and the founders of the church. This would seem to point to an end to the era of special revelation. This is why the later NT books place such an emphasis on recalling what has been taught and passing it on to the next generation.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve G
Jesus words to the 12 in John 16 that "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the spirit, comes he will guide you into all truth" are widely understood as being fulfilled in the writing of the New Testament.
No, Jesus words here imply that the Spirit in all our lives will guide us, through our deepening knowledge of God. There is no evidence to suggest that he was talking about the New Testament being written this is just your interpretation and has no logical foundation. Remember that each book of the Bible was written as a discreet book, The canon was compiled by men who disagreed even up to today! Texts were excluded or included on the basis of an emerging theology.
As for being 'widely understood', it might be widely understood by those who already believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but I doubt that most theologians would go along with that.
quote:
Originally posted by Atticus
The fact is it is by FAR the most historically accurate text of all the world religions. We aren't just dealing with "another set of myths"
Are you familliar with the texts of every world religion?
quote:
In the book of Daniel, Baltezer (spealing?) is mentioned as King of Babylonia. For years no-one could find any histiorical records for him, so it was presumed the book of Daniel was just a myth. Then archeologists found something that proved beyond doubt that Baltezar existed. The point is that we will find something that proves the Gospel of Luke, and we will all go "of course."
This is very curious logic. Because something in the Bible turns out to be historically correct, therefore everything in the Bible is historically correct.
The point is not that we might find something that proves the Gospel of Luke, but that we already have plenty that disproves it; or at least, disproves the nativity story, which is evidently a bit of retroactive prophecy fulfillment.
Inerrable - incapable of erring.
Inerrant - unerring.
quote:
Originally posted by Gauk:
This is very curious logic. Because something in the Bible turns out to be historically correct, therefore everything in the Bible is historically correct.
I don't think this was the point at all. The point is that some things that we currently think are incorrect may turn out to be historically acurate. So we should be careful about labeling questionable Bible history as wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Gauk:
The point is not that we might find something that proves the Gospel of Luke, but that we already have plenty that disproves it; or at least, disproves the nativity story, which is evidently a bit of retroactive prophecy fulfillment.
Most of the nativity story could never be either proven or disproven. The fact that it is currently thought that people were never required to return to their city of birth for a census does not necessarily mean that it was only a plot device intentioally invented by Luke. Further research may shed light on what Luke meant.
quote:
The people of God need to be encouraged and helped to take the whole of scripture seriously, but they are more likely to make that commitment by being helped to hear scripture speak and to meet Christ through scripture than through being provided with solutions of ever-decreasing plausibility to an ever-increasing range of problems of ever-increasing triviality.
Alan
So the arguments don't work, eh?
Well, I think they stand up rather well if you will take a closer look:
1) You wrongfully imply that just because God would command the Jews to slaughter a people group that it automatically makes God a 'monster'. (Nice choice of words by the way. An easy way to dodge an argument is to throw in some emotionally-charged words like 'monster' or 'vengful' and misdirect the real issue.)
It is perfectly logical and justifyied to believe that God can kill humans at anytime solely because He is God. (I'm not saying GOd 'normatively' does this. He is love and He wishes to redeem rather than scrap us, but He is allowed to take away our life at anytime.) Try reading Job: "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away; blessed be the name of the Lord." Job recognized that, though we have genuine freedom, God is our maker and He has the final say.
By the way, can you prove that killing, in and of itself, is evil? It is the intent in the heart that turns 'killing' into 'murder'.
2) Far from making God evil, the text in question must be seen in God's story of redemption as a whole. In other words, God's morality and holiness don't change, but how He acts with 'changing' humans does change.
3) lastly, circular reasoning may be useless when trying to establish a fact, but it doesn't reveal whether a fact is false, know what I mean? It is circular reasoning to say that that the BIble is God's word because the Bible says so, BUT that does not mean that it isn't true.
I would not dare to be so arrogant to say that I know soooooo much that what I "perceive" to be contradictions or problems in the scriptures are indications of it's 'errancy'. COuld I be wrong? Absolutelty!
please respond.....
His argument seems to me to be saying, "OK, at present X is contradicted by all other evidence. But who knows, maybe something else will turn up?"
Maybe a new moon landing will prove that the moon is made of cheese after all. Then again,
maybe it won't.
Intellectual honesty requires a fair assessment of all the evidence. Not this "I WANT the Bible to be true so I won't hear a word against it ever" approach.
1) Recent archaeological work in the Holy Land seems to be producing findings which contradict a lot of the OT picture of ancient Israel. So, while the Daniel example mentioned above may be true, the weight of current research is actually going very strongly the other way.
2) The issue with the Lukan nativity is twofold: it contradicts pretty clearly understood fact about the Roman Empire AND it contradicts the Matthaean account. If one is to argue inerrancy (rather than truth, which I'm quite prepared to acknowledge) then the intellectual gymnastics necessary to reconcile the two passages are too extreme for me to accept.
3) If God can command the Israelites to commit genocide then he isn't worth worshipping. If you could deomstrate the inerrancy of this passage, then I would gladly go to hell, rather than be in heaven with such a deity.
quote:
Originally posted by ekalb
please respond.....
Doesn't seem much point in me responding. If you believe in a God that will go and tell humans to slaughter other humans, and you believe there is no difference between that God and the God who wants you to love your enemies, who forgave his crucifiers, then there's nothing I can say to persuade you. I'll just get accused of using emotive adjectives again!
The posts are there, others can make up their own mind.
1) Recent archeological findings have proved much of the OT like the existance of The Hittites, all the geographical place of Sodom & Gomorrah (sp)also William F Albright (famous archeologist)said "there can be no doubt that archeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of the OT.
2) Like where? Just because one account says something that isn't mentioned in another doesn't make it contradictory.
The Gospels are written from different perspectives and just because one Gospel writes about one angle doesn't mean teh other angel is wrong.
EG If I was watching a parade where the Queen and Prince Phillip were at with a friend a and I go home and report this to my wife but my friends goes home and says that he saw the Queen which one of us are wrong.
Same principle as interpreting scripture.
3)Actually you ought to check why God gave such extreme instructions as both the Philistines and Cananites were corrupt people and wanted to wipe the Israelites out and they were both given warning to change their ways and turn to God in fact the Cananites had 400 years of warning.
There seems to be a lack of consistancy when interpreting scripture and otehr historical writings. We need to apply the same rules for everything. The is "innocent until proven guilty".
Also just because the Bible gives an account what happens doesn't mean that God approved of it. 
quote:
Also just because the Bible gives an account what happens doesn't mean that God approved of it.
Polly,
I think you'll find, if you read Joshua, that the Bible says God told them to do it.
Not disagreeing with you on the fact that this is what happened.
However the starting point is that God is a Holy Sovereign God and he hates sin. He giveth and he can taketh away.
The land given to the Israelites was occupied by a people that had otehr God's, were sexually immoral and practcised sorcery andchild sacrifice. They also were given chances to turn from their ways ( same as Jonah and Nivenah but this shows when a people are challenged by God and tey repent his mercy takes place)but didn't.
It does help to try to understand the contect of something before making judgement on it!
According to the Bible God told the Israelites to go and kill the people in palestine. Is this what you believe God actually did?
I have no doubt this is what was commanded.
Have a question for you.
Do you beleive that God is Holy and Sovereign and that He hates sin and that it is God's place to pass judgement?
Remember: The wages of Sin is death (Romans)
If that's what you believe and you can't see any conflict of nature with the God of the New Testament, I think it's unlikely that I will convince you otherwise.
On the point of context. The context is that the children of Israel were being led into battle by their leadership to take over a land occupied by another people. In any war situation the leaders usually justify their actions by saying 'God is on our side'. Unlike you, I don't believe that God ever tells one nation to wipe out another, in fact I believe he tells men to do the opposite, to love them, and forgive seventy times seven whatever they have done.
quote:
You asked,
Do you beleive that God is Holy and Sovereign and that He hates sin and that it is God's place to pass judgement?
Yes I do, but I do not believe that God strives to rid the world of an entire people when he disapproves of the actions of some of them. That's ethnic cleansing, not love.
Whatever judgement God may pass upon us when we die, He certainly does not urge his followers to carry out the sentence.
If you believe that he does, then I think that's a shame.
The point is that there is NO diference between the God of teh OT & NT.
God is Love.
His grace endures in the OT.
EG David and Bathsheeba, Jonah and the Ninehvites to say but a few.
Is it you can't believe or you won't believe just because you don't understand?
Sometimes Bible translations don't help but you are coming from a Humanistic view.
If you have a bit of time try reading a book by Lee Strobel called " A case for faith"
He is a journalist with a Law degree who started off trying to disproove the Christian faith but spent ages examining stuff liek what we are discussing and then became a Christian.
He interviewed numerous "experts" on loads of issues including the one you raised.
Sorry for the "heated" responses but you have interpreted scripture to your point of view and haven't given any aspect of historical/archeoligical evidence to support your view and I get annoyed when non-christians do this and also if I did what you did with somethign other than teh Bible then I would get shouted down.
Scripture calls it "giving reason for your faith" - support your opinion with facts not just because you feel a certain way or read something another way.
When you provide me with "proper" facts (eg look into the situation and put it into context) then you may have some weight behind your arguement.
I'm not sure what facts you mean, I've provided you with an example from the old testament in Joshua.
You say yourself that you believe that God did tell the Israelites to kill the people living if the land of Palestine, because it says so in the Bible.
I have pointed out that what the Iraelites did amounted to ethnic cleansing.
I have clearly shown the incompatibility of a God who instigates such horrors with the God of love and forgiveness found in Jesus' teachings.
Since we agree that God is consistent, I have therefore made it clear that the OT erroneously attributes the acts of the israelites to God's will.
Your reply just re-states that you believe that there is no difference between the God of the OT and the NT. You haven't offered any explanation of the apparent contradiction which I have plainly pointed out to you.
I have put the recorded acts of the Israelites in the context of the book of Joshua, that of a historical account of invading army justifying it's acts by saying that God is on it's side.
But you haven't replied with any evidence to contradict what I'm saying. You haven't supported your opinion with any facts at all.
Instead, your last post accuses me of not supporting my argument with facts or context. You point me to a book written by a man who tried to disprove the Christian faith, as if that is what I'm trying to do! You then accuse me of not providing historical or achaeolgical evidence to support my argument, as if I was saying that the killings written about in Joshua didn't happen, when we both agree they did!
May I suggest that it is you who has little weight behind your argument.
In particular arguments along the lines of:
1) The Bible seems to describe God acting immorally;
2) Therefore either God is immoral or the Bible is wrong.
The resolution, I believe, is that in the Bible many things are explained and described the way that you would describe things to a child. It is full of appearances that are not literally accurate, even though they contain truth within them.
So I believe that God did not really tell the Israelites to ethnically cleanse the land. Rather, this is what they were inclined to do, and God used their inclinations as part of the writing of the Bible.
So I think that God is good, and that the Bible is true - but only when you understand how it works.
quote:
So I believe that God did not really tell the Israelites to ethnically cleanse the land. Rather, this is what they were inclined to do, and God used their inclinations as part of the writing of the Bible.
So the Bible is wrong when it says that God told them to do it?
Why is it so important for God to have ordered genocide -- surely it is more typical of what we know of God from both Old and New Testaments to believe that human beings screwed it up again, especially when the books describing the events in question were first written hundreds of years after the events they claim to describe.
And, for what it's worth, Jonah is not history -- it is easily provable from internal evidence that it was written many centuries after Ninevah had been reduced to aheap of rubble. In the Jewish tradition it has never been described as, or treated as, or interpreted as the description of something that actually happened -- it is a parable.
John Holding
I agree with most of what polly has said, and without offense I believe that you really havent 'grasped' the point.
You are sticking to "the god of the NT (love your neighbour...) versus the god of OT (kill everyone....)
As is rightly pointed out by Polly, God's grace is seen throughout the OT and His vengence over sin is seen throughout the NT.
But the real point is this: He is G-O-D. You cannot liken HIm to yourself and how 'you' would deal with the Pagan cultures in Canaan. The fact is, like I have already said twice, God is 'fully' justified in killing all of humanity whenever He chooses to. The amazing part is, even though we've rebelled against HIm, He chooses to be merciful.
For example, if 'Bob' owed you 10 dollars, you are completely 'justified' when you demand that 10 dollars back. But if you choose to be merciful and 'forgive' Bob's debt to you, then you are also justified in doing so.
See the difference?
GOd is not being unfair if and when He chooses to punish us (with death)for the sins we have willingly committed.
What does this all mean? -- That this text cannot "prove" that the scriptures are "errant".
Bottom line: You're views are wrong! Stop superimposing youre standards and 'postmodern' ethics onto God. He is wholly 'other' than us.
quote:
Originally posted by ekalb:
bonzo,
... Stop superimposing youre standards and 'postmodern' ethics onto God. He is wholly 'other' than us.
Bonzo,
If your 'postmodern' ethics mean that you are opposed to genocide then I would encourage you to stick with them!
Glenn
quote:
Bonzo,
If your 'postmodern' ethics mean that you are opposed to genocide then I would encourage you to stick
with them!
Glenn
amen!
William F Albright has been dead for 30 odd years and the quote dates from 1963. He did much of his work in the 1930s. This isn't exactly cutting edge research you're quoting here.
Albright is a maximalist in terms of Biblical archaeology (someone who thinks most of OT history can be verified archaeologically) and an outdated maximalist scholar at that.
The new work which was being referred to earlier in the thread has all been done since the 1970s - after Albright's death and has tended to a more minimalist position - ie. what has been found has tended on the whole not to support reading the Old Testament as a reliable guide to the archaeology.
There are of course areas of debate over this but no university archaology course would seriously cite Albright as an up to date authority on this without severe reservations as to the extent to which his approach has been revised and found wanting.
It looks to me like you're parroting Strobel again (as you've done previously over 'more and more' scientists allegedly supporting creationism) without showing much sign of having checked any of this out for yourself. It's starting to get a bit tedious.
Louise
quote:
originally posted by ekalb
Bottom line: You're views are wrong! Stop superimposing youre standards and 'postmodern' ethics onto God. He is wholly 'other' than us.
You have presented no evidence to contradict the argument, you believe that God is justified and capable of genocide and see no contradiction with the view of a loving forgiving God portrayed in the NT.
I haven't missed the point. You have your mind closed.
There are many other examples of the picture of God portrayed by the OT being different from the picture of God portrayed by Jesus. But I'll use the two stories Polly used to futher illuustrate my point (as if any futher illustration was needed).
quote:
Originally posted by polly
His grace endures in the OT.EG David and Bathsheeba, Jonah and the Ninehvites to say but a few.
David and Bathsheba. God kills a child because of David's sin.
Jonah. God threatens the prophet Jonah (and also an entire ships crew) with death unless Jonah does what God tells him to.
The OT is riddled with it! No matter how much you say 'God is God and he is justified'. You can't keep saying that the OT understanding of God are similar to Jesus'.
No scratch that - you probably will keep saying it, even though you must know by now that you haven't got a leg to stand on.
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
So the Bible is wrong when it says that God told them to do it?
It is wrong in the same sense that a mother parent is wrong when she tells little Johnny that "God won't be very happy with you if you hit your sister." The truth is that God loves Johnny whether he hits his sister or not.
Personally, I don't doubt the facts of the stories of the Old Testament. What I do doubt is that it was God Himself who told Joshua and Moses to do all that killing.
God Himself appears only in an accommodated form to people. No one can or ever could communicate directly with the God of the universe - because He is beyond all human perception. But God has always had intermediate means to communicate. In the Old Testament this was often by means of what was called "the Angel of the Lord."
With ancient peoples the divine form was often very highly accommodated to their nature. Not everything that proceeded from these angels was totally literally in accord with what we would consider to be divine. Nevertheless, it always contained divine truths within.
As a side note, the basic pattern of Joshua's conquest, as presented in the book of Joshua, was that the Israelites entered the land and were attacked by the inhabitants. The Israelites only defended themselves! Well, not quite...
Initially, Joshua attacked Jericho, in a miraculous way. Then he attcked Ai, and was defeated at first before succeeding. After that the Gibeonites made a treaty with them, by deception. Then all the kings of the south attacked, followed by all the kings of the north. The book makes it sound as if the inhabitants of the land started the whole thing, as was the case with Sihon and Og of the Amorites on the other side of the Jordan.
This is not to defend the Israelites. It is more than obvious from the Old Testament record that they were not only "stiff-necked" and rebellious, but they had extremely few redeeming qualities.
Nevertheless, I firmly believe that the book written through them and about them contains all wisdom. It's a miracle.
This is truly getting tiresome.
I won't "attack" you're person, but your "views" are extremely narrowminded.
You are drawing a direct comparison between the immorality of humans killing one another because of hatred (i.e. genocide) and between God 'judging' a people-group because of their sin (i.e. justice). The comparison is faulted and dishonors God, who is perfectly loving and moral.
Your "views" fail to accept the fact that they are judging God in light of their own standards.
While I agree that a God who would commit "genocide" is not worthy to be worshipped, the text doesn't say that He committed "genocide". Rather, God chose to "punish" those people for their sins.
The difference is HUGE!
Genocide is sin. Divinely sentencing a people-group to death because of their sins is not.
I don't understand why your "views" cannot see this. God said, "don't lie, cheat, lust, etc. etc. Or else you are subject to divine punishment" But, you know what? I've disobeyed that command directly, and so has everyone else. God can enact His divine punishment on me at any time.
I will add that I am covered by Christ's blood and therefore I am justified in Christ so that I don't have to answer for my sins in that sense.
But if GOd decides to kill (yes, kill) an unrepentant sinner at any time,He is NOT WRONG for doing so. - We are the ones who have sinned, get it?
As I also said before, the amazing thing and the only hope we have, is that GOd Chooses to find another way. He did it by punishing Christ in our behalf.
People cannot, in my opinion, truly accept Christ, until they realize the very real "problem" they have.-SIN! If you don't think that we need saving from our sin then why would anyone follow Christ. I follow Him because I know that I can't make it on my own. I need help. And Christ stands their knocking at the doors of our heart offering us what we can in no way earn.......Grace, right-standing with our Maker, and love.
These truths have literally changed my life.
PS- since it is a thread about inerrancy, I will add that this defense of God's actions in the text is used to show that this text of God's "apparant" immorality can't be used to prove the 'errancy' of scripture.
quote:
Your "views" fail to accept the fact that they are judging God in light of their own standards.
My views are not attributing any genocide to God and therfore cannot be judging God. My views attribute the genocide to men.
As you well know!
You are attempting to slur my argument because you have lost your own.
Joshua is a historical account and is supported to some extent by historical, and archaeological eveidence. The genocide written about in Joshua is most probably historical fact, what is in dispute here is that God instigated it.
Your views attribute that genocide to God and say that he was justified in doing it, which is disgraceful.
Your argument grows in absurdity when the only thing it has to explain why the portrayal of God by Jesus, differs so dramatically from the portrayal of God in the OT, is that God must have changed his attitude, that he's perfectly entitled to do so and we can't hope to understand him.
Using that argument, and your closed minded refusal to use any logical reasoning, I could argue that Winnie the Pooh is the innerrant word of God.
You are starting from the premise that the Bible is inerrant - a claim made by men not God. You are refusing to use any logical reasoning to justify that position.
quote:The land given to the Israelites was occupied by a people that had otehr God's, were sexually immoral and practcised sorcery and child sacrifice.
So, in order to punish child sacrifice and make sure Isreal did not follow that example, God commands Israel to kill all the Canaanite children. This is extremely odd!
And if God was killing them only to take them to heaven, why doesn't it say so?
We must surely
be deeply suspicious of claims by anyone that God has commanded them to put someone to death.
The inerrantist approach to scripture is motivated by the idea that if the bible is Gods word then it must be perfect. But it can still be a means of revelation to us without being perfect. There are, arguably, good reasons why God would not want it to be perfect. One reason is that if it was perfect then then people would be inclined to obey and believe what it says thoughtlessly, without grappling with it and arguing with it. Blind obedience and belief('I was only obeying orders, only doing what i was told to by God') lead to immature not whole people with a developed moral sense - 'the letter kills' says Paul. Is it not an offence to non-Christians that so many Christians appear to be able to accept the clearnce of Canaan with such ease?
The doctrine of inerrancy is useless anyway. Even if the text is inerrant it still leaves open the crucial question of how we interpret it and Christian history demonstrates how diverse such interpretations can be.
But it is often useless to argue the issue with inerrantists since they have so many ways of explaining why apparent errors are not errors. Where parallel accounts of the same incident occur such as in the Gospels and in Chronicles compared with Kings errors seemingly must exist because the accounts differ. But few statements in the Bible are precise enough to be beyond ingenious harmonisation with other passages. Where we have precision such as the numbers of horses, infantry etc that differ so markedly between Kings and Chronicles they just argue that there was an error in copying the original manuscript. Other ways around problems include arguments that rely on 'God can do anything' and 'God can have reasons for his actions that are inexplicable ('My ways are not your ways' etc.)' If none of these work then just argue that the original manuscript (which we no longer have) must not have been in error.
What does this all prove? Simply that there is no error in the bible that is beyond the ingenuity of some Christian somewhere to explain away, however improbable the explanation may be.
But I can't resist throwing in a couple of examples anyway:
Glenn
Polly, ekalb please note.
What Glenn has just posted is a reasoned argument. It's what you need to do if you are going to persuade anyone to accept your way of thinking.
But there are those who want to know the truth about the issue and want to know it even if it is uncomfortable. Is the Bible without error or not? They look at the Bible and what it is like, they consider it and their understanding of God, they consider the writings and arguments of others, they consider the moral and theological implications of inerrancy and non-inerrancy, their effects on how the bible should be interpreted etc. All of these are interelated and influence one another. And they try to decide what is the best explanation for the presence of apparent errors in the Bible.
Overall my view is that the best and most straightforward conclusion is that the bible is not inerrant. Others disagree.
Glenn
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Oldham:
The inerrantist approach to scripture is motivated by the idea that if the bible is Gods word then it must be perfect. But it can still be a means of revelation to us without being perfect.
The Bible can also be God's Word and perfect without necessarily being literally accurate. The fundamental point is that it is a book filled with spiritual information. It is not a history or science manual.
I am in complete agreement with Glenn and Bonzo over the bedrock idea that God does not condone, much less command, genocide. The justification that the Canaanites deserved it works fine with children and uneducated people. But it is simply not consistent with the overall view of God that Scripture teaches.
There has to be a better explanation.
The explanation that works for me is that this was an evil time in the history of the human race - the time just before the Advent. Despite the unhappy and violent nature of human interactions, God was able to use the budding technology of the time to set down a narrative that could prepare the people in Palestine for His coming. The narrative was so highly symbolic, and so cleverly written, that it both appealed to the people's national pride, and contained deep ideas within it. The violence and cruelty of the history is transformed into an account of how God drives evil out of our spiritual lives.
My fear is that people who recognize the literal inaccuracy of many parts of the Bible go on to throw out the baby with the bathwater and do not consider it a reliable source of spiritual truth.
So I agree that it is dangerous to appeal to an idea of Divine Justice to justify genocide. But I think that if people are willing to understand the Bible and recognize the nature of its wisdom, they will see it as a Divine book, which is spiritually perfect even if not always literally accurate.
Firstly the textual question. Which books constitute the Bible? The Ethiopian Coptic Church doesn't include Revelation (nor did the rest of us very nearly), the Roman Catholics include the Apocrypha, the Reformed Churches don't. Then of course there are those passages which were incorporated into the KJV but which modern scholars tend to leave out (Mark 16:9-20 and the passage in 1 John 7 which mentions the Holy Trinity). If you check the footnotes of any modern Bible on virtually every page you will find a comment to the effect that "other ancient authorities ..." This is because we have a variety of manuscripts of the various books of the Bible and not all of them agree. It seems to me a little pointless arguing about whether a book is inerrant when there is no settled consensus as to what it's contents are.
The second, more fundamental, objection to inerrancy is the cognitive question. Words are symbols. Human language is not an exact tool. There is no one on one correspondence between signifiers (words) and what is signified (things, concepts). To take an obvious example, if I use the word "table" it will depend on the context as to whether I am refering to a big wooden thing that I put my plate on when I am eating dinner or an arrangement of numbers in a report which was put together using an Excel Spreadsheet. If a word as basic as "table" contains this degree of ambiguity, what can we expect from terms like "God", "eternal life", "sin" and so on. The matter is further complicated by the fact that those who used the terms are separated from us by culture and by a period of millenia.
Which is not to say that God does not speak to us through the Bible, merely to say that human language remains human language even when it is used by God.
Firstly, I will admit that I have not presented my case as well as I should. For that, you have my apologies.
But did You EVEN READ my last post?
You said, in your 'response', that I attributed the genocide to God. Hello? My entire post was about how God DIDN'T commit genocide.
I didn't shift the argument, I have said/am saying that genocide is something men do to one another out of hatred.
In CONTRAST, God may kill a group of people for their sins (not out of hatred, envy, etc.) and be justified for doing so.
Every one of your responses have been nothing more than MIS-interpretations of my argument and refutations of those misinterpretations. In other words, stop making "Straw Men" arguments.
Have you tried refuting my analogies (which I have made)?
I have drawn out (twice now) the "qualitative" difference between 'divine punishment' and 'genocide'. Please READ them at least once before trying to refute them (it Helps!).
In response to your last post I have two things to say:
1) Yes, I am starting from an intrinsic belief in the Bible as God's perfect word. So what? can you prove that this belief hinders my ability to make arguments. You are also starting your arguments from intrinsic beliefs too. (You appear to believe in the transcendant value of logic and reason for one.) I'm not saying that your beliefs are wrong, but merely saying that we are "enclosed unto faith". It's an old saying that means that humans are, by nature, 'faith-beings': We 'believe' in our existence, we 'believe' in the existence of other minds, we 'believe' in the value and validity of empirically-derived truth claims, etc. etc. So, don't assume that my 'beliefs' hinder me from arguing properly anymore than your 'beliefs' do, ok?
2) You said that I havn't really given evidence of my claim that there is no difference between the 'god' of the OT and the 'god' of the NT. - Guilty as charged.
So here goes,
God's love in the OT:
Gen.18.20-33
Exod.34.6-7
Is.49.14-15
Jer.3.19
Ps.136
Lam.3.25-33
Zech.7.8-10
God's wrath in the NT:
Matt.21.12-13
Mrk.8.33
Acts 5.1-11
Heb.10.30-31
2Pet.2.4-10
Rev.19.15
The whole point of this is biblical inerrancy, right?
While belief in the inerrancy of scripture is something to be taken, primarily, on faith, the fact is that your arguments are weak.
You say that it was the Hebrews who actually committed "genocide". If that was true and if the Bible attributed God as the instigator of this "genocide", then you would have a point. The argument 'hinges' on whether this was "genocide" or not.
Like I said, the text does not consider it genocide (You are arguing against the authorial intent/interpretation of the text), and secondly, there is a 'good' and 'reasonable' alternative explanation which fits the authorial intent of the passage: namely, God was divinely judging the 'sinners' for their sin.
Please, if you are serious at all about this, read my response and then respond.
quote:
2) Like where? Just because one account says something that isn't mentioned in another doesn't make it contradictory.
As well the example mentioned above, there's the issue of chronology. Matthew has Jesus born under Herod the Great (i.e before 4 BC). Luke has him born when Quirinius was legate of Syria and Cilicia (i.e after 6 AD). They can't both be right. And attempts by literalists to argue that somehow Quirinius was legate before this, or that Luke is referring to the census before Quirinius was legate are very dodgy to say the least.
So, for example, Gen 2:19 is in the pluperfect tense in the NIV - God HAD formed the beasts before he brought them to Adam for naming. The NRSV, the NJB, the REB and even the KJV all say 'God formed', making the creation of man prior to that of the animals and thus a contradiction of 1:24-26. It's logical from the standpoint of infallibility/inerrancy, but AIUI the more natural translation is perfect rather than pluperfect.
The other point is that Polly keeps referring to Lee Strobel's book and must be wondering why everyone else either ignores it or dismisses it. There's a very good review by Jeff Lowder - admittedly hostile, but closely reasoned and ready to give him his due where appropriate - at this site . To reproduce just a short extract:
'Strobel did not interview any critics of Christian apologetics, even though he attacks such individuals in his book. For example, Strobel devotes an entire chapter to his interview of Greg Boyd (an outspoken faultfinder of the Jesus Seminar), yet Strobel never interviewed a single member of the Jesus Seminar itself! Likewise, he repeatedly criticizes Michael Martin, author of Case Against Christianity, but he never bothered to get Martin's responses to those attacks. This hardly constitutes balanced reporting on Strobel's part'
Personally I am always rather suspicious of those who claim to have been totally sceptical about Christianity when starting to write their book/article and then to have been converted by the time they finish. It's a good rhetorical device, but it's been done to death (UK readers only have to look at any article by Colin Wilson about the supernatural appearing in the Daily Mail...).
In fact, having just done another search... here is a page on a Christian website where -if you look carefully - you will find that Strobel admits the book was written when he was already a Christian. He says it 'retraces' the path that he followed, but I would submit that it is very difficult to do that with honesty. It's certainly not the book of 'A journalist who has a law degree [who] made it his task to prove that the claims about Christ were false but after his research became a Christian' as Polly originally wrote, and many readers of Strobel seem to believe - presumably because they take his description in the book to be literally true...
[ 22 April 2002: Message edited by: Erin ]
It seems to me that the inerrant position must come from prejudgement of the issues. Could one take the Bible as we receive it, read it, assess it impartially, and come to the conclusion that it is an inerrant text? I rather doubt it.
quote:
Originally posted by elkab
I didn't shift the argument, I have said/am saying that genocide is something men do to one another out of hatred.In CONTRAST, God may kill a group of people for their sins (not out of hatred, envy, etc.) and be justified for doing so.
What you were saying is that my argument judges God. My argument is that God did not instigate the genocide, men did. Therefore how can my argument be a judgement of God?
I said your argument attributed the Genocide to God because that's exactly what it does. To argue that God has the right to take life away might hold some weight, but for God to compel humans to perform the acts for him is genocide. You're surely not saying that every israelite wept tears of love as they chopped the heads off the babies, that is beyond belief in any rational thinking.
Ah, but you're not rational are you? You imply so here.
quote:
(You appear to believe in the transcendant value of logic and reason for one.)
If we don't apply logic and reason then we can successfully argue that the Bible is the work of little green men from Mars. All we have to do is say that's what we believe.
The biggest problem is that the thing you seem to have complete faith in, is a claim made, not by God but by men! Namely that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
The Bible doesn't say that it is inerrant. The majority of theologians don't believe that it's inerrant. But you do! And you dont allow, even your own mind, to use logic to justify that absurd claim.
I have never denied that there are instances in the OT where God shows love. Nor have I denied that there are instances in the NT where God's wrath is mentioned. But just because God shows wrath in the NT doesnt mean that he slaughters one person for another's wrongdoing. Also it doesn't mean that he gets men to do it for him.
You believe that God instigated the killing of innocent people (babies would have been put to death) and used men to do it, rather than taking their lives directly. I say that the only reason you believe that is that you are starting from the (man made) premise that the Bible is inerrant.
Show me somewhere that Jesus told people to slaughter children. Turning over tables and hitting a few donkeys with some string won't do.
quote:
Luke has him born when Quirinius was legate of Syria and Cilicia (i.e after 6 AD). They can't both be right. And attempts by literalists to argue that somehow Quirinius was legate before this, or that Luke is referring to the census before Quirinius was legate are very dodgy to say the least.
Although I'm not a supporter of the Inerrancy of Scripture line, we need to be a little clearer here about the Greek.
The relevant word is 'protos', which indeed generally means 'first'; however, it can also mean 'before' (and is indeed used with that meaning elsewhere in the Gospels), and the Lucan passage could certainly be read as 'This was the census before Quirinius was "kurios" of Syria'
John
Thus, the only "true" truth (to use a phrase I think Francis Shaeffer used) is historical and scientific factual truth. Any other kind of truth, such as analogy, poetry or any kind of truth which can't be backed up by reference to "fact" could be seen to be based on a "lie."
Thus, Jonah has to be swallowed by a whale because otherwise it would be fiction, and that would be a "lie". It doesn't occur to them that fiction is as good a way of conveying truth as a historical account; if not better, because it doesn't have to prove anything. Jesus himself used parables (which are fictional) in order to convey spiritual truth. There is no reason to suppose that the writers and compilers of the Bible were not often doing this.
There's also a sense in which the Bible is a response to God's revelatation as much as it is a record of it. See the Psalms where the writers are shouting at God for being supposedly unfair.
quote:
Originally posted by Gauk:
It seems to me that the inerrant position must come from prejudgement of the issues. Could one take the Bible as we receive it, read it, assess it impartially, and come to the conclusion that it is an inerrant text? I rather doubt it.
You seem to be assuming that inerrancy and literalism are the same thing. Inerrancy is about the truth of its spiritual teaching when it is properly understood. Literalism is about the exact date and circumstances under which things happened.
Literalism is such an easy target that I don't know why we are even bothering to talk about it. But the holiness and spiritual truth of Scripture is something that Christianity has always accepted.
The Bible repeatedly claims that it is the holy Word of God and that everything in it is true. An impartial observer could not help but notice these statements. You can accept or reject them, but the church has historically accepted the truth of the Bible.
For example:
quote:
"The entirety of Your Word is truth." Psalm 119.160
"The Word of our God stands forever." Isaiah 40.8
"Man shall not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Matthew 4.4
"He who received the seed on the good ground is he who hears the Word and understands it, and bears fruit." Matthew 13.23
"The words that I speak to you are spirit and are life." John 6.63
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away." Luke 21.33
"Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the Law until all is fulfilled." Matthew 5.18
"You make the Word of God of no effect because of your traditions." Mark 7.13
The "Word of God" in the Old Testament is identified with the law of Moses (as in Psalm 119) and with the statements of the prophets ("Hear the Word of the Lord"). In the New Testament it is identified as the entire Old Testament (Luke 24.44), the words of Jesus, and of course as Jesus Himself.
I think we need to clarify the distinction between the truth of the religious doctrine that is the purpose of the Bible, and the minor discrepancies within the Bible account and between the various versions of the Bible. These discepancies are so minor that you need to be looking for errors to notice them, and they have virtually no effect on the actual spiritual teachings of the Bible.
a person who considers themself tostands forever, and that "one jot and one title" shall not fail from it.
The whole genocide/judgement thing is all based on how people read scripture. You are taking it on face value not really knowing teh context of everything going on.
Yes I agree that it is really hard to see anything but contradictions in Scripture and that God seems to be inconsistant in teh OT and NT.
However whatever list anyone provides and I try to give (IMHO) answers there will always be more examples and guess what I don't know all the answers.
There are now more "experts" and books by "experts" around if anyone wants to know more about issues.
Go and be adventurous and read a little!!
Those of you don't believe things is it because of understanding or simply because you won't?
I question the fact that just because it is hard to understand something in scripture we judge it to being "dodgy".
I have to also point out that there were a few times when God "killed" a number of Israelites.
The challenge by Levite priests to Moses' leadership for one.
What does this tell me about God.
Well (IMHO again!) he does hold his anger back time and tme again and His Mercy and Love do prevail .
However when someone ( group of/ peoples) continue to ignore His calling to repent and continue practices like child sacrifice and rape etc should God continue to "ignore" it because He is a mercyful God or should something be done.
I don't pretend to fully understand the issue but if it really is a stumbling block to your faith then either research the whole thing properly or let go.
Have just read you post from a while back!!
You sound as if you have greater knowledge over the archeological stuff than me.
Not got a problem with that.
However my understanding was that Albright still carries a certain amount of weight and his theory is still a theory and an option and hasn't been proved wrong.
The point I was trying to make was that certain people on this thread have read pasrt of scripture and made judgements on it not being open minded enough to either do further research or listen to other points of view.
I don't claim to be an expert but have done some research just to be able to give reason for my faith.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
[QB]
You seem to be assuming that inerrancy and literalism are the same thing. Inerrancy is about the truth of its spiritual teaching when it is properly understood. Literalism is about the exact date and circumstances under which things happened.
QB]
In that case, how can one judge inerrancy at all? Particularly when hedged about with phrases like "when properly understood" (trans.: "when interpreted by me"). There is no reference point for judging the truth of spritual teaching except our own faith. References to the Bible commenting on itself won't do, as the holy book of any religion can say the same thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Gauk:
In that case, how can one judge inerrancy at all? Particularly when hedged about with phrases like "when properly understood" (trans.: "when interpreted by me"). There is no reference point for judging the truth of spritual teaching except our own faith. References to the Bible commenting on itself won't do, as the holy book of any religion can say the same thing.
You've got it exactly. This is why it is a point of faith. Christians supposedly believe in the claims of the Bible, even though there is no objective way of proving such things as the resurrection. Surely no one could objectively demonstrate that God became man and walked on this earth. That would be absurd.
As for phrases like "when properly understood" (trans.: "when interpreted by me"), this is not as subjective as you might think. The Bible has a remarkable internal consistency and pattern. Passages are properly understood when they are measured against and compared with many other passages. This is not easy, and it is why we need "experts." But you are right that it is also somewhat subjective, so people are likely to disagree about it. I'm no expert, myself.
Fundamentally, however, the idea that the Bible is a divinely perfect book is a matter of faith. Faith is supported by reason and logic, but is not proved by them. To me it is compelling and logical that God would cause a book like this to exist. But this isn't the kind of thing that gets proved. If it does not make sense, however, who is going to accept it?
quote:
Originally posted by Polly
The whole genocide/judgement thing is all based on how people read scripture. You are taking it on face value not really knowing teh context of everything going on.
You're doing it again, Polly. It's the people who believe in an inerrant view of scripture who are taking it at face value.
quote:
Yes I agree that it is really hard to see anything but contradictions in Scripture and that God seems to be inconsistant in teh OT and NT.
Then why not accept that there are inconsistencies. What harm will it do? You can still believe in God, still be a Christian.
quote:
Go and be adventurous and read a little!!
You're rather assuming that people haven't. And you're rather assuming that you have.
quote:
Those of you don't believe things is it because of understanding or simply because you won't?
That's really insulting. I won't believe in an inerrant Bible because the evidence doesn't support it. As you say yourself 'it is really hard to see anything but contradictions in Scripture and that God seems to be inconsistant in the OT and NT'.
quote:
I question the fact that just because it is hard to understand something in scripture we judge it to being "dodgy".
I question the fact that when something in scripture obviously means what it says, some people will believe that black is white to support their man made view, that the Bible is inerrant.
quote:
I have to also point out that there were a few times when God "killed" a number of Israelites.
Oh! so that makes it alright then. 2 wrongs make a right don't they?
quote:
However when someone ( group of/ peoples) continue to ignore His calling to repent and continue practices like child sacrifice and rape etc should God continue to "ignore" it because He is a mercyful God or should something be done.
Like killing them all including their children? Something was done - God sent Jesus.
quote:
I don't pretend to fully understand the issue but if it really is a stumbling block to your faith then either research the whole thing properly or let go.
It is no stumbling block to my faith. It seems to be to yours. You seem to be treating the Bible and the people who wrote it as if they ARE God. I believe in a good God and men that err.
quote:
Originally posted by FreddyFundamentally, however, the idea that the Bible is a divinely perfect book is a matter of faith. Faith is supported by reason and logic, but is not proved by them. To me it is compelling and logical that God would cause a book like this to exist. But this isn't the kind of thing that gets proved. If it does not make sense, however, who is going to accept it?
I quite agree that it is a matter of faith, but it is not supported by logical reasoning. What I don't understand is why it should be important for you that it contains no errors. Surely that would exault it's writers and compilers to god-like status (unerring) at least for the time they spent writing it.
So it's quite true that it's a matter of faith, but it's misplaced faith.
I have to say also that it's this misplaced faith which causes so many people to dismiss Christians as crackpots! It serves to keep reasoning people from taking what you say seriously.
In short it works against God.
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
What I don't understand is why it should be important for you that it contains no errors. Surely that would exault it's writers and compilers to god-like status (unerring) at least for the time they spent writing it.
The whole idea of calling it the "Word of God" is that it comes from God, not people. The writers were simply carriers of the message, not gods themselves.
The reason that it needs to be "error free" - by which I do not mean that it does not sometimes seem to present false ideas, or that it is literally accurate - is that its author is God. As a concept this idea is so frequently stated and exalted in Scripture that accepting it is implicit in accepting Christianity.
quote:
I have to say also that it's this misplaced faith which causes so many people to dismiss Christians as crackpots! It serves to keep reasoning people from taking what you say seriously. In short it works against God.
That's a surprising statement. Believing in Scripture, as Christians have believed since the Gospels were written, goes against God?
I certainly agree that you have to have a resonable way of accounting for the discrepancies, inconsistencies, and apparent errors of both fact and theology in the Bible.
Christianity is a religion which asks you to believe that God came to earth, performed all kinds of miracles, and yet was killed by the people. This is as strange an idea as has ever existed. It's not any stranger to believe that the account of His life was also given from God.
But if there is simply no such thing as divine revelation, then why not just come out and say so?
You have once again bulit your 'straw man' out of something that I have said and used it to disarm my argument.
I AM rational. You have made a very illogical leap by assuming that a positive deduction of your belief in the value of logic and reason means that I somehow MUST believe the opposite.....Very sloppy bonzo.
The point of that sentence was merely to show you that everyone holds to certain 'core' beliefs. It wasn't about me NOT valuing reason. I think reason is one of the greatest human qualities.
Maybe I should rethink my deduction that you are rational? (read my posts "carefully" if you want to respond)
Anyways, onto the points of your post.
Finally, you have acknowledged the very real, very qualitative difference between genocide and divine punishment.
But then you fall back to your emotionally-charged rhetoric. "chopping heads off babies". I'm not even saying that that wasn't what happened when the Hebrews killed the people-groups in Caanan. What I am saying is that the real argument is unaffected by it. So what if God instigated HIs "punishment" of people which included the massacre of babies. Does this somehow make any difference? I have said that all people deserve death by nature (read Ps 51).
If God wants to excercise His RIGHT to kill these people, than who are you to stand back and draw the limitations of what and who God can and cannot destroy. Also, God can use men as HIs instruments of punishment much like He uses us as His instruments of grace through the gospel.
Now I don't want to see your next post with a quote from me (ripped aout of context) about how it doesn't matter if God kills babies. I'm not saying that. I AM saying that God has the divine right to kill babies for the reason of sin. Please represent my argument truthfully.
You still have not given any evidence that what God did in Joshua is "genocide". All you have done is "banked" on the idea that killing women and children in certain ways is somehow universally, under any circumstances, for deity and mortal alike evil. - Very hard to prove.
I, on the other hand, have given good evidence that the text is referring to divine punishment. The authorial intent/interpretation favors this, the argument from the relational dynamic 'difference' between Creator and created shows this, and now I await your response.
SHow me that God is committing genocide here.
Don't just tell me what the Jews did and how you perceive it to be bad. I want "evidence" if this is worth continuing.
quote:
If God wants to excercise His RIGHT to kill these people, than who are you to stand back and draw the limitations of what and who God can and cannot destroy.
but god didn't. people did. they claimed that god told them to.
lots and lots of people kill other people and claim that god told them to. they generally either get convicted of murder, or put away for a long time til they get better.
quote:
Originally posted by ekalb:
If God wants to excercise His RIGHT to kill these people, than who are you to stand back and draw the limitations of what and who God can and cannot destroy.
I'm with Bonzo here. God does not destroy, punish, or kill anyone. He especially does not kill innocent victims. This is inconsistent with the idea of God given, as a whole, in Scripture.
I appreciate the desire to justify what parts of the Bible actually say. They do, it is true, frequently refer to Divine punishment, and Joshua is written as though God commanded Joshua to slaughter whole cities.
I think that it is more accurate and consistent with the Bible, however, to realize that references to divine anger and punishment are written according to the appearance, and are not literally true.
This is not to say that the evil are not punished. The law of divine order is that all good and all evil returns to the one doing it. The evil essentially punish themselves, or are punished by others like themselves. But the punishment does not come from God. He grieves at their punishment, and would end it if this were possible without destroying human freedom.
This particular stumbling block is, I think, a big one for many people.
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
There are now more "experts" and books by "experts" around if anyone wants to know more about issues.Go and be adventurous and read a little!!
Those of you don't believe things is it because of understanding or simply because you won't?
I rather agree with Bonzo; for the reasons I've already explained, if you come in with Lee Strobel as a source, those of us who've read more rigorous analyses are not going to be impressed.
If you are indeed prepared to be adventurous and read a little, I'd suggest any or all of the following for starters:
'The Gospels & Jesus', Stanton
'The Living World of the Old Testament' Anderson
'The Historical Figure of Jesus' E P Sanders
And perhaps someone else who knows it can post the name of the book where NT Wright and Marcus Borg go head to head - my copy is on loan to someone else at present and I can't remember the title. That would be a very good antidote to Strobel - it does what Strobel says he is doing and doesn't...
These aren't heavy books, though they're certainly more demanding than Strobel. None of them are from extreme positions either, they are all from more or less the centre of academic theology. But they'll open your eyes to the breadth of knowledge and belief that is out there in Christendom. I'd particularly recommend the Anderson one for a view of the Old Testament, but if you pick it up second hand or from a library get the latest edition you can find so that you get an up-to-date view.
It's been interesting reading.
I used to be an inerrantist. I used the same lines of argument as Polly and Ekalb are doing here.
But they didn't work.
I couldn't love a God who ordered the slaughter of children. Of the innocent along with the guilty.
This could have been a problem. But when I looked at what Jesus was like, I realised there was no problem. This image of God was flawed.
It has to be.
Let's get real for a moment, folks. Imagine that during a prayer meeting, someone does the "Thus saith the Lord" thing, and tells you that a given list of wrongdoers are to be brutally slaughtered by you. God's had enough of them, they've had their warnings, and the time's up. Oh, and you're to kill their children and pets too. And raze their houses to the ground.
Now, would you really think that was God? No. And why not? Because it would be out of character.
Comprendez?
[replaced long URL to remove horizontal scroll]
[ 22 April 2002: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
quote:
Originally posted by FreddyThe reason that it needs to be "error free" - by which I do not mean that it does not sometimes seem to present false ideas, or that it is literally accurate - is that its author is God. As a concept this idea is so frequently stated and exalted in Scripture that accepting it is implicit in accepting Christianity.
Does this mean that in your view I am not a Christian?
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Does this mean that in your view I am not a Christian?
I don't know if you are a Christian or not - or for that matter if I am one.
I only meant that accepting the truth of the message of the Bible as something that is from God has always been considered to be a fairly normal aspect of Christianity. Certainly there can be differences of opinion about what constitutes "accepting" this. But if someone says they are a Christian most people would expect that they believe in the Bible.
Someone might accept its general message as having a divine origin, but the details as having their origin in the minds of the writers. This is fine with me.
Whatever part of the Bible is from God, however, ought to be considered in some sense to be perfect and holy. At least that is what I would expect.
Well lets start with nicole's response:
You rightly point out that 'men' did the killing. But if you will re-read my post, you will see that I said that God can choose to use men (or animals, or angels, etc, etc) to do His will. I even point out that in the NT it is 'men' that are used by GOd to administer the gospel of His mercy. So, whats the problem if He uses 'men' to administer His justice too?
Now freddys response:
You say that "God does not destoy, punish, or kill". Well, that is one HUGE claim. I wonder how you would attempt to sustain the claim. My claim is that God 'does' destroy, punish, and kill, - but only for justified reasons and only out of His desire for good towards His creation.
But more importantly (and something that no one on this thread has really tried to defeat yet), is the 'qualitative' diference between 'Creator' and 'created'.
For instance, as I write this post I am crafting each sentence towards my purpose. If a word or phrase is not where I want it, I have full control over erasing it or moving it elsewhere. No one else can erase my words or craft it, - it is 'mine'. Mine to make, and mine to change, and mine to erase if I so choose. Are you seeing the point yet?
God's relationship to humans is more complex than my relationship to my post, but the "me-post" example above 'does' represent a very real aspect between God and man.
True, God is our Father. In the person of Christ, God is our saviour and brother, BUT never forget that He has always been, and always will be our MAKER.
God DOES have the RIGHT to kill his creation, not merely because He is stronger, but because He has a very real 'ownership' over us. Christian Humility is based on this fact. Thats why Abraham spoke to God saying, "I am nothing more than dust." Obviously, Abraham didn't have a self-esteem problem, but when we face the One who made us (crafted us and formed us to His will and purpose) I think we would all realize how small we are in comparison.
The point is that God, because He is Creator, has the 'unique' right and priviledge of deciding when -if at all- a person should die for their sins.
Attempts by bonzo and freddy to 'superimpose' human rights and priviledges onto God is foolish. St. Paul said it profoundly in Romans 9: "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall What is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'"
Because this is about "Biblical Inerrancy", not to mention for those who are wondering what this has to do with it, I am showing that no one can use the slaughters in the book of Joshua as proof of the 'errancy' of scripture. Some have said that because it attributes 'genocide' to GOd that the text cannot be truly inerrant then.
The fault with this argument is that the text does NOT attribute 'genocide' to God, rather the authorial intent/interpretation points towards 'divine punishment'. Furthermore, I have spent many posts clearly showing that 'divine punishment' is valid, logical, consistent with the revealed nature of God in the rest of scripture, and therefore negates the attempt to use the 'genocidal-god' argument.
respond please....
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
To me it is compelling and logical that God would cause a book like this to exist. But this isn't the kind of thing that gets proved. If it does not make sense, however, who is going to accept it?
The problem here, as I see it, is that if it is logical for God to cause a book of instruction to exist, it is also logical for God to make it very clear what those instructions are, and that this book is God's word. Otherwise the exercise becomes self-defeating. The fact that so much effort is required to interpret the Bible, and that so many different interpretations can evidently be made, suggests that, as a book, it is not very well designed. If we impute that it came from the Great Designer we reach the unpalatable conclusion that either He isn't able to express Himself very well, or He is teasing us with deliberate obfuscation.
It is rather easier to defend the position that the books of the Bible represent successive attempts by men to put down what they perceived, not always inerrantly, of Divine Truth, diluted with a large amount of historical, genealogical and other miscellaneous material.
However, I don't believe that is what he wanted to give us. I believe that God wants us to freely enter a dynamic relationship with him. One of the primary ways God has chosen to communicate with us is through the Bible; the nature of the Bible is therefore dictated by the requirements of the type of relationship he wants to have with us.
God relates to us as individuals; therefore the Bible needs to deliver a slightly different message to each of us. He also relates to us as a community (on many different levels from small groups to the entire human race) which constrains how varied that message can be.
God wants us to come to him freely, so his message can't be irrefutable. And he wants us to exercise our freedom within that relationship so the Bible can't be totally prescriptive about doctrine or behaviour.
God wants us to us our gifts and abilities, including the ability (corporately and individually) to question and debate the Bible to gain greater understanding. And since God is infinite trying to communicate with finite beings then the Bible would be expected to contain plenty to engage our minds.
I think that the books we have actually suit Gods purpose pretty well. Whereas, a set of divinely dictated totally inerrant writings wouldn't be as suitable.
Alan
I have a pet hamster. It's mine. I bought it I own it. It's mine to feed. It's mine to chop the feet off (in a loving and caring way of course).
God, through Jesus has shown me, that he is loving and forgiving. He has shown me that he would rather forgive than condemn his own murderers. He wants me to be the same sort of person as him.
If I hear voices in my head which I believe is God telling me to kill the family next door who are abusing their children, including killing the children, should I do it?
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I believe that God wants us to freely enter a dynamic relationship with him. One of the primary ways God has chosen to communicate with us is through the Bible; the nature of the Bible is therefore dictated by the requirements of the type of relationship he wants to have with us.
Thank you, Alan. Once again, beautifully stated and reasoned.
The key word, I think, is freedom. The nature of the book is that you can get much or little out of it according to your own free choice and interest. In one sense it is true, but in another sense it is all wrong.
This is the point of Jesus' words to His disciples when they asked why He so often spoke in parables:
quote:
Matthew 13.14
Hearing you will hear and not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive.
For the heart of this people has grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their heart and turn,
So that I should heal them.
The statement is paradoxical, since you would think that Jesus would want to heal them. But the meaning is that He is not going to heal them unless they want to be healed. If they don't wish to understand they will not understand.
The Bible is written to facilitate an individual and unique relationship between each person and God.
So in one sense I agree that the Bible is filled with apparent mistakes and misleading ideas, both of fact and of doctrine. But in a more fundamental sense I believe that it was written by God, or caused by Him to be written, in a particular way for a particular purpose. It is therefore a perfect book, and will not fail to accomplish His purpose, which is to cause people to freely love Him and one another. As Isaiah said:
quote:
Isaiah 55
For as the rain comes down and the snow from heaven,
And do not return there but water the earth,
And make it bring forth and bud,
That it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater,
So shall My Word be that goes forth from My mouth;
It shall not return to Me void,
But it shall accomplish what I please,
And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.
quote:
I have a pet hamster. It's mine. I bought it I own it. It's mine to feed. It's mine to chop the feet off (in a loving and caring way of course).
If you created the Hamster and gave it life then the answer would be yes do with it what you like but you didn't create the Hamster and it was a gift to you to look after.
Bonzo your analogy was bad.
The point with did God order the killing/genocide/judgement of anyone let alone a "nation" has to be taken has to be taken an example at a time. No sweeping statements that all such instances were or weren't of God can not be made. I haven't made any statements like this.
However do I believe that some of God's people acted out of their own iniative in such ways ( eg King Saul) yes!
Do I belive that God used inidviduals to act out "His" judgement (Joshua) Yes.
In fact with Joshua after they had taken the land the Israelites were given precise instructions and when someone (sorry don'ta have a bible handy or able remember the guys name)disobeyed that his whole family were taken any killed.
The fact is that God hates Sin but also cares for His people ( don't misread me on this as he cares for everyone) and so when HIs people have been in danger there have been numerous examples where God has protected His peole eitehr by supernatural means or (IMHO) commanding His people to "War".
Do I understand it - not really but I won't make judgement on something I have little understanding of. As God said to Job "Who are you to instruct and know the ways of God Almighty".
What I do know is that if there was something that troubled me and I needed to clarify specific aspect of scripture I can do some own research rather than make my own judgements like a few are doing on this thread.
I am not going to be able to convince you Bonzo of anything purely because the issue is yours and you aren't being open minded enough to even look at the options let alone listen to an "amatuer" like me trying to help you.
If you have any knowledge or qualifications in the subject of Biblical History lets hear it because at least you would have a leg to stand on.
[UBB fixed]
[ 23 April 2002: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
quote:
originally posted by polly
If you created the Hamster and gave it life then the answer would be yes do with it what you like but you didn't create the Hamster and it was a gift to you to look after.
So if I had created the hamster then it would not be cruel?
quote:
Also posted by polly
Do I understand it - not really but I won't make judgement on something I have little understanding of. As God said to Job "Who are you to instruct and know the ways of God Almighty".
But by believing the Bible to be the implicit word of God you ARE making a judgement. A judgement which is not necessary for you to be a Christian. God never said that the book of Joshua should be considered to be inerrant MEN did that!
I'm not sure I totally agree with Polly's response, but your analogy 'is' bad.
It is true that you would not have 'created' the hamster. My analogy worked (ie. me 'creating' the post) but a hamster would be a relationship of steward-creation, not creator-creation.
The difference is still there. Further, I would ask you why you would cut your hamster's legs off, etc.? You imply that the act is done in some sadistic sense, in which case you have missed the point yet again.
You're right, GOd is a God of love. Try looking at it this way: All of humanity has sinned, done horrible things to each other and totally failed the purpose for which we were created in the first place.
The really awesome part of the whole thing is that God hasn't killed everyone already. He is a God who 'chooses' to redeem rather than scrapping humanity and starting again.
So, afraid your analogy just won't work. God is love, but equally He is justice. God knows when a group of people 'need' to be punished for their sins and He also knows when you or I 'need' redemption. It's His choice to do either and He is fully justified to do either.
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." Rom.9.15
So you are saying that if, hypothetically, I was able to create a hamster, and I chopped it's legs off that it would not be a cruel thing to do?
You ask me why I would want to do it. I wouldn't, I'm not cruel.
But you seem to be arguing that because I created it that doing so would not be cruel.
quote:
But you seem to be arguing that because I created it that doing so would not be cruel.
This is where you are missing the point as if you could create the Hamster then it would be your right to do with it what you like whether you leave it to grow old and die or whether you did want to chop its legs off.
As you can't create a hamster then you can't tell the one who did create them whether He is right or wrong to do what He wants.
Bonzo said
quote:
But by believing the Bible to be the implicit word of God you ARE making a judgement. A judgement which is not necessary for you to be a Christian. God never said that the book of Joshua should be considered to be inerrant MEN did that!
No by doing research and asking questions and trying to find answers by eitehr books or speaking to people who do know such things do I believe that the Bible is true.
"All scripture is God breathed...." 1/2?? Tim 3 v 16
Suggest you try it.
Bonzo also said:
quote:
But you seem to be arguing that because I created it that doing so would not be cruel
I might find it hard to understand not think what I do but it is not my place to pass judgement on you if that is what you chose to do and if you decided to explain your reasons to me than fine if not fine again.
[UBB fixed]
[ 23 April 2002: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
quote:
No by doing research and asking questions and trying to find answers by eitehr books or speaking to people who do know such things do I believe that the Bible is true.
You have either been very unlucky or very selective in your research.
quote:
You have either been very unlucky or very selective in your research.
That's a bit harsh ....
Surely this is one of those chicken and egg things. People who believe that the Bible is true will seek out books by Stobel and his ilk so they can back up their arguements. Someone who believes the opposite is more likely to find other books like the ones Mike recommended.
Years of library work has convinced me that no one comes to this sort of issue with an open mind - but instead seeks out stuff that will enable them to argue their views better However, before anyone jumps up and down, I'm not saying that views don't change.
Tubbs
quote:You have either been very unlucky or very selective in your research.
That is an extremely judgemental comment if I ever heard one.
When you have done research to say otherwise and instead of using your own opinions then you may get others paying more attention to you.
Besides I don't know many people who would say that the likes of Wayne Grudem, Charles Colson and Lee Strobel (to name but a few) have got it wrong.
Until then your point is still seriously flawed and the way you interpret scripture and then use it to your own ends is how fundamentalists work
Here some to add to the hand which opposes inerrancy.
James Barr - Escaping from fundamentalism.
In which he successfully argues that you can not believe parts of the Bible and still be an Evangelical.
John Barton - What is the Bible?
James Barr - Escaping from fundamentalism
In which he successfully argues that you can
disbelieve parts of the Bible and still be an Evangelical.
I agree with you when you say that it's 'all about the Grace of God revealed in the life of Jesus'.
But IMO the concept of Biblical inerrancy stands in the way of many people believing in Christ.
It is precisely because it's all about the God of grace, that it is necessary to dispell the myth of this wrathful vengeful God.
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
It is precisely because it's all about the God of grace, that it is necessary to dispell the myth of this wrathful vengeful God.
Oh, is this where you are coming from? Well that's a pretty good point! I agree wholeheartedly.
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:What I do know is that if there was something that troubled me and I needed to clarify specific aspect of scripture I can do some own research rather than make my own judgements like a few are doing on this thread.
Polly,
In the above quote you are critical of people making their own judgements (you made similar comments earlier about this).
This kind of comment is made from time to time here in Purgatory but would you please consider the following before you post it again!
Glenn
The book of Joshua describes God as commanding and aiding the extermination of various Canaanite tribes. Since the Concise Oxford English dictionary defines genocide as ‘the extermination of a nation, race etc.’ it is not unreasonable to say that, if Joshua is without error than God committed genocide.
You wish to show that God did not commit genocide and your strategy is, in effect, to redefine genocide to something like ‘the extermination of a nation, race etc. unless commanded by God as punishment for sin.’ This challenges people, like myself and Bonzo, to show that the clearance of Canaan was not a punishment for sin. One obvious point we could make here is that the extermination involved babies who are surely innocent. However, you pre-empt this by stating that all people, including babies, are sinners deserving of punishment for sin.
What we end up with in your view is the conclusion that the clearance of Canaan cannot be used to prove that the bible is not inerrant.
But the price to pay for such a conclusion is a heavy one. If I am trying to decide whether or not to believe that the bible is without error then it would appear that if I decide in favour of inerrancy I will be committed to at least the following views:
I will inevitably have to draw the conclusion that there had better be some exceptionally strong reasons for me to adopt the view that the bible is without error if I am going to have to end up holding this kind of view of God. I do not see how anyone can be happy with these views of God. They give a picture of God, which many find morally repugnant, and which many would find does not inspire worship and respect.
I do not believe that the case for inerrancy is a strong one anyway. But presumably you do. What reasons do you have for being committed to inerrancy, Ekalb?
Glenn
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Oldham:
But the price to pay for such a conclusion is a heavy one.
I am in agreement with most of this post if you define "inerrancy" in a strictly literal way. As soon as you have God Himself commanding genocide you are in trouble.
It would be great, however, to have someone defining some kind of middle ground. Otherwise it sounds as though we are assigning no divinity at all to the Bible. This causes the difficulty of dealing with the Bible's endless claims to divinity, if not strict inerrance.
The price to pay for the conclusion that the Bible does not necessarily contain divine truth is also a heavy one:
1. If Christianity's main tenets are founded on the assumption that the Bible is true, what happens to Christianity if the Bible is no longer believed?
2. If the Bible message is accepted in the main, but it is acknowledged that large parts of it are purely man-made, doesn't this leave every biblical statement open to question?
3. If there is no belief in the reality of divine revelation, this threatens the legitimacy of all religious systems.
4. If you believe that morality is affected by belief, then you might worry that the loss of belief will lead to an increase in the kind of immoral behavior that is hurtful to society in general.
These kinds of fears are taken seriously by many people, and so they feel obligated to accept biblical statements - even when they make no sense or run contrary to other biblical statements. Certainly churches are profoundly affected by this kind of reasoning. No Christian church has formally repudiated the book of Joshua.
For myself, the way out of the equally valid problems with either position is to accept the idea of an allegorical aspect to the Bible. So that even though God Himself would never order the destruction of the actual Canaanites, He does order the destruction of the evils that they represent in our own lives. This way the book is absolutely divine, but adapted to the nature of the people of that time. Yet in its meaning it is adapted to the people of all times.
But whatever device a person adopts, I think it is important to acknowledge that you pay a price if you acknowledge the literal truth of the Bible, and you also pay one if you deny the divine inspiration of the Bible.
Unfortunately, it seems as though it is hard to define the middle ground.
My argument was NOT that if you had 'created' the hamster, then you would be justified to cut its legs off. That's why I asked the question in my post 'Why?' would you cut the legs off. Further, I suggested that you were implying a "sadistic" motive for doing so. (again, read the post thoroughly before responding)
In short, I'm not saying that God just goes around sadistically killing things out of boredom or pleasure, rather He will kill humans when they have crossed the boundaries that He has set for us. Or He might have mercy and not kill us. BUT either way, God is justified. Not because the Bible 'just says so', but because God is privy to the unique ownership over all creation.
I might add, that if you "could" create a hamster, then you would be (for all practicality) the hamster's 'god'.
And if you were the kind of 'god' that would sadistically rip the legs of your creation then I might argue that the hamster may not even think it evil. As 'god' over your hamster, you (by your nature and ethics/lack of ethics) would define the hamster's worldview and sense of right and wrong.
What am I saying? Basically that you cannot just use a "theoretical" universe in which cutting legs off its creation is the norm for divine actions and somehow compare it to this universe in which right and wrong are defined by the true God's nature and ethics.
---It's apples and oranges.-Can't draw a valid comparison.
Well, I want to say more, but I gotta go. I'll be back to explore this inerrancy thing later.
appreciate the reponse.
Frankly, you bring some rather good points.
I'm WAY too tired to go into all the reasons for me holding to inerrancy, But I will (for now) try to answer your post's points:
First, you're right that 'genocide' may be the correct 'technical' term for the events described in Joshua. I am not so much trying to 're-define' the term as I am trying to separate the 'stigma' of inherent immorality attached to it by bonzo.
'Genocide', as being implicitly defined by bonzo, has been an inherently 'evil' slaughter, initiated by God, executed by the ancient Hebrews upon particular Canaanite tribes.
What I have been showing is the qualitative diference between 'that kind' of genocide and divine punishment. But I see that you have grasped my argument rather well already so I won't re-state it.
You seem to have a problem with the doctrine of original sin. Christians have always firmly held to this teaching that even babies (yes, even cute little babies) are born with a disposition towards wrong-doing. Now, many Christians argue that God doesn't judge babies until they have reached an 'age of moral responsibility'. - I also hold to this. This, though, can be a 'can-of-worms' in itself and I will simply say that if it is true that humanity is a 'fallen' race, and if it is true that because of our falleness, all humans are at enmity with God by nature, then I don't see the problem with my initial argument. (Scripture does support the above premises and, therefore, my syllogism does have weight.)
All humans 'deserve' death due to sin, and if God decides to enact His justice, then He is allowed to.
Also, I would point out that you wrongfully assume that there is some limitation to the 'form' of God's justice. So, then how is God supposed to 'rightly' enact His divine justice upon sinful man??? I don't think that there is a problem with God using other men to do His will (i.e. justice, grace).
Further, I would say that God is 'extremely' compassionate in dealing with our sin and with what His 'just' nature compels of Him. It is a 'tension' within the divine mind, and like I have posted early, is the 'problem' that Christ came to fix.
LAstly, God isn't "incapable" of giving His people the land peacefully. For one, humans have genuine free will and God has genuine sovereignty. It is unfair of you to try and defeat my argument by throwing in something as complex and multi-faceted as human freedom/divine sovereingty. It's not as black and white as you paint it (This is not a concession to your point, by the way, rather I can't spend the time on such a large issue. -another thread, maybe?).
Also, I recommend Deut.7 for reading. It gives one reason for God desiring to kill the Canaanite tribes in the promised land: namely, that the tribes would 'corrupt' the message and purpose God had given the Hebrews.
There may be equally logical answers to these questions which do not support inerrancy, but my purpose is to show that someone CAN hold to inerrancy without being epistemologically 'sloppy'. holding to inerrancy is not like believing in the 'tooth fairy'. Inerrancy is a logically-consistent, albeit debated, outworking of the Christian faith and what our 'book' strongly supports.
sorry for the grammar and sentence structures, I'm really tired.
quote:
Originally posted by ekalb:
Glen,
You seem to have a problem with the doctrine of original sin. Christians have always firmly held to this teaching that even babies (yes, even cute little babies) are born with a disposition towards wrong-doing. Now, many Christians argue that God doesn't judge babies until they have reached an 'age of moral responsibility'. - I also hold to this. This, though, can be a 'can-of-worms' in itself and I will simply say that if it is true that humanity is a 'fallen' race, and if it is true that because of our falleness, all humans are at enmity with God by nature, then I don't see the problem with my initial argument. (Scripture does support the above premises and, therefore, my syllogism does have weight.)
Unless St. Paul is errant, clearly judgement upon sin is contingent on the knowledge of good and evil, perfect and imperfect.
quote:
All humans 'deserve' death due to sin, and if God decides to enact His justice, then He is allowed to.
Rather, the railing of Jesus and Paul against the focus upon sinfulness as a measure of justification, is to point out not the wickedness of all people, but their lack of perfection. If you compare one against another, the only inarguable position is that perfection is required, thus no-one can say that on their behaviour they are owed justification. Therefore, only God can dispense justification, because human laws can provide none, and human power none either.
God, therefore, places a justification by covenant or faith, comparing not one persons temptations, talents, etc. beside anothers, but requiring instead relationship with Him. Thus, however fallen one person has been, however imperfect their history were it known and humanly judged, God's mercy and love are greater. No gap is so wide God cannot bridge it or His power redeem, which given the insufficiency of human justice and power only serves to illuminate His majesty.
quote:
Inerrancy is a logically-consistent, albeit debated, outworking of the Christian faith and what our 'book' strongly supports.
I don't personally believe these problems are as significant as some folks think, but by going out on a limb we invite being hoisted by our own petard.
Reducing inerrancy to things spiritual nearly works - but not in the final analysis perfectly.
Anyhow, it depends on whether you see the bible as a map or as a compass - I trust it totally as I would a compass to show me magnetic north (properly used), I don't think its a map telling me absolutely everything.
Off now to take my bearings...
quote:
when you strongly imply that there is a difference between making one’s own judgement and doing research you ignore the fact that many of us here in Purgatory have years of research behind us already on issues like these. You therefore leave yourself wide open to the accusation that the only reason you believe we have not been doing research is because we have not arrived at the same opinion as you.
I can't respond to all your comments so sorry for being selective.
Firstly apologies to anyone who feels this way.
Secondly I have never de-valued anyones own opinion just because it differs from my own and that was never my intention.
I have also never said that I am an expert on any given subject or believed that there are no other people on this board who have either done research on any given subject or that no-one here is an expert in any field.
The point I am trying to make is this:
The Bible is made up of many different books by a wide range of people from different backgrounds dated 1000's of years old.
How can we possibly understand it all and whats more a number of the accounts in in various translations do not help either.
I believe there has to be a reason for all the scriptural writings to be in the Bible. Some more obvious than others and some God "had" included for reasons known to Himself.
In general we know more now about Biblical times than ever through various bits of research etc and really have to dig deep to understand scripture.
With your comment above (even though I haven't read every post) I haven't seen anyone else quoting stuff on the things that they know.
If you or someone else has insight into anything than lets see it. It would be really helpful. Until then is it not just your opinion against my opinion etc??
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
It is precisely because it's all about the God of grace, that it is necessary to dispell the myth of this wrathful vengeful God.
On a side issue God does say that Vengence is His.
Also see my comments above to Glen concerning Scripture etc.
IMO scripture must be treated like any other "historical" writing. That is give it the benefit of doubt until proven otherwise.
In a court of law we wouldn't say someone is guilty on the face of a statement but cross examine it with other means.
I do believe like you God is a God of love.
And yes I struggle hugely with many different bits of scripture.
If I had a friend or family member whose only reason for not coming to faith was this whole thing about Joshua I would do my best to do research and help give reason for what I felt it was saying.
This is all I have tried to say to you and others. If it is a problem with you and your faith instead of reading it at face value try to find out the whole context of it and if you still come to teh same conclusion then you cross that bridge if and whne you get to it.
quote:
Originally posted by ekalbI might add, that if you "could" create a hamster, then you would be (for all practicality) the hamster's 'god'. And if you were the kind of 'god' that would sadistically rip the legs of your creation then I might argue that the hamster may not even think it evil. As 'god' over your hamster, you (by your nature and ethics/lack of ethics) would define the hamster's worldview and sense of right and wrong.
So if hypothetically I could create a hamster, a being which could feel pain, a being which felt distress, but it was entirely my own work. You are saying that the hamster couldn't blame me for cutting it's legs off, but you as an equal being to me you would call me 'sadistic'.
What I'm getting at here is that cruelty is cruelty whoever does it. If the person who commits cruelty knows how much pain, terror, suffering they are causing, then it's cruel absolutely. It doesn't matter if I created the Hamster of not, I know it can feel, I know it can suffer, I know it can feel afraid. Therefore, having created it, I would be (as you have now admitted) being sadistic.
So you say:
1. If Christianity's main tenets are founded on the assumption that the Bible is true, what happens to Christianity if the Bible is no longer believed?
Let us say "substantially true" rather than "inerrantly true" and Christianity can survive.
2. If the Bible message is accepted in the main, but it is acknowledged that large parts of it are purely man-made, doesn't this leave every biblical statement open to question?
Yes, but that is not a bad thing.
3. If there is no belief in the reality of divine revelation, this threatens the legitimacy of all religious systems.
Not at all! Besides, there is a difference between divine revelation in the sense of dictating a holy text, and other forms of revelation.
4. If you believe that morality is affected by belief, then you might worry that the loss of belief will lead to an increase in the kind of immoral behavior that is hurtful to society in general.
Too late for that now ...
By the way, about this hamster. Maybe you yourself can't create a hamster, but you can create a human child. It is not moral to chop your children's legs off, whether you created them or not.
quote:
Otherwise it sounds as though we are assigning no divinity at all to the Bible. This causes the difficulty of dealing with the Bible's endless claims to divinity, if not strict inerrance.
The Bible does not claim to be divine, divinely inspired perhaps, but it is not itself God and no where claims to be.
Carys
quote:
IMO scripture must be treated like any other "historical" writing. That is give it the benefit of doubt until proven otherwise.
Now this is something I do know about. [I]Nothing[/I} is given the benefit of the doubt in historical enquiry. A proper scepticism about one's sources is one of the attributes of the historian. It is the application of this attitude to the Bible that creates one of the major doubts as to it's inerrancy.
For example, according to scholars, the history of Israel we find in the early books of the Bible is the creation of a religious elite during the exile (i.e. 700 years or so after the events described). Furthermore the history they describe bears little relation to the history of Israel as discovered by archeologists. (Thus Whybray - The Making of the Pentateuch).
Doubtless other views can be taken, but the point is that no historian worthy of the name would take the Bible or any other documentary source at face value.
quote:
Originally posted by carysThe Bible does not claim to be divine, divinely inspired perhaps, but it is not itself God and no where claims to be.
Actually the Bible doesn't even claim that all the Bible is divinely inspired. Only 'scripture' is claimed to be divinely inspired. What constitued scripture at that time is very unclear. It might well have not included the book of Joshua which might have been considered to be a historical account rather than scripture.
Certainly the verse which says 'all scripture is inspired by God', could not have been referring to any of the books of the NT.
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
The Bible does not claim to be divine, divinely inspired perhaps, but it is not itself God and no where claims to be.
It's true that it never says, "the words of this book are God Himself." But it comes close. It says:
"And the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1
This can be interpretted as not referring to the Word as the Scriptures, but to the Word as a philosophical concept that was "in the beginning" with God, which the written Word was not. Nevertheless, the word is identified with Scripture in hundreds of bible passages that begin "the Word of the Lord" and go on to make various statements as if they are directly from God.
Other passages ascribe divine qualities to Scripture:
"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." Luke 4
"The entirety of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever." Psalm 119.160
Jesus said, "The words I speak to you are spirit and are life." John 6.63
The language itself of Scripture makes divine claims, including over 70 references to "My word" or "My words," referring to what He has said in Scripture, over 250 references to "Word of the Lord," referring to specific sayings in Scripture, and 50 references to the "Word of God." These labels identify the book as divine, if they are accepted.
These things may be described as saying that the bible is divinely inspired. But "divinely inspired" can be another way of saying that they are divine, and therefore holy and true. Or it can mean that God in some sense inspired these words, just as He inspires each one of us.
The Bible, I think, claims to be directly from God in a special way, so that it is a divine book containing divine truth.
I don't think, however, that this means that it claims to be literally accurate in a worldly sense. It is about spiritual, not natural, truth.
quote:
Certainly the verse which says 'all scripture is inspired by God', could not have been referring to any of the books of the NT.
I have always viewed by faith as a choice as in I can either believe what the Bibles says or not.
Bonzo it sounds as if you have already chosen to be selective concerning the bits you believe and don't believe.
You haven't said whether you have properly examined the bits you have struggled with so I really don't know what more to say to you.
I beleive what I do because I had to see whether the bible was true or not and after various things have come to the conclusion I have.
I don't agree that you have been particuarly openminded about this whole issue and the point was yours to disproove and not mine to proove as I wasn't the one with the problem.
At the end of the day as I said it is a choice. Hope you find some peace of mind over the whole issue as I have said all I can so am off to another thread now!!
quote:
But all scripture is written by humans! (as far as I know!) How can something written by humans be "inerrant"?
Which makes the point yours to prove and mine to defend.
To be honest I feel quite sorry for you. I'm not trying to be patronising here, I really do.
When faced with a wealth of evidence to the contrary you won't allow your opinion to change, which makes you a slave to that opinion. Jesus is the truth, the truth that sets us free. But your faith traps you and confines you.
How can you expect anyone to see the liberation that Jesus offers in a faith like that?
Go on, let go, it's safe. I survived.
quote:
It's true that it never says, "the words of this book are God Himself." But it comes close. It says:"And the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1
This can be interpretted as not referring to the Word as the Scriptures, but to the Word as a philosophical concept that was "in the beginning" with God, which the written Word was not. Nevertheless, the word is identified with Scripture in hundreds of bible passages that begin "the Word of the Lord" and go on to make various statements as if they are directly from God.
John 1 is refering to Jesus as the Word 'who became flesh and dwelt among us' rather than to the scriptures.
I'm not saying that the Bible isn't divinely inspired, but pointing out that it does not claim divinity for itself as you said. It might be that we're using words in different ways. But as my words aren't me, so God's words aren't God.
Carys
Nowhere does the Bible comment on which texts are scriptural and reliable and which are not. The selection was made much later, and now we take it largely on trust.
quote:
Originally posted by ekalb:
You seem to have a problem with the doctrine of original sin. Christians have always firmly held to this teaching that even babies (yes, even cute little babies) are born with a disposition towards wrong-doing.
A disposition towards wrongdoing and guilt are two completely different things, however. Babies have no guilt. They have no actual sin to repent of. They are innocent. This has ALWAYS been the teaching of the Orthodox Church, for as far back as you can look.
quote:
Now, many Christians argue that God doesn't judge babies until they have reached an 'age of moral responsibility'. - I also hold to this. This, though, can be a 'can-of-worms' in itself and I will simply say that if it is true that humanity is a 'fallen' race, and if it is true that because of our falleness, all humans are at enmity with God by nature, then I don't see the problem with my initial argument.
All humans are not at enmity with God by nature. 'Let the children come to me, and hinder them not: of such is the Kingdom of God.' Unless you would want to say that the Kingdom of God is at enmity with God, which is nonsense.
quote:
All humans 'deserve' death due to sin, and if God decides to enact His justice, then He is allowed to.
Sorry, bzzzzt, try again. All humans do not deserve death due to sin. Innocent babies who have not sinned do not deserve death.
Reader Alexis
aut malus homo aut Orthodox guy
I don't think that means that The Bible is claiming that it is 100% accurate as it's the Word of God written down by and translated by people ... All of whom will bring something of themselves to it. Just as when we read it we bring something of ourselves to it and will intrepret the same stuff completely differently.
Tubbs
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
John 1 is refering to Jesus as the Word 'who became flesh and dwelt among us' rather than to the scriptures.
I certainly believe that Jesus was the Word made flesh. But why does this mean that He was not the Scriptures made flesh? He says repeatedly that He came to fulfill the Scriptures, as in Matthew:
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill" (Matthew 5.17).
To me this means that He was the Word made flesh, and that the term identifies the Word with both the Law and the Prophets as well as with Jesus.
quote:
Originally posted by Gauk:
Actually, I fail to see how the Bible can refer to itself, since as a construct it postdates any of the actual writing in it. The Bible on our bookshelves is an amalgam of texts accepted as a corpus, and which exludes a large number of other similar texts (the various apocrypha).Nowhere does the Bible comment on which texts are scriptural and reliable and which are not. The selection was made much later, and now we take it largely on trust.
This is a very good point, and I have always wondered how Christians resolved it to themselves.
Jesus referred to the Law and the Prophets, and also the Psalms - thereby going a long way to defining the Old Testament canon, since these are known entities. But it certainly leaves gaps of uncertainty, especially with the New Testament.
Swedenborgians have a canon which we take to be divinely revealed. This seems to me to be the only logical way out of this question. But then, of course, how do we know that this canon is actually divinely revealed? So the question is ultimately impossible to resolve with certainty...
quote:
The Greek word for "word." Mentioned only in the writings of John. John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word [logos] and the Word [logos] was with God and the Word [logos] was God." The Logos is sometimes used to refer to the second person of the Trinity as the Son in preincarnate form. Jesus is the word [logos] made flesh (John 1:1,14).
However, I did find this defination on Gospelcom
quote:
One of two Greek words in the New Testament which refer to the "Word of God." The other is rhema. Though the Bible uses the two words interchangeably, in Word-Faith (aka "name it and claim it" - Tubbs) theology, logos is said to be the "written Word of God," while rhema is considered the "spoken Word of God."In this doctrine, Logos refers to the Bible. Extra-Biblical revelation, said to be rhema, is to be rejected if it contradicts Logos.
The danger of the rhema vs. logos doctrines can be seen in some of the current renewal and revival movements, where experience and extra-Biblical revelation are increasingly taking precedence over the written Word of God. The renewal and revival movements have adopted this doctrine, because it fits in with their view that the Church is to be lead and taught by prophets and apostles who, they claim, reveal things that were previously "hidden".
Think I'll stick with me RE teacher
Tubbs
quote:
Originally posted by Mrs Tubbs:
I looked this up ... In RE I was taught Logos referred to Christ and in the context of John, also referred to the creative word of God that breathed life into the World ... Which was the same as Christ.
I was taught the same thing, and it is certainly true. But the logos isn't only Jesus.
The Word "logos" is used one hundred times in the gospels alone - far more frequently than "rhema," which occurs only about twenty-five times. It is the logos that is the seed in the parable of the sower (Matthew 13). It is the logos that is the "Word of God" where Jesus says, "By your traditions you make the Word of God of no effect" (Mark 7.13).
The logic is very simple. Jesus came to teach the truth, which is also the role of the Word of God. Therefore the two are identified.
So in your view, is the Bible saying 'In the beginning was the Bible and the Bible was with God and the Bible was God'?
In the Psalms, e.g. "Your word is a lamp unto my feet", it refers specifically to Torah.
"The word of YHWH" was what the prophets spoke.
As Mrs T has pointed out, it also has connection to the creative power of YHWH - "YHWH said, 'Let there be light'" etc.
John may well be playing a little game - he not only has the above in mind when he says "in the beginning was the Word", but also the Greek philosophical category of the "logos. This is probable because he refers to the "arche", i.e. the beginning, which alludes to someone or other of the early philosphers who introduced the concept of there being a beginning principle - the "arche". For John, the Word in all its meanings is finally and definitively enfleshed in Jesus, not in a book or in an intellectual process.
There's also the idea of the "kerygma", the preaching of the Church, through which at least Paul considered God's grace to be imparted (i.e. the act of proclamation was sacramental in and of itself).
The only reference to scriptural authority in scripture is the one in Timothy referred to above, and as this was probably written in the 60s / 70s of the first century, predates 80% of the written NT and the closing of the Jewish canon at Jamnia, therefore cannot be taken to be anything more than saying that the accepted scriptures of the synagogue at that time (most probably the Torah and the Prophets, the Psalms and some wisdom literature) had value in the formation of the community. As the Christian canon is not settled till about 200 (and, in the case of Revelation's acceptance in the East, 600) then ideas of the Bible as "the Word of God" are anachronistic in NT times. I'm not sure where it arises, but it becomes shorthand for the Bible in post-Reformation times.
Those RE lessons are all flooding back. (Am now remembering how long ago they were :eek
So ... what about the extra books like Tobit etc? How come they never made the final cut?
Tubbs
Luther appealed to scripture in claiming that the Roman Catholic Church was incorrect in it's teachings. His opponents pointed out that the canon of scripture was chosen by the Church and that therefore the idea that scripture was an independent standard by which to judge the Church was intellectually incoherent.
So if the Bible is inerrant God apparently was pleased to let His Church spend the first 1500 years of its existence in ignorance of this.
Dyfrig - how do you arrive at a figure of 80%?
BTW, would it be provocative to point out that Jesus' attitude to the Bible was to say "ye have heard it said" followed by "but I say unto you" and St Paul, of course, abandoned the Law to great indignation from Jews and Jewish Christians.
Incidentally I find it very difficult to imagine that St Paul wrote 1 Corinthians as a definitive guide for Christians in all times and all places as he expected the world to end shortly after it was written.
Now if the grass roots church was based on the theological thinking of today instead of the prejudices of the Victorians, we might get somewhere.
quote:
Originally posted by Yaffle:
Unless anyone can point to a medieval heretic I've never heard of the idea of the Bible as the word of God is a reformation idea.
What about Augustine?
quote:
“You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.” - Augustine of Hippo, 5th century
It amazes me that anyone could think that the idea of Scripture being the Word of God is a reformation idea. It is stated word for word in both the Old and the New Testament.
It is true that they at no point had the Scriptures collected together while they were being written, but the prophets called what they wrote the "Word of the Lord," and Jesus called the Law and the Prophets "The Word of God" (Mark 7.13), and He spoke of His own words "spirit and life" (John 6.63). It would be inconceivable for early Christians not to have referred to His words as having divine authority.
quote:
Bonzo writes
So in your view, is the Bible saying 'In the beginning was the Bible and the Bible was with God and the Bible was God'?
No. It is saying "In the beginning was the Divine Truth, and the Divine Truth was with God and the Divine Truth was God...And the Divine Truth was made flesh and dwelt among us."
The Divine Truth and the Word of God are the same thing. This is why the one on the white horse in Revelation 19 is called the Word of God - because the understanding of the Divine Truth is what, in the end, will bring about the happy changes that are described in the end of that book.
I think it is important to remember that the Bible is not an authority unto itself. The authority belongs to God, not the book. It is altogether dangerous to make an idol of scripture. What if I misinterpret or misapply a passage, and then assign the full 'authority of Scripture' to my mistake? The further I go, the less faith I place in sola scriptura.
Oh geez, are they going to kick me out of evangelical protestantism?
scot
If you're saying that the 'word' in John chapter 1 equates to both Jesus and the Bible. I have to say that that I don't believe that he was writing about any part of the Bible but about Jesus alone.
However, if he was referring to anything written, it seems to me that it could not be the Bible in it's entirety as we currently know it, because the canon wasn't compiled by then (and is even today subject to much disagreement).
No, if he was referring to anything written, he was referring to any writing which is divinely inspired, and also the divinely inspired spoken word etc. which could apply to Christian books today. In other words not solely to the canon and not necessarily referring to all the canon. The same is true of the other instances where you say the Bible refers to itself as the word of God.
In short, if it refers to any written word, it refers to divine truth wherever it crops up, yesterday, today, tommorrow.
I’ll skip the original sin issue for the moment and focus on the issue of the book of Joshua’s portrayal of God as using the Israelites to exterminate the Canaanites, men women and children.
The reason this is a problem I that I find it hard to see it as other than very cruel to require people to kill others. This is perhaps especially so in the kind of very bloody close quarters way that is that it would then have been (though killing at a distance is dangerously desensitising. Such an experience is often traumatising. I find it extremely problematic to worship a God capable of that kind of thing when he could have done things differently. If God wanted the Canaanites dead, he could have accomplished it himself without getting human agents to do it for him. He is indeed seen by the writers of Genesis, Exodus and Numbers as thoroughly capable of this. There is, for example, the story of the flood. Even more pertinently there are the accounts of God wishing to personally and directly destroy the Israelites in the wilderness (Exodus 32:9-10 and Numbers 14:14). I am unable to find sufficient reason for him not to do likewise in the case of the Canaanites.
And could he not have given the land to Israel peacefully? I agree that the issue of free will is a difficult one but the OT God seems to disregard it at times. He does after all, harden men’s hearts on quite a few occasions. Why could he not have softened them?
I hope to say a little shortly in response to Freddy’s appeal for exposition of a middle ground position between inerrancy and total scepticism about the bible.
Glenn
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
if he was referring to anything written, it seems to me that it could not be the Bible in it's entirety as we currently know it, because the canon wasn't compiled by then (and is even today subject to much disagreement).
No, if he was referring to anything written, he was referring to any writing which is divinely inspired.
Now you're getting closer to where I can agree!
In one sense, the Word of God is a universal thing, covering virtually all writing and speech that is consistent with love to God and love to the neighbor. Everything that is good and true is inspired by God.
But in its more usual and stricter sense the Word of God is limited to what can legitimately be called "divine revelation" or messages received somehow directly from God. The real problem with this is establishing its legitimacy. I can claim that everything I write is from divine revelation, but who would believe me?
But perhaps the real question is whether there IS such a thing as divine revelation - that is, a message received and accurately transcribed into writing, or otherwise communicated to others, that is actually directly from God. Does this really happen?
In any case, when Jesus referred to the Word of God, or to the Scriptures, He was, I agree, often speaking in a broad sense about the Divine Truth itself. But "the Scriptures" and the "Word of God" that He refers to also have a very specific meaning, since it is obvious that He literally means the Law and the Prophets, as well as the Psalms.
Does Jesus also mean "the Gospel" when He speaks about those who receive the Word? "Repent and believe in the Gospel" are the first words He says in the gospel of Mark. Of course it is true that the gospel had not yet been written when He said that.
But the fact that the written Bible as we know it was not complete when Jesus spoke about the "Word of God" is not really an issue. As to its real message the Word is the same from beginning to end, although it is far more obscure and easy to misunderstand the farther back you go. So even having a part of the Bible would sufficient for Jesus to make those statements. They would apply to the rest later, as they were written and gathered.
Moses strictly commanded Israel, "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it" (Deuteronomy 4.2). And he says this 270 pages into a book that is now 1809 pages long! In one sense they paid no attendtion to Moses and added 1600 more pages. But in another sense nothing was added - because the message throughout is the same.
quote:
In one sense, the Word of God is a universal thing, covering virtually all writing and speech that is consistent with love to God and love to the neighbor. Everything that is good and true is inspired by God.But in its more usual and stricter sense the Word of God is limited to what can legitimately be called "divine revelation" or messages received somehow directly from God. The real problem with this is establishing its legitimacy. I can claim that everything I write is from divine revelation, but who would believe me?
What an interesting idea.
And one with which I couldn't disagree more!
You started off well when you said in one sense that 'The Word' applied to 'all writing and speech that is consistent with love to God and love to the neighbor' (I would have added deeds too).
But then you bugger it up by saying that divine revelation is something different from this.
Jesus refers to the books of the OT and uses the passages he is quoting as truth in some cases, but then he says things like 'You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you'. He's not saying that every part of the OT is the Word of God, rather, he explicitly corrects some of it.
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
He's not saying that every part of the OT is the Word of God, rather, he explicitly corrects some of it.
I would say He was explicitly explaining it. But the explanation, it is true, involved correction as well. Still, He did maintain that He came not to destroy but to fulfil the Law.
The pattern, as I understand it, is to gradually move from a more simplistic and childlike explanation to a more sophisticated one.
But I understand you to be saying that there is nothing that we could call divine revelation, other than the inspiration that all people may receive from God. Is this right?
First, I just want to say that I appreciate your 'cordial' responses too.
I will admit that there are some verses of scripture that, as a Christian who holds to inerrancy, I just wish weren't there. They are 'problem passages', for lack of a better term.
But if you will note that I did finish my post explaining that my purpose is to show that one can hold to inerrancy while being epistemologically responsible.
I can't completely answer the question, -'Why did God use the Hebrews to kill a bunch of Canaanites?', But no more than can an 'errantist' answer the scripture references that explicitly declare the unique and flawless quality of the scriptures or Christ's interpretation of the OT as literal and completely authoritative.
I'm NOT saying that there aren't reasonable answers that might support 'errancy' to the above questions, - I know that there are. But I am saying that there are also reasonable answers to support 'innerancy'.
So where does that leave us? Well, without denying the value of this debate, I would say that innerancy is something that I take primarily on faith. I have found that it is NOT illogical and unreasonable to believe innerancy. Furthermore, (and as an existential argument) I would say that my faith greatly benefits from my innerancy-belief. I think it is more faithful to the views of the OT prophets, NT apostles, and CHrist Himself to accept the Bible as innerant.
So, like I have been saying, no one can give undeniable 'proof' that the Bible is innerant, but for those that believe it is, they can be fully justified in that belief.
Again, holding to inerrancy is NOTHING like believing in the tooth fairy. The former can be justified on a rational basis, the latter cannot.
Hence, [trying to get back to your post] I have argued that God is justified to kill the Canaanites for their sin.
You object with a question: Why can't God just kill the Canaanites Himself? Well, you rightly point out the instances in scripture where God does indeed 'take matters into His own hands'. But I still don't see any force to your argument. So, God sometimes uses men to enact His will, sometimes He does it Himself, sometimes He even uses donkeys, - So what?
I'm afraid the argument is non sequitur.
On the issue of free will/divine sovereignty, I will just say that I could very easily take one scripture out of either testaments to exemplify a given situation that 'seems' to explicitly 'proove' either human freedom or divine sovereignty. Both are true but both cannot co-exist in our minds easily at all. It is a classical example of antinomy. Once again I suggest that we could discuss this on another thread.
So little time and so many posts to reply to. [sigh]
I would like to hear back from you Glen....
My response:
You say that the belief that babies are 'innocent' has always been held by the Orthodox church. Just a quick question: Is this the 'institution' with a capital "O", or are you referring to what the Church (universal) has held to?
I will await your answer for that one, but let's get on to the real issue.
If I am interpreting you correctly (forgive me if I am not), you seem to be saying that there is a difference between 'guilt' and 'falleness'. I don't really disagree with you on that, rather I disagree with the conclusion you draw out of that.
True, the ability/disposition to sin cannot be held against someone as guilt. But I would say that the cause(falleness/disposition towards sin) will always lead to the effect (sin itself), and therefore gulit of sin. The bottom line is this: babies go to heaven if they die NOT because they are 'innocent', rather it is because they are not 'accountable'. Further, sin is not something you "do", instead it is a lack of something (i.e. murder is a lack of forgiveness; lying is a lack of truth-telling, etc.)
I really have a problem with your scripture "proof". While it is true that Jesus may very well have been saying that children (under the age of moral-accountability) belong to heaven, it in NO way means that humanity is "ok" with God until a certain age.
Don't ignore the rest of the biblical witness if you want to "proove" something with any piece of it. St. Paul explicitly says that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of GOd."
Humans are born with the "deficiency" of sin. It is an illness. The symptoms are lust, hate, lying, murder,etc, but the illness itself is the reason we are 'spiritually-sick' towards God. This is why the gospel is so freeing. Jesus didn't die and rise so that I wouldn't lust, hate, etc, etc, instead Jesus died and rose so that I would be 'spiritually-healthy'. The symptoms of spiritual health are love, compassion, purity, etc. etc.
The difference is HUGE. So, babies don't necessarily exhibit the symptoms of the illness, but they are infected. They are saved by God, because they are not old enough to choose/reject the cure.
But this thread isn't about original sin, now is it?
quote:
What about Augustine?---------------------------------------------
“You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.” - Augustine of Hippo, 5th century
---------------------------------------------It amazes me that anyone could think that the idea of Scripture being the Word of God is a reformation idea. It is stated word for word in both the Old and the New Testament.
Saying that the Word of God extends through Scripture is not the same as saying that Scripture is the Word of God. Augustine's position has been neatly summed up, by J.J. O'Donnell, as follows.
quote:
In this world, this faith is manifest, above all, in Christ. Before Christ there had been intimations, and after him reactions; but Christ himself is the Word of God itself. His incarnation is the central act of revelation. Second to Christ in the worldly order, there is the church, endowed expressly by Christ with the authority of the spirit and, in Christ's absence, designated the arbiter of Christian doctrine. Third in order comes scripture, with the New Testament holding the key for a proper reading of the Old.
This site gives more details of Augustine's position.
In fairness, Freddy, I suspect that your definition of inerrancy and Augustine's view of Scripture are not miles apart. But to suggest that the Reformed view of Scripture as the Word of God and Augustine's view of Scripture as containing or pointing to the Word of God is to confuse two quite distinct view points.
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
IMO scripture must be treated like any other "historical" writing. That is give it the benefit of doubt until proven otherwise.In a court of law we wouldn't say someone is guilty on the face of a statement but cross examine it with other means.
Very good points, in (IMHO) a very good post, though I agree with the previous post that history does not, in fact, give the benefit of the doubt in this way. But great that you want to approach it in a historical and evaluating way. In that case, I would really REALLY recommend you get hold of the book I rerferred to before 'The Meaning of Jesus'. It's written by NT Wright and Marcus Borg. The former is a moderately conservative and evangelical writer, the latter a more radical one. They have a lot of respect for each other, and put forward their opposing views on who Jesus was, what he did, how he died, what the resurrection was/meant. I'm sure you would really get a lot from it, and it fits the criteria you set out here absolutely perfectly.
quote:
This is all I have tried to say to you and others. If it is a problem with you and your faith instead of reading it at face value try to find out the whole context of it and if you still come to teh same conclusion then you cross that bridge if and whne you get to it.
I think, really, that's what many of us are trying to say to you too. I take the point that Mrs Tubbs makes that people often read what they agree with rather than what they disagree with. Having said that, I was recommended to Wright as someone I (as a liberal) would be able to read without spitting, but who would challenge my views, and I've found that very useful.
The real problem I have with people like Colson and Strobel isn't that they are evangelical, it's that they are not scholars. You need to read people who actually know the arguments and can give you views on them.
You ask at one point for the qualifications of those who are responding to you. I don't want to claim too much for mine, but Readers have a three year training that at least gives us an appreciation of how little we know at the end of it... Maybe it would help if I gave a VERY brief snapshot of some of the basic views of some of the Bible held by the mainstream of academics.
The first five books come from a variety of sources, often contradictory. They were edited together during or after the exile; ie around 500BC, many centuries after the events recorded.
There are two separate main threads of history, the Deuteronomic history and the Chronicler's history, which again record separate traditions, and are not entirely compatible.
None of the gospels were written by apostles, though John may be a source for the gospel which bears his name. They are not independent: Luke and Matthew both drew on (and altered) Mark and another now lost source known as Q. The extent to which John knew the other gospels is debatable.
Paul almost certainly did not write the letters to Timothy or Titus, and may well not have written Colossians or Ephesians. 2 Corinthians is a patchwork of several bits from different letters, though probably all written by Paul.
Peter didn't write 2 Peter and quite probably didn't write 1 Peter. The John who wrote the epistles isn't the John behind the gospel, nor is the John who wrote Revelation.
That, if you like, is the academic mainsteam view of the background in which the debate about the Bible takes place. But given that consensus it's hard to see how or why the Bible would be the inerrant word of God. It's certainly a place where we find God speaking to us, IMO, but it doesn't mean we have to defend every single word as being precisely what God wanted it to be. It just doesn't seem to be that sort of book.
quote:
Originally posted by ekalbI can't completely answer the question, -'Why did God use the Hebrews to kill a bunch of Canaanites?', But no more than can an 'errantist' answer the scripture references that explicitly declare the unique and flawless quality of the scriptures or Christ's interpretation of the OT as literal and completely authoritative.
I'm NOT saying that there aren't reasonable answers that might support 'errancy' to the above questions, - I know that there are. But I am saying that there are also reasonable answers to support 'innerancy'.
I'm sorry, but I just can't let you get away with this.
You say that you can't find an answer to the question 'Why did God use the Hebrews to kill a bunch of Canaanites?'.
Then you say 'I am saying that there are also reasonable answers to support innerancy'.
You admit to a gap in your reasoning, a point which you just can't answer. Then you insist your argument is reasonable!
You also say 'But no more than can an errantist answer the scripture references that explicitly declare the unique and flawless quality of the scriptures or Christ's interpretation of the OT as literal and completely authoritative.'
You haven't pointed out one single logical flaw in an the 'errantist' argument. There have been 100% rational arguments presented to explain Christ's interpretation of the OT, which you have been unable to refute. But an 'errantist' wouldn't even need to make those arguments, he could just say that it's not rational to try to prove that the Bible is inerrant by using what the the Bible says about itself. That in itself is a rational explanation.
Is your real problem that you don't want to accept that the Bible might have errors, because you think that would damage your faith?
quote:
The first five books come from a variety of sources, often contradictory. They were edited together during or after the exile; ie around 500BC, many centuries after the events recorded.There are two separate main threads of history, the Deuteronomic history and the Chronicler's history, which again record separate traditions, and are not entirely compatible.
None of the gospels were written by apostles, though John may be a source for the gospel which bears his name. They are not independent: Luke and Matthew both drew on (and altered) Mark and another now lost source known as Q. The extent to which John knew the other gospels is debatable.
Paul almost certainly did not write the letters to Timothy or Titus, and may well not have written Colossians or Ephesians. 2 Corinthians is a patchwork of several bits from different letters, though probably all written by Paul.
Peter didn't write 2 Peter and quite probably didn't write 1 Peter. The John who wrote the epistles isn't the John behind the gospel, nor is the John who wrote Revelation.
[/QB]
Have to disagree with you there.
What you say on the first 5 books of the Bible, sounds like the JepD theory. See here for reasons why it is wrong (in my opinion).
The early Church Farthers didn't doubt that the New Testenment was written by whoever (either Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Paul and Jude).
You can see the rest of the site above by cliking here.
quote:
Originally posted by Yaffle:
In fairness, Freddy, I suspect that your definition of inerrancy and Augustine's view of Scripture are not miles apart. But to suggest that the Reformed view of Scripture as the Word of God and Augustine's view of Scripture as containing or pointing to the Word of God is to confuse two quite distinct view points.
Hmmm. Maybe I am closer to Augustine's view.
I have stated numerous times that I do not believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture.
I don't think that God Himself really commanded the slaughter of Philistines, or was angry with Israel, or "repented" of having made man.
The Divine Truth is contained within the letter of Scripture. The letter is still holy and Divine, but only because of the truth that lies within it - to be opened, as Jesus opened up many of the laws of Moses, by intelligent and consistent interpretation.
So maybe we agree after all.
quote:
But I understand you to be saying that there is nothing that we could call divine revelation, other than the inspiration that all people may receive from God. Is this right?
I'm saying that when John refers to 'the Word', if he is, in any way, alluding to written revelation (in addittion to refering to Christ), then he is alluding to any and all written divine revelation (and probably to speech and deeds too) and there is no reason to suggest that he treats the Bible as a special category of written revelation.
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
there is no reason to suggest that he treats the Bible as a special category of written revelation.
Here I was getting all cozy with you and feeling that we agreed on just about everything...
"No reason to suggest" that John treats the Bible as a special category? This might be true if John did not use the word "logos" elsewhere. But He uses it about twenty more times, in various contexts. It is used over two hundred times in the rest of the gospels.
I would think that the logical way to investigate this would be to look at how John and the other gospel writers used the word "logos" and draw conclusions from this as to what John meant by "logos" in John 1.
In John the word "logos" is used 22 times. Most of these references are to Jesus' own words, as in the phrase, "If you continue in my word, you are my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth will make you free." John 8.31
Five times John makes reference to "His word" or "Thy word," as in "But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, you do not believe" (John 5.38). Several times Jesus identifies His own words with the words of the Father (John 12.49, 14.24, 17.14).
Twice He is referring explicitly to the Hebrew Scriptures: "He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)." John 10.35
In other gospels the "logos" refers even more explicitly to the Law and the Prophets, such as where Jesus criticizes the leadership for making "the word of God of none effect" (Mark 7.13).
So there is not "no reason to suggest" that Jesus and John identified the "word" with the Scriptures. You are correct in saying that the Word in its essence is the Divine Truth, and that this is the real meaning whenever John or any of the other gospel writers use the term. However, they all also specifically identify the term with the Scriptures and the specific words of Jesus.
I am with you in saying that the "Word of God" is something much bigger than can be contained in any book. It is a large concept, and one that shows itself in a variety of ways. But you can't say that John and the other gospel writers do not also identify the Scriptures in a special way with the term.
Now, possibly he means to play on words identifying Christ with divine truth and in other parts of the gospel he uses logos to refer to the divine truth in scripture. However that doesn't mean he is singling scripture out as a special source of divine truth. Nor is he saying that all of scripture is divine truth. He is just saying that scripture is one of many sources of divine truth, Christ himself being another, the words of God the Father revealed to Jesus being another and the word of God living in mens hearts being another.
quote:
Originally posted by gkbarnes:
Have to disagree with you there.What you say on the first 5 books of the Bible, sounds like the JepD theory. See here for reasons why it is wrong (in my opinion).
The early Church Farthers didn't doubt that the New Testenment was written by whoever (either Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Paul and Jude).
I didn't say that I agreed with everything I posted... Personally I doubt the theory of Q, and like the idea that Luke worked from Matthew and Mark, but that's a minority view, mainly pushed in the UK by Michael Goulder. I specifically said I was posting the mainstream academic view.
I deliberately didn't put the full JEPD theory either, because that is under attack in academia as well, but not by those who think that the Pentateuch was written by Moses; rather by those who criticise the whole idea of analysing the books into tiny pieces. The idea of multiple sources is still the mainstream, AIUI.
The early fathers did indeed doubt the authorship of books like Revelation and (especially) 2 Peter, that's why they were not used in some churches, and don't appear on some of the lists of books of the Bible until quite close to the canon being decided.
Biblequery is a site which has a particular aim (to defend inerrancy) and does it well. But it doesn't represent mainstream academic Bible study.
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Truman:
I didn't say that I agreed with everything I posted...
I apologise for misrepresenting your views on that Mike Truman.
quote:
You say that you can't find an answer to the question 'Why did God use the Hebrews to kill a bunch of Canaanites?'.Then you say 'I am saying that there are also reasonable answers to support innerancy'.
You admit to a gap in your reasoning, a point which you just can't answer. Then you insist your argument is reasonable!
I am SICK (repeat SICK) of your inability to debate my posts properly bonzo! 
Your above quote again misrepresents what I was 'actually' saying. It is a straw man argument. STOP IT!
I did not say that I could not answer the question of why God killed the Canaanites through the Hebrew people, rather I said that I could not answer the question "completely". (Do you see the diference?)
There is no "gap" in logic or reason regarding what I said. I am merely admitting what is true for everyone else here: namely, that we are not omniscient.
But not being able to answer every aspect of a given question does not imply that one must be irrational.
Whether you agree with the answers I have given regarding God and the 'genocide' in the book of Joshua or not, at least you should agree that I have given reasoned and logical answers that makes sense. I'm not saying that there aren't other, equally logical answers to the question. Rather I'm saying that an 'innerrantist' can believe in innerrancy and live a valid and justified epistemology.
You claim that 'errantists' can merely point to the 'circular reasoning' (employed by many inerrantists) as proof that inerrantists argue in an unreasoned manner.
Well, despite the fact that I have 'already' answered that on a previous post, here goes:
Circular reasoning cannot be used to identify of confirm a "suspected" or "hypothesized" truth claim. But circular reasoning CAN validly represent a "known" truth claim.
In other words, I can't use circular reasoning to sway you to believe in inerrancy, but I can use it validly to confirm its truth for me. It is not illogical.
Your posts are getting worse, bonzo. Either start arguing properly (by reading my posts and representing my side of the debate truthfully) or I will refuse to reply to your "posts". Frankly, it is a waste of my time right now.
quote:
By the way, can you prove that killing, in and of itself, is evil? It is the intent in the heart that turns 'killing' into 'murder'.
Inerrancy has not been clearly defined on this thread. Most posters appear to be making their own assumptions about it. It is another of those words that mean different things to different people. Choose your own connotations to attach to it to support your personal prejudices against those people whom you perceive to be at the opposite extreme from you. Those of us that gravitate towards the centre will chat amongst ourselves.
A couple of points that are regularly mentioned on the Ship, but appear to be persistently ignored by those with an axe to grind:
Back to the flame-war...
I attempted to harmonize an inerrant concept of the Bible for many years (10+). The deeper I dove into the scriptures, the more difficult I found it was to make any sense of it. I don't have a problem with the historical discrepancies, such as, did Judus hang himself or did he fall and spill his guts? What disturbed me was the contradictions and incomprehensibility of some of the key concepts as I understood them at the time. Some of these are:
1. If we are predestined, how can we be held responsible for our actions?
2. How did Jesus save us?
3. Harmonization of the wrath of God and love.
4. Claims that Christians have peace and stop sinning.
5. That an intervening type of God allows evil.
6. That God answers all our prayers if we have the faith of a mustard seed.
7. Expectations for us to achieve perfection.
8. The apparent non-existence of the intervening kind of God.
9. And so on...
There's no need to discuss these topics here. There are other threads for that. Suffice to say, I think that some of these concepts are irreconcilable without driving a person's brain towards insanity. My brain felt thoroughly pickled while trying to maintain these paradoxes.
Whatever you do, please don't say that God intended the Israelites to go and kill the Mama's and the babies. If you are going to stick to inerrancy, say that you don't understand it and that it doesn't make sense. Say that something got messed up in the translation. Say that there is some key information left out. But don't say it's good for God to command people to wipe out entire nations including women, children and animals because they aren't good enough or because they needed to be killed to make way for Jesus.
If you are going to stick to the idea that God intended genocide, then admit that God is an imperfect lover. It's easy to bring up the original sin issue, but it doesn't solve anything. If we are sinful from birth, unable to avoid evil, how can God judge us for that? How can we be judged for something beyond our control? That would be like punishing a child for not being able to do calculus. That God is so obsessed about sin and judgment that his love is obliterated. It's possible that God is like that, but I don't trust him to take care of me, my wife or my kids.
The Bible is a collection of many books of varied levels of (in?)errancy. Don't force people to throw out the whole book for the sake of keeping one or two of the nastiest passages.
Freehand
If I have misrepresented your arguments then I unresevedly apologise. Perhaps I should explain:
You say.
quote:
I did not say that I could not answer the question of why God killed the Canaanites through the Hebrew people, rather I said that I could not answer the question "completely". (Do you see the diference?)
I do see the difference. The same difference exists in the following statement.
I was not able to jump over the river.
I was not able to jump over the river completely.
To say that in both sentences the person was not able to jump over the river, is correct.
You have used some rational argument to arrive at the point you have reached but you now face an impass, a gap in logical reason which you cannot resolve. You put this down to not being able to fully understand the mind of God (maybe God somehow did it out of love, in God's way of thinking which we can't hope to understand) and say you need faith to bridge the gap.
But you are missing the obvious! What if your argument is wrong???
'Errantists' have conducted the same exercise of logic and not reached an impass.
I will continue to call genocide 'genocide', because that's what it is, no matter whether it's done by a creator or not.
If you say that it's God's right to do it, I will still call it genocide.
The fact is that even if you could have known the mind of God when (you say) he insighted these dreadful acts of genocide, it is impossible that any God could do this without being cruel. There isn't another explanation.
If God did it then God was cruel.
It would be cruel if I cut the feet off my hypothetical hamster which I myself had created, because the hamster will suffer
My being it's creator does not matter, the poor little thing would suffer and if you saw me doing it you would call me sadistic.
First off, thank-you for your apology bonzo (as far as I am concerned, all is forgiven. I hope you will forgive my impatience in the last post).
by freehand:
quote:
Whatever you do, please don't say that God intended the Israelites to go and kill the Mama's and the babies. If you are going to stick to inerrancy, say that you don't understand it and that it doesn't make sense. Say that something got messed up in the translation. Say that there is some key information left out. But don't say it's good for God to command people to wipe out entire nations including women, children and animals because they aren't good enough or because they needed to be killed to make way for Jesus.
Freehand, I know where you're coming from. It's not like the slaughter of women and children in Joshua is some kind of cold, historical fact to me. I wish to God that it didn't ever happen; just like I wish to God that the Holocaust and Sept.11 never happened. Of course, the diference here is that the 'genocide' in Joshua is attributed to God's will.
So what do I do with it? Well, I think that I have shown that to beleive that God enacted 'divine punishment' upon the Canaanite tribes is reasonable and justified for anyone who would believe it. But I still have to live this 'belief' out, right? Sure, it may protect my innerancy-doctrine, but what does it do to my relationship with GOd? Can I trust Him, who kills women and children?
These are real questions that I have had to work through. But I think that it would be wrong for me to extract one quality of God (i.e. love, or compassion) at the expense of the other qualities of God.
The same scriptures that say that "GOd is love" also say that "God is a consuming fire".
Now I believe that God is perfect. I also believe that God gave men free moral choice and reason. HUmans rebelled against the perfect God and I believe that humanity is responsible for humanities suferrings.
I gave the analogy before that goes like this:
Bob owes you ten dollars. If you demand that ten dollars back, you are justified to do so because it is Bob who owes you. But if you choose to forgive Bob's debt instead, then you are also justified.
I'm not trying to get 'preachy' here, but I want to show that to believe in a God of love, doesn't mean you have to 'sacrifice' God's justice. He is both love and justice.-That's what makes Him perfect.
Freehand/bonzo, if you guys are struggling with a God who claims to be love and yet does things that can seem so cold sometimes, I recommned that you read Habukkuk. He is known as the "doubting prophet". He questions God's goodness. Also I highly recommend Psalm 73. It is a beautiful description of a believer who struggles with God's love and justice.
Also, I encourage you to look to Jesus' death in the gospels. In Jesus, we see a God who (because of His holiness and perfection must set right the wrongs we have made) but He doesn't stay in His 'ivory tower', rather He comes down to suffer "for" us.
let me know what you think......
PS - sorry for such a "personal" post, but I thought it might help.
quote:
Freehand, I know where you're coming from. It's not like the slaughter of women and children in Joshua is some kind of cold, historical fact to me. I wish to God that it didn't ever happen.
quote:
Well, I think that I have shown that to believe that God enacted 'divine punishment' upon the Canaanite tribes is reasonable and justified for anyone who would believe it.
Your conclusions are based upon the presupposition that the Bible is inerrant. If that assumption results in something ridiculous (God sanctioned baby killing), then perhaps it is time to revisit those assumptions.
What would happen if the Bible is not perfect? Would the world fall apart? Would God be offended? Would we go to hell? I recommend that you pursue the opposite side of the argument. God can take the heat. God is big enough to bear the scrutiny. He won't be intimidated or offended. If God corresponds to the truth, then the truth will be shown wherever we search honestly. The arms of Grace can reach us all, even agnostics like me. Thank God I'm agnostic!
Take care and have fun,
God be with you (if He exists),
Freehand
Ekalb, thanks for your personal sharing. It does help. May God be with you in your search to understand the love and justice of God. Meanwhile, I will be on my search for the possible existence of the God. I am glad that our paths have crossed.
Freehand
Many thanks for your forgiveness.
I totally agree with Freehand's posts and I too will check out the passages you mentioned.
May I suggest that if Bob owes you ten dollars and you know that by demanding it back it will put him in dire financial need, that it is wrong to demand it back.
I would like to point out my real concern, the real reason why I find the position you have taken up such a problem.
It seems to me that over the centuries people have justified horrendous acts of violence, and cruelty, by using the argument that it was God's will. No, I'm not saying that you do this, but if your ideas prevail, it allows such people to get away with using those ideas as a legitimate explanation of their evil deeds.
Furthermore if your ideas prevail, and are generally understood by people to be the standard views of Christians, it allows people to justifiably call us a crackpot religion. It stands in the way of those people ever coming to God.
Now I'm not saying that just because ideas can be misused it makes those ideas wrong. What I am saying is that there are some very good reasons why you should want to accept that the Bible contains errors. There is much to be gained for the furtherance of the Kingdom, if the Bible is understood to contain truth, but not be inerrant.
Once, many years ago now, like Freehand, I held the view that the Bible was inerrant. I was the only one in my Biology class at school who spoke out against the theory of evolution. I'm afraid I wasn't a very good advert for Christ. I changed my views for the same reasons as Freehand changed his.
So where am I now? In a word: liberated. Free to get on with God's work. Free to understand God in whatever way I can. Free to believe in a God of love who never stops loving. Free to tell warmongers that they are wrong. etc.
Come on in. The water's lovely!
God be with you (He does exist IMO)
quote:
Bob owes you ten dollars. If you demand that ten dollars back, you are justified to do so because it is Bob who owes you. But if you choose to forgive Bob's debt instead, then you are also justified.
But are you justified in killing Bob? Part of the problem with the way that God's justice is portrayed is that the punishments are out of all proportion to the crime. So some of these Amalekites are a bit loose in the sexual mores? Slaughter the lot of them! They worship the wrong god? Kill them all! Frankly, this is not justice.
quote:
The most common definition of inerrancy would appear to be the belief that the Scriptures in their original text (which of course we do not have available to us) were without error. This view of inerrancy appears to be subscribed to by a majority of Evangelicals.
Oh, I like it! An assertion which cannot be tested in any way because these original texts have conveniently disappeared. But that would seem to allow that God took care to deliver an inerrant scripture to mankind, but didn't bother protecting it from becoming corrupted.
quote:
Part of the problem with the way that God's justice is portrayed is that the punishments are out of all proportion to the crime.
And that was my problem with the concept of hell as eternal punishment by God for finite sins. I lived in fear every day. Agnosticism was my salvation.
The only way eternal punishment can be justified is if people are born infinitely bad but that is problematic too. Why would a loving God punish something that people have no control over?
The Bible is quite vague on hell in that the concept of hell is buried within parables and symbolic visions. No need to pursue that tangent here unless we want to discuss the literalistic + inerrant view of scripture.
Freehand
sorry guys. I've been rather busy these last few days and just now am able to respond.
I was just about to talk about something when I saw that jasonc has already touched on it.
I, myself, am appalled at the slaughters in the bible. Even though I think GOd is justified in them. It's a tension in my faith. But I don't think that I can 'overstate' the very real diference in 'quality' between God as 'Creator' and us as 'creation'. My emotions aside (not that they are unimportant), I cannot judge GOd as if He were a human. It would be wrong for a human to kill someone just because they have been wronged by them - WHY? because only GOd as "MAKER" has the unique perogative to "UN-MAKE" anything.
God isn't sinning when He slaughters people who have sinned against Him. If GOd did not punish them (which would violate His MANY promises to judge humanity) then God could be called 'unjustified' in His actions.
The old 'Well, GOd is love, right?' answer just is too shallow to fit reality. I suggest that if your definition of love is to allow the loved one to get away with wrongs just because you wouldn't want to 'upset' them, then maybe you should try to redefine love. I think love involves discipline and punishment. My parents disciplined and punished me when I was younger. Not because it 'felt right', but because their love for me (a true love) desired my "long-time" good over my "short-time" pain of punishment.
Love compels us to want the loved one to be the best they can be. In GOd's case, God wants us to be the morally best that we can be. If that means that He will cause us pain (in the short-term) for a long-term gain then I see His love all the more. (read 1Cor.13 again- "love delights in the truth...delights in righteouseness, but hates sin")
Now if your like me, you are wondering how a slaughter of a particular Canaanite tribe could discipline them? Well, I can't give an answer that fully satisfies that, but I do know that God does everything out of His desire to see good in His creation. The bible, on a side note, doesn't deny the apparant paradox between God's love and the apparantly 'ruthless' acts of God. (Job, Jeremiah, etc.) ANd again, He has the final say in who, how, and when humans die. God doesn't have to 'clear' things with us if He will do something. He does ask us to 'trust' HIm and His goodness though.- the theme of Habukukk and ps.73 for two recent examples.
For some (like me), this is enough. For others (whoever you are), the answer doesn't 'cut it'.
It is not like there is an easy answer to any of this, but I might say that I have 'weathered' the storms of doubts and problems that go along with being an inerrantist and I don't feel hindered or constrained by the doctrine at all. Rather, I feel very liberated by it. Sure, I can't "completely" answer all the 'hard passages' in scripture, but I see God's love in HIs 'gift' of an inerrant 'book'. I'm not naive enough to think that the bible is 'perfect' in its description of scientific matters or in every historical variable.- THat wasn't its purpose.
My view is that God inspired certain humans to write "revealed" knowledge regarding GOd or His will. I don't think GOd used "human typewriters". He didn't control every letter, instead He used the level of knowledge that the individual had, along with the individual personality to communicate inerrant truths.
Circularly reasoned as it is, inerrancy is far more faithful to the overall teaching on scripture/revealed knowledge within the bible. I'm glad that I know that the scriptures are God's truth (not 'this part' or 'that part' of it). I am guided by its completetly authoritative teachings and continually (and this may be the most important part) challenged and 'pierced' by it. The scriptures hit me on a very real level that I have never experienced elsewhere.
I can be accused of being closeminded, but I 'know' this to be true.
May God correct me if I am wrong.
PS - forgive yet another 'personal' post. I have been guilty of horrible grammar and sloppy argumentation on this one. But my point, which is of the highest importance, still comes through. - I hope
I can say that I believe that it is right for us to "judge God" because I also believe that God is such that He could never be judged adversely, because doing evil is not in His nature. Therefore - any report that God has done evil things is, to my mind, a false report. If I see in the newspaper a report that things fall upwards in Trinidad, what is my reaction? To believe that gravity doesn't work in Trinidad (because it says so in the newspaper)? Or to disbelieve the newspaper because I know that things can't fall upwards?
I think your last post comes the closest we are going to get to your admitting that there is a logical gap in your argument.
Your premise that it is wrong for us to 'judge God' is IMO an illogical statement for reasons which I have outlined previously and to which you still have provided no conradicting response. Furthermore I fail to see how the people who chose which books should comprise the canon, could have excluded any texts, if they didn't 'judge God' in exactly the way you are saying men should not.
Do you consider the apocrypha to be inerrant?
Cruelty is cruelty because of the suffering it causes, not because of the nature of the perpetrator. If it can be shown that sufferring could be avioded, as is clearly the case in the passages from Joshua, then to inflict that suffering is cruel.
You say that 'inerrancy is far more faithful to the overall teaching on scripture/revealed knowledge within the bible.', but IMO the picture of a developing understanding of God, by man, leaps out of the pages of the Bible. As the theology emerges through the OT to the NT, the Bible becomes more consistent with the picture of God we know today because mankind's understanding of God has developed.
This has to be a more consistent picture because it doesn't encounter the problems that, you admit, inerrancy does.
I question your wisdom in weathering 'the storms of doubt and problems that go along with the problems of being an inerrantist'. I would, once again, invite you to ask yourself why you have started with the premise of inerrancy in the first place? What does it gain you? What will you lose if you choose a different premise?
It seems to me that you percieve the inerrancy of the Bible to be of such high importance that you have elevated the men who wrote it, and the men who compiled it to the status of God. IMO this is both unwise and unjustified.
quote:
Circularly reasoned as it is, inerrancy is far more faithful to the overall teaching on scripture/revealed knowledge within the bible. I'm glad that I know that the scriptures are God's truth (not 'this part' or 'that part' of it). I am guided by its completely authoritative teachings and continually (and this may be the most important part) challenged and 'pierced' by it. The scriptures hit me on a very real level that I have never experienced elsewhere.
Let's say the Bible is internally consistent in every respect (not that I think it is). It's not difficult to come up with hundreds of different internally consistent religious systems. Internal consistency does not at all guarantee that a system is correct. On what basis do you believe that the Bible is inerrant?
Is it because a bunch of guys got together in a room and argued about which books should be in the Bible? Some books barely made it in while other books barely slipped out. These many pieces of manuscript are thrown together in one binding and it is assumed that it is one book that is 100% inspired. Everything else is less than inspired. It just seems so unlikely to me that there aren't a few glitches with such a huge compendium of books written by so many people over such a long time, translated several times from ancient languages.
So, why do you believe that the Bible is inerrant? Is it an assumption? If the assumption results in some weird ideas, then perhaps it is time to revisit the assumption.
I'm not saying that you have to see it my way. I'm just suggesting that you get both sides of the story. You've given a lot of energy to the inerrant side of the issue. Why not look at the inspired-but-not-perfect side of the spectrum? Then, after giving both sides a fair shake, you can decide on the truth without being biased by presuppositions.
Like I said before, God won't wack you. He loves you and is happy for you to look into things. He's not afraid of questions. He's big enough to take it. It isn't doubting God to doubt the Bible (unless the Bible=God). When you search for the truth openly and honestly, you will find it. If God corresponds to the truth, then you will find Him. Look in new places and find Him smiling in places that you never expected. I just can't believe that God is uptight about everyone believing in the Bible word-for-word without error.
It's comforting (and disturbing) to know exactly that the Bible is perfect and that there won't be some weird thing that's going to mess stuff up. However, I don't think life is that simple. If you aren't ready for this approach, that's fine. You will get into it sooner or later (or not). Just keep on loving people and don't tell them that God likes to kill babies.
Have a good day,
Freehand
quote:
Originally posted by Freehand:
It's comforting (and disturbing) to know exactly that the Bible is perfect and that there won't be some weird thing that's going to mess stuff up. However, I don't think life is that simple. If you aren't ready for this approach, that's fine.
I would think, in this day and age, that the more difficult thing would be to believe that there is actually such a thing as divine revelation.
Not that divine revelation would produce a Bible that is literally accurate in all its details, but that God would give, and miraculously preserve, a Bible that faithfully communicates what He wishes to communicate.
Can a reasonable person not believe that?
quote:
Originally posted by Gauk:
To believe that, you have to answer to yourself why God would choose to make His message so obscure, ambiguous, and padded out with extraneous material.
This isn't that hard. God always operates as though He doesn't exist. People are completely free to believe in Him or not.
There is nothing wrong with examining the evidence and drawing your own conclusions. It just seems reasonable to me to postulate the existence of a supernatural God who is able to make the Bible happen - by apparently natural means (except, of course, for the miracles, revelations, etc.).
As for the message being obscure, ambiguous, and padded out with extraneous material, I see this as a device which allows a very sophisticated and divine message to be imparted to, and by means of, a primitive, unsophisticated, and even wicked population.
To my mind the symbolic and obscure nature of the Bible is an absolutely brilliant device, enabling God to reach into a spiritually dark world, and pull it into the light.
When I look at the alternatives to this idea, and there are many reasonable alternatives, I simply do not find them to be as adequate. In my opinion, adequacy is everything.
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
There is much to be gained for the furtherance of the Kingdom, if the Bible is understood to contain truth, but not be inerrant.[/QB]
Sorry to single you out Bonzo - I don't mean to in particular but it's just that the little segment above which I have brutally prised out of it's original context points towards a problem and a question I would direct to all those who would espouse an 'errantist' position:if the Bible is merely a book which 'contains truth', then who arbitrates which bits are truth and which are not, and by what right? If you are arguing that it all comes down to individual conscience or something similar(which bits are truth and which are not), then to my mind
this is a recipe for anarchic relativism in interpreting scripture.
I think that the problem a lot of us who espouse an inerrantist (as opposed to literalist - there is a difference) position have with accommodating varying degrees of 'errancy'is that once you call into question the inerrancy point, that begs a whole load of other questions - is scripture divinely inspired (and if so, to what extent), can we trust God, which bits of scripture can we trust and how/why (see above) etc. So, those of you who don't like the nasty parts of scripture (and FWIW I don't like them either!)and how they affect your image of God, please remember also that we have a whole host of problems and 'issues' with an 'errantist' position likewise.
Sorry, don't know whether that takes the discussion forward at all - just thought I'd stick my oar in!
Yours in Christ
Matt
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
a problem and a question I would direct to all those who would espouse an 'errantist' position:if the Bible is merely a book which 'contains truth', then who arbitrates which bits are truth and which are not, and by what right? If you are arguing that it all comes down to individual conscience or something similar(which bits are truth and which are not), then to my mind
this is a recipe for anarchic relativism in interpreting scripture.I think that the problem a lot of us who espouse an inerrantist (as opposed to literalist - there is a difference) position have with accommodating varying degrees of 'errancy'is that once you call into question the inerrancy point, that begs a whole load of other questions - is scripture divinely inspired (and if so, to what extent), can we trust God, which bits of scripture can we trust and how/why (see above) etc. So, those of you who don't like the nasty parts of scripture (and FWIW I don't like them either!)and how they affect your image of God, please remember also that we have a whole host of problems and 'issues' with an 'errantist' position likewise.
Sorry, Matt, but your proposed inerrant but not literal position inherently faces the same challenge - which parts are literal and which parts are not?
Any position, whether you wish to label it errant or inerrant faces the same challenge - if not all parts are of the same nature, how do you determine which nature a given part is.
Some points are easy - Song of Solomon being poetry for instance, rather than history.
Some points are hard - for instance, the Gospels disagree on the exact form of a given teaching. We clearly have to take one version, and we can't just take the one that seems "right" or is more liberal/less liberal - I think that any of these end up being personal judgements. One may have one's own consistent frame of reference, put to prove it is more correct than another is, frankly, close to impossible.
Positing errant versus inerrant is merely a smoke-screen. Indeed, where does one become the other? Simply the adoption of a self-defined label of "I believe the Bible to be Spiritually without error", which seems to be the difference, doesn't fill me with much confidence as to either being anything other than badge-wearing. What is "spiritual" and what is not? What is the hallmark of "spiritually inspired" even? If you don't have a definition, it's meaningless.
I'd rather (perhaps being cussedly contrary) take the view the other way about. Anything short of literalism seems to in fact rather resonate with Henry James's oft quoted phrase "Excellence does not require perfection.". If the Bible isn't simply a literal handbook, then that doesn't stop it being a lodestone, and whether you project onto that property "errancy" or "inerrancy" seems irrelevant.
FWIW, I don't see myself as errantist or inerrantist; whatever label you happen to be in love with, you still need to interpret the Bible, you still have to determine and live out your response to it, and you're still going to have to take responsibility to God and his people as to the course of your discipleship.
Oh well, must bale out of an incomplete post...
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
a problem and a question I would direct to all those who would espouse an 'errantist' position:if the Bible is merely a book which 'contains truth', then who arbitrates which bits are truth and which are not[?]
The Church.
quote:
and by what right?
Because the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). Because the keys to the kingdom were given to the Apostles and their spiritual heirs, the bishops. Because it is the body of Christ on earth.
This, anyway, is what the Orthodox might reply to such questions.
Reader Alexis
spam spam spam spam Orthodox guy spam spam and spam
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
The Church...
This, anyway, is what the Orthodox might reply to such questions.
Good answer. Although I might disagree with individual interpretations, this at least imposes some kind of order on the understanding of Scripture.
As a Swedenborgian I would say that "who arbitrates which bits are truth and which are not" are the voluminous writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, which Swedenborgians take to be divine revelation - and therefore inerrant themselves.
Without either confidence in the church or some further revelation as arbiter, however, the question of who decides what is true is a pretty sticky one.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
As a Swedenborgian I would say that "who arbitrates which bits are truth and which are not" are the voluminous writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, which Swedenborgians take to be divine revelation - and therefore inerrant themselves.
Are there ever disagreements about what some particular statement of Swedenborg means? If so how are THESE decided?
Not meaning to be divisive, but nonetheless inquisitive.
Reader Alexis
a far from infallible Orthodox guy
[ 30 April 2002: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
Yes, I am an 'inerrantist'. No, I don't believe that the Bible is to be interpreted in a 'word-for-word-literal-approach'.
I acknowledge that the Bible was written in specific cultures and times and genres which makes necessary the skill of hermenutics.
Is there any special 'aura' that surrounds the Bible? -No Does being a Christian automatically make you able to rightly interpret scripture? -No
For freehand and Bonzo (and whoever else), I would like to say that I am not as naive regarding the complexities and problems of inerrancy as maybe you think. I have studied the 'history' of the Bible. I realize that it wasn't just 'zapped' into the hands of believers. Rather it was written over a period of 1500 years, with over 40 authors, being scrutinized and questioned before acceptance into the cannon which we now know. -Not very pretty is it? But for those who because of the above realities find it hard to believe, I want to suggest that God is not 'efficient'. quickness or neatness aren't described as necessary properties of perfection. Maybe this helps, maybe it doesn't; regardless, there it is.
I don't think that I will try to defend the Joshua 'genocide' again. It seems that both sides of the debate have said their due. I will just say that I do believe in a GOd who loves and (for freehand) a GOd who doesn't like to kill babies (I hope you realize that I never tried to justify a God who 'likes' to kill babies. Rather I attempted to justify a God who, because of the perogatives of being God, can take the lives of sinful humans without being a sadistic or malevolant being.) By the way, YOu are absolutely Right-On about God 'wanting' us to seek the Truth even if it means doubting the bible or His goodness. I couldn't agree more!
I do accept inerrancy on many assumptions. I have tested those assumptions and feel satisfied in their validity (I'm not denying the reality of lingering problems, though).
I think that I have been very reasonable and logical in attempting to defend inerrancy. I am honest about the reality that I take inerrancy 'primarily' on faith (I think that some 'errantists' have yet to realize that they base their arguments on many 'beliefs' as well).
I have to go, but maybe I will come back and attempt to further clarify what I define as inerrancy.
quote:
...and (for freehand) a God who doesn't like to kill babies (I hope you realize that I never tried to justify a God who 'likes' to kill babies.
quote:
I think that I have been very reasonable and logical in attempting to defend inerrancy.
Freehand
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Are there ever disagreements about what some particular statement of Swedenborg means? If so how are THESE decided?
There are. But fortunately Swedenborg is remarkably consistent and systematic. Most disagreements are solved fairly easily by competent scholars. There are inevitably some issues that remain points of disagreement, but they are few and minor. There is no particular means for deciding them, other than scholarship. The church hierarchy does not make pronouncements.
I don't know how many other religious systems work this way - relying on some defined body of doctrine that is seen as authoritative. Unfortunately their systems are only useful within their own body of believers.
I tend to see Christianity as a whole as in the difficult situation of having issues that can't be resolved outside of an authoritative church hierarchy and tradition, or some further revelation. These are both helpful, but only within the scope of those particular organizations. They do not provide credible answers for Christian scholars who have a broader focus, such as N.T. Wright, Marcus Borg, or John Crossan.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black
if the Bible is merely a book which 'contains truth', then who arbitrates which bits are truth and which are not, and by what right?
I don't think it's necessary or desirable for any human to arbitrate which bits are truth or not. We should think for ourselves, because that provides the most fertile ground for the furtherance of the Kingdom.
The moment someone starts saying you must believe this of that without it being open to rational examination you will find thinking people will have nothing to do with the church.
As to a definition of inerrancy THE CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY can be found at this site just go to Bible and you'll find it: Center for reformed theology and apologetics I think people like Packer and John Wenham et al were involded in this.
Finally, seeing that you are from Canada brought to mind something I heard years ago about a radio announcer there who said: "this is the Canadian Broadcorping Castration." An absolute gem!
Glenn
I've briefly scanned this site. On the face of it, it seems to be doing what inerrantists throughout the ages have done, which is to state that the Bible is inerrant, without offering one reasoned argument for why it should be so.
It then goes on to say that if you question the inerrancy of scripture that you are being disloyal to God!
I have rarely seen any more deliberately misleading or offensive document in my life!
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
I've briefly scanned this site. On the face of it, it seems to be doing what inerrantists throughout the ages have done, which is to state that the Bible is inerrant, without offering one reasoned argument for why it should be so.
Reasons? You need stinking REASONS?! What kind of Christian are you?!
Reader Alexis
tongue-in-cheek Orthodox guy
Phrases such as "theologically inerrant" are meaningless unless some semantics are placed upon them - I don't think we have many literalists here, but if the Bible isn't purely made of "theologically inerrant" stuff, how do I tell the difference?
quote:
God always operates as though He doesn't exist. People are completely free to believe in Him or not.
Nice one! Except they go to Hell if they exercise their freedom of choice not to believe in Him.
What you are saying, as I understand it, is that the Bible is deliberately obscure so that people can ignore it if they like. Even, in fact, to encourage people to ignore it, so that only a few dedicated souls will take the time and trouble to search and find all the helpful material contained therein. This is teasing behaviour. Einstein famously remarked that God does not play dice. Perhaps crossword puzzles are more His style?
quote:
Originally posted by Gauk:
Nice one! Except they go to Hell if they exercise their freedom of choice not to believe in Him.
Except that hell in this system is not divinely imposed eternal punishment, but merely the intrinsic happiness or unhappiness associated with various loves and behaviors.
quote:
Originally posted by Gauk:
What you are saying, as I understand it, is that the Bible is deliberately obscure so that people can ignore it if they like. Even, in fact, to encourage people to ignore it, so that only a few dedicated souls will take the time and trouble to search and find all the helpful material contained therein. This is teasing behaviour. Einstein famously remarked that God does not play dice. Perhaps crossword puzzles are more His style?
I have never heard this described as teasing behavior. That's good. Good point! A picture of God emerges as the player of a giant game with humanity, fooling and fiddling with us at every turn. I agree that this seems a little on the devious side and would be inconsistent with what we know of God. Maybe not quite on the order of killing babies...
Let's review the alternatives:
1. There is no God.
2. There is a God, but He is unable to communicate with humanity.
3. There is a God, and He is able to communicate with humanity, but He does it obscurely, and it is received differently by people according to various factors.
4. There is a God, and He communicates clearly with humanity.
I vote for 4! But if the Bible doesn't match your definition of "clear," then which would you go for?
Many Bible statements refer to the obscurity of the divine message - notably repeated references to Isaiah 6.9 in response to the disciples' question about Jesus' use of parables (Matthew 13.14, Mark 4.12, Luke 8.10). Is this teasing behavior? It does sound like it.
My thought is that it is like the answers that people give to the questions of children, when they know that the children aren't old enough or in the right frame of mind to understand the answer.
Fortunately, we have the promise in John 16 that this kind of information will not always be presented so obscurely. Jesus said, "These things I have spoken to you in figurative language. But the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the Father." John 16.25
I think that is a pretty interesting prediction, and goes some way toward admitting to the truth of what you are saying!
Gbuchanan - re: inerrant vs literalist - I agree with you that similar dilemmas of 'sifting' apply...up to a point: I think that the main difference is that with determining which parts are literal and which are poetry, metaphorical, symbolic etc we have a wealth of Biblical scholarship, commentaries, teaching sources etc from which to draw, whereas with determining which parts are inerrant, it seems to boil down to a matter of personal opinion eg: "I don't like this bit so it must be a mistake/ God didn't mean it to be there or if He did then He got it wrong" (at least that's the way it seems from some of the posts on this thread); I accept that archaeology and historical research should also assist but they are in part evolving sciences. I don't accept that personal opinion alone is a valid criterion upon which to judge scripture
- IMHO it should be the opinion of the Church....which brings me on to...
Mousethief - I agree wholeheartedly with you that it is the Church that should interpret scripture - BUT - that then leads us onto the sticky problem of defining the Church. (We've had that out on the ecumenism and deciding doctrine threads, passim, and I guess you would say that it's the Orthodox Church, by and large, and I guess I'd disagree with you on that point, by and large!)
What I was trying to say is that just as you guys who to a greater or lesser extent subscribe to some form of errancy have problems with and require us to defend an inerrantist stance, so equally does your position create problems for us re trustworthiness, divine input etc. So far I have not seen those concerns adequately addressed...over to you!
Yours in Christ
Matt
What I was trying to point out
Well said that no matter which way you slice it, it's fraught with difficulties. There is no easy solution to any of the problems life poses: and finding (and hewing to) the "right" solution requires both shrewdness of thought and childlike innocence.
You probably don't want to know my definition of "Church."
Reader Alexis
innocent as a serpent and shrewd as a child Orthodox guy
)- find the message in the myth. Perhaps if this attitude towards the bible was given official recognition more people might read and take notice of it. As it is, most people seem to say 'I don't believe it literally, therefore it has no meaning, therefore I won't bother to read it.' What a shame.
quote:
Originally posted by Our Saviour Tortoise:
I don't know about the rest of you, but if to believe the Bible I have to believe that God really told Joshua to kill all the men, women and children, and hamstring the animals too, then I'm outta here!
I'm sure that almost everyone here agrees with that.
The question is whether this then defeats all the Bible's claims to divine authorship. Or is there a way around this problem that leaves divine authorship intact?
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Let's review the alternatives:
1. There is no God.
2. There is a God, but He is unable to communicate with humanity.
3. There is a God, and He is able to communicate with humanity, but He does it obscurely, and it is received differently by people according to various factors.
4. There is a God, and He communicates clearly with humanity.I vote for 4!
I vote for 3. If God REALLY wanted to communicate with us clearly, we would have no doubt about his meaning. Rather like Terry Pratchett's gods on Dunmanifestin', to say 'God wants to kill babies' would result in the clouds above us forming the message 'Oh no he doesn't, sunshine'.
In fact I'd go so far as to say that IMHO 4 can't logically be correct. Since there is so much confusion amongst Christians as to what the Bible DOES mean, and since even those who support a literal or inerrant view tend to agree that there are difficult passages in it, surely it follows that for one reason or another God has not chosen to communicate with us clearly?
If God had chosen a clear and 'inerrant' method of communication:
- there would only have been one version of the Bible preserved
- there would only be one gospel
- there would be no peculiar doublets in the Pentateuch
- there would be instructions that meant nothing to the writers but which were perfectly clear to us: eg 'when a world leader rises some 1900 years after my Son's death and tries to persecute my people the Jews, you are to prevent him from gaining power'. And no, strange interpretations of Daniel and Revelation don't count...
And so on. The logical choice for a believer is surely 3. God chooses not to communicate with us clearly and directly because that isn't the relationship he wants with us. When my daughter was 6 I told her what to do. Now she's 16, most of the time I try to reason with her...
If you say the Bible is the complete authority, completely inerrant, you elevate the writers and compilers up to the status of God. Which is wrong.
If you then say that the church is the complete authority on the Bible, deciding which bits are wrong and which bits are right you elevate the Church to the status of God. Which is wrong.
If you say that an individual's conscience is the authority then you elevate the conscience of the individual to the status of God. Which is wrong.
So what you have to say is that nothing is inerrant apart from God himself. To seek God's way we need to read the Bible, listen to the Church and listen to our own consciences. However after doing all that and giving it our most honest shot, we cannot say with certainty that we will always be right so we must never be too dogmatic.
Well said, Mike!
The reason I have a real problem with inerrancy is because I am disillusioned with the churches that assume inerrancy. I grew up in the assumption of inerrancy and it was drilled into me from a young age. However, I always felt that something was missing. The church made claims that Jesus was amazing and that everything should be better, but it never seemed that people really believed that God was real. I tried a variety of different churches, but I couldn't find anything that filled that missing hole.
I examine the scriptures more deeply and the harder it looked the less it made sense. I tried harder and harder to make it work, but the paradoxes grew in proportion to the attention to the book. Eventually, it was requiring extraordinary mental energy to hold it together.
About the same time, I came to the realization that the God that I believed in was threatening me with hell to try to get me to love him. When I realized that the underlying foundation of the relationship was fear, my belief in God melted away. It was truly a release.
I'm not trying to convince anyone to be agnostic. I just think that it's very clear, as has been well stated above, that there is no solid basis for the assumption of inerrancy. I find the scriptures to be internally inconsistent when the assumption of inerrancy is in place. I like Bonzo's three pronged approach that he mentions above. The truth comes from the church, the bible and the individual in concert. Perhaps it comes from other places.
It will take a terrible lot of convincing before I fully trust any religious system that does not have an objective basis of belief. This doesn't mean that I can't have fun looking.
Freehand
Freehand, what can one ever mean by "objective"? "Objective" itself tends to require some base assumptions - it then comes down to whether you accept those or not.
e.g. Science starts out with a belief you can systematically explain natural physical processes - if you don't happen to believe that, then it's just bunkum. (NB as a scientist, I happen to go along with the assumption there).
Once one discounts, e.g. the appeal to authority or appeal to nature, very little in the human order of things is actually provably objective. Though, again, I happen to think that most things are "objective" at a "working definition" level, which is good enough for me.
Anyhow, objective requires a context - what's yours? From that, what is objective about errancy?
NB: I still don't side with either group on this.
Can it be proven that the Bible was written by God and documented without errors? I don't think so because we were not there when it was written. There are "thus saith the Lord" passages, but how do we know that they were documented or translated clearly? Anyone can say they have a vision from God. If I believed every person that said they had a vision from God, then I would probably end up in a mental institution.
So what other kinds of evidence could we have? The inerrancy of the Bible would be a tenable point if it is found to be beautifully consistent. I don't find it consistent. The closer that I look, the more inconsistent it seems. We've been talking about the inconsistency between "God is love" and "God commanded people to commit genocide." There are other foundational issues that I have problems with.
I guess another kind of evidence would be if the Bible was shown to work. Does it change the lives of people that believe it to be inerrant? That's pretty hard to judge, but perhaps it describes why some people believe it. This is a line of thought that I did not consider because I have felt something missing in church for so long. Christians are really great people, but I don't see the level of transformation that is claimed in the Bible.
I agree that some sort of base assumption is required. I am making the assumption that a book that is inerrant should not contradict itself. There are a number of contradictions that I just can't swallow any more. I know that there are harmonizations, but, to me, they don't justify the tremendous scope of the contradictions. So, for myself, I have disproven the concept of inerrancy. This doesn't mean that I have disproven the entire Bible. It just means that certain concepts are unreconcilable. To disprove the entire Bible, I would have to disprove every sentence. That would be an impossible task.
In addition, the concept of inerrancy typically goes along with a rejection of the authority of the church councils. This rejects the very source of the Bible itself. It was a church council that chose the manuscripts for the Bible. All of the church councils are rejected aside from the one council that picked the Bible. This, to me, also undermines the authority of the Bible. For this reason, Mousetheif's approach appeals to me. However, it doesn't necessarily solve anything. It pushes the question back to whether I have confidence in the church. This is an even bigger task that can probably only be accomplished through spending time in fellowship with other believers (which I am still doing btw) and in learning the teachings of the church.
Science is good at describing things that happen consistently and can be measured. God does not appear to be consistent or quantifiable.
I think that 1, 2 and 3 are possible. I have to rule out 4.
There's my take,
Freehand
quote:
Originally posted by gbuchanan:
On reviewing this thread, I can't see much (indeed anything) which defines what is "theological" or "spiritual" which can be easily separated from "the rest" of the Bible - any takers on the inerrantist side?Phrases such as "theologically inerrant" are meaningless unless some semantics are placed upon them - I don't think we have many literalists here, but if the Bible isn't purely made of "theologically inerrant" stuff, how do I tell the difference?
This is a good question, and not an easy one to answer.
You might say that the stories may have the numbers or the actions wrong, but that the teachings are correct.
This, however, I think we agree, just doesn't hold up. There are teachings that Moses gave that are completely, and rightly, contradicted by Jesus. There are declarations attributed to God Himself ("Let Me alone, that I may destroy them!" Exodus 32.10) that couldn't possibly have really come from God.
So it is no easy trick to tease out what is purely spiritual.
THough I am an 'inerrantist', I highly respect the very real, very honest objections to inerrancy that have been raised by the more skeptical among us.
If I might be so bold as to speak for the 'average' Christian, I think that there is a "little skeptic" that resides within all believers too. It is that little voice that gets in the way at the most inapropriate times.
This post is not about the 'tension' of faith that exists in Christians, but I think that inerrantists have often been unfortunately stereotyped.
I think a lot of the problem stems from the close relationship that 'inerrancy' and 'fundamentalism' has. There are many ill-learned pastors and priests who will universally condemn a certain segment of society (i.e. homosexuals, psychics, etc.) to hell and rationalize it with the flawless authority of scripture. (Yikes)
Likewise, there are hosts of Christian believers who 'wear a mask of confidence' about the Bible when, inwardly, there are genuine doubts. - This gives a very inacurrate picture and understanding of what I consider to be the 'pilgrimage' of the Christian faith.
I think that we have to be VERY careful in our exegesis of Biblical texts for one. But the fact remains that there just aren't any easy answers as to believing the Bible to be inerrant. Furthermore, the fact that 'inerrnacy' lacks a coherent and standardized 'defenition doesn't help matters. - Some "inerrantists" condemn other "inerrantists" for holding to evolution for an example.
I feel like I am rambling on, so I'll just say that I do believe that God can communicate "clearly" to us. It remains to be seen what we would define as clear communication though, much less if God has used 'maximum' clarity in the bible, or even if He wants to clearly communicate.
Personally, I agree with scripture that "SUrely, [God] [is] a God who hides [Himself]."
I don't think the real issue is whether we can "proove" GOd or the Bible through empiracle means (Although, I do think God has given us a logical and reasonable faith), rather I agree with Thomas Cahill in his book on the Jews, - We must believe in God as one believes in his friend or family member. God is a person. We are persons. SOmetimes I doubt my friends love or intentions regarding me, as sometimes I doubt God's love and intentions regarding me. The point is that the doubts are (as they are in the scriptures) revolving God's character not His existence.
Wow! I apologize for getting off track here. I'm sure that I can subjectively tie this in with biblical inerrnacy somehow.
I'll be back to continue this very profitable debate later.
quote:
Originally posted by ekalb
Likewise, there are hosts of Christian believers who 'wear a mask of confidence' about the Bible when, inwardly, there are genuine doubts. - This gives a very inacurrate picture and understanding of what I consider to be the 'pilgrimage' of the Christian faith.
For once we agree, This dishonesty about one's doubts is a large part of the reason why inerrancy remains a widespread view (though I'm sure it's no longer the view of the average Christian).
It's hardly surprising that people are dishonest about their doubts. The Chigago Statement On Bilical Inerrancy which has been referenced on this thread says 'To Stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master'. People in churches controlled by this wholly unacceptable view would have to be very strong to 'come out' about their doubts.
Consequently inerrancy remains largely unquestioned in such places. If people were honest, then inerrancy would have been consigned to the scrap heap, as an irrational doctrine, long ago.
The vocal nature of such people (despite their doubt) has served to put a great many people off the Christian faith.
quote:
About the same time, I came to the realization that the God that I believed in was threatening me with hell to try to get me to love him. When I realized that the underlying foundation of the relationship was fear, my belief in God melted away. It was truly a release
This is a bit off-topic, but the above reminded me of a hymn line which goes (roughly) thus:
"Oh God, we praise Thee not because
We hope for Heaven thereby"
Which always provoked the thought in me, "Who do you think you're fooling, sunshine?"
------
"If it's anything about a cake, Sir, I don't know anything about it, and besides, it was only a small cake." - Bunter
quote:
About the same time, I came to the realization that the God that I believed in was threatening me with hell to try to get me to love him. When I realized that the underlying foundation of the relationship was fear, my belief in God melted away. It was truly a release
It would truly be a release not to believe in such a God. For some reason (I take no credit) I've never believed in such a God, and it was quite a search to find a church that didn't have such a God (along with other features I won't go into here). Thankfully, I have found one at last.
Reader Alexis
thankful Orthodox guy
You're right. It is unfortunate that many Christians and churches don't feel comfortable to vocalize the doubts they have about inerrancy. No more unfortunate, though, than it is to see Christians walking into church on sunday morning wearing a fake smile and acting like all is right with the world, even though their life is falling apart. -very sad indeed.
But I hope you are not making the asumption that an 'examined' belief system would result in the nullification of said system.
I, myself, have been honest about the doubts I have regarding the inerrancy of scripture. I have 'examined' my inerrantist position, seen the problems with it, wondered why God didn't make inerrancy 'just obvious' to huamnity, and YET, I am still an inerrantist. Why?
Well, frankly speaking, I don't see that the 'errantist' side has had much better luck in 'proving' errancy. The vast majority of arguments become stalemated in presuppostitons and unanswerable queries.
Like I have said before, I think inerrancy and errancy are both justifiable systems of belief and thinking. Neither can be accused of being epistemologically sloppy.
So bonzo, take a second and think about what you are claiming. If more of Christendom had (in past centuries) critically analyzed their belief in inerrancy, would that have really necessitated the removal of the doctrine itself? -Unlikely.
In my opinion, it is those that live an 'examined' system of belief that usually have the strongest faith (purely my opinon though).
I am claiming that, if the inerrant view was allowed to be openly debated, the view would all but disappear, because as I have said many times in this thread, it is unsupported by logic.
However much you state to the contrary, an errantist view is supported by logic.
We have been through this many times in this thread. I have provided evidence that the Bible is not inerrant which you have been unable to refute. That's all I have to do to show that inerrancy is an unworkable argument.
I may not be able to get you to accept this, but others reading this thread will be able to see it as clear as daylight!
quote:
Well, frankly speaking, I don't see that the 'errantist' side has had much better luck in 'proving' errancy. The vast majority of arguments become stalemated in presuppostitons and unanswerable queries.
The errors can be harmonized by the inerrentist and we can argue over these points for years. Eventually it gets to the point where the harmonised meaning is IMO so far removed from the original content that the term inerrant is misleading.
Please note: I am not saying that the Bible is all wrong. Perhaps most of it is correct. I'm just saying that it's not 100% perfect.
Freehand
unfortunately, you missed the piont of what I was saying.
I wasn't saying that 'errancy' is "unsupported" by logic. - I know that it is. Likewise, inerrancy is supported by logic.
As freehand rightly points out, inerrancy probably demands the larger 'leap' in faith to believe, but the point is that it is not "illogical" to believe. I think you have a serious lack of understanding in regards to what is "logical" and what is "provable". I'm not saying inerrancy is provable, I am saying that it is logical.
COntrary to your opinion (for that is what you are promoting), inerrancy is held by many reasonable people who have tested their faith and found it satisfactory for their epistemological worldview.
To make the claim that only an unthinking or illogical person would cling to inerrancy is about the most unsupported and unreasonable claim I have ever heard anybody make.
Inerrancy is NOT like believeing in 'Santa Claus'. The former can be justified on logical grounds, the latter cannot.
I'm not sure why you cannot understand that. I'm not asking you to beleive in inerrancy, but you should acknowledge that it is a justifiable view.
And any logical person can see that!
Can I refer you to the Purgatory Guidelines?
quote:
5. Be courteous in your debating style – Apologise when you err; apologies are always well-received here. Take personal offense or disagreements to the Hell board, where they won't bother other posters.
If you want to argue in this sort of tone with ekalb then you need to start a thread in Hell to do so. (ekalb if you're planning to reply in kind - then you should start a thread on the Hell board calling Bonzo to account)
If this sort of tone continues on this thread, then I will move the entire thread to Hell.
Louise
I apologise for my tone, the reason I used it was because you consistently accuse me of misunderstanding you or misrepresenting you or missing the point. I understand you perfectly well and I have never knowingly misrepresented you and I have not missed the point - I just think your point is wrong.
I stand by the substance of what I have said. This is not a personal argument between you and me, but it would be wrong of me not to continue to state categorically that inerrancy is an irrational belief.
However Louise is right, I did post angry and exasperated, and a more considered response would have been more appropriate.
Again, I am utterly amazed at the 'leaps in logic' that you are taking to prove your point. It would appear that you really don't understand the nature between what is 'proovable' and what is 'logical'. Something does NOT have to be provable to be logical.
For instance, you would say that other minds exist, right? Well, the existence of other minds is wholly un-proovable. You cannot empiracly proove that your friend's or parent's minds actually exist. Yet, is completely logical to believe that other minds do exist.
Bonzo, there are many people in the world that claim, "I won't believe it until it can be scientifically established".
The problem with that statement and approach to any truth claim is that it is 'self-referentially-inconsistent'. In other words, science and empiracism has grown out of numerous 'core' beliefs that can not be scientifically verified themselves.
If you think that you can 'prove' something by the scientific method, then it is only fair of you to admit that you are "believing" in some very unprovable truth claims: namely, the existence of order in nature, the reality of truth, the concept that our natural senses actually transmit valid data to our minds, and so forth.
Don't misinterpret me, - I also believe in the value of the scientific method, but I acknowledge that humans are, by nature, 'faith beings'. We are bound to belief. For you to make the assumption that the errantist side of the debate is employing objective verification techniques while the inerrantists are 'just believing' is very unfair of you bonzo.
Both sides have 'belief systems' at their core. It is merely a fact of life.
Please don't send me a post saying that I don't believe in reason or the value of science, -we have been through this before.
I am willing to debate the evidence for both sides of the debate but NOT if you continue to stereotype every inerrantist as an unthinking, illogical fool who clings to inerrancy because they are scared of hellfire. That is simply not true.
sorry guys, I just saw the above posts before I posted mine. Sorry if the tone is a bit negative.
I do think that you have, and continually, misrepresent my argument, bonzo. But I hold no personal quarell with you. I am content to continue this debate.
I will try to keep it civil.
However scientists refer to something being illogical they mean that you start with a theory and try to disprove it. Once disproven it is said to be illogical.
Of course we then have to define proof. If you started with the theory that all coal was white, to disprove it I would simply need to produce a piece of coal that was black. You might argue that it's white and that we couldn't see it properly. But you'd be laughed at by any rational person.
I have shown over the course of this thread that inerrancy is disproven. I have taken one of many examples of a cruel act which is ascribed to God by the OT and compared that to the love of God described by Jesus.
Your response was to say that, because God was doing it, it was not cruel because he created the beings it was done to.
I pointed out that If I made a being and I was cruel to it, you, as my equal, would call me cruel (in fact you referred to it as sadism). You have given no logical response to this. All you have done is restate your original argument that God cannot be cruel because he made us. Your argument therfore stands disproved unless you have an alternative stance to take.
You then admitted that to take your stance required a leap of faith. You carried on to say that both sides of the argument require a leap of faith.
I'll take you back to the coal example. My leap of faith would be to believe my eyes. Your leap of faith would be to believe that everybody, inculding yourself, couldn't see properly.
You might say that believing that all coal is white is logical but I don't.
Two propositions -
1. the bible is a book recording people's encounter with God and reflection - oft times crude and limited (we are no better)- of what God is doing in human history. It contains many facts, some more important that others. However it intention is not to give us facts. To argue over factual errors is rather to miss the point.
2. I believe in providence, so I believe whats in the bible, God wants to be there. Even the gory bits where God it thought of as an ogre by the biblical writers.
However the assumption in the errancy v inerrancy debate has been that the bible contains a series of propositions for us to believe which are either right or wrong.
I know that while its nigh well impossible for our culture to think of truth other than as a series of logical-verbal propositions, I suspect the divine truth of the bible is much profounder than that.
(Perhaps its not a book of facts (inc theological facts) but a mirror in which we discover ourselves or designed like a Zen Koan to challenge our presumption and lead us into asking the profoundest questions about life including the nature of religous truth...)
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
I have taken one of many examples of a cruel act which is ascribed to God by the OT and compared that to the love of God described by Jesus.
This seems to be the major sticking point here.
It looks to me as though the "inerrancy" argument isn't going to go anywhere because of this.
I was hoping that the Bible could still be "inerrant" without having God commanding the killing of babies, and by overlooking the minor contradictions and discrepancies in, for example, the gospel stories.
I now give up on that, and am content to simply say that I accept the Bible's claim to divine authorship.
For what it is worth, let me say a word about why Joshua might legitimately and logically be seen as having a divine origin, despite all the baby killing that goes on.
It is only because the fundamental message is that if you obey and trust in God, He will be on your side, protect you, and give you success against your enemies. This is the message repeated in virtually every chapter from Genesis to Zechariah - and especially in Joshua.
The message becomes markedly more sophisticated as you proceed through the Old Testament, and becomes increasingly focused on morality, humility, kindness, and mercy.
In Joshua, however, the message is pure and simple. God will destroy your enemies big or small, man or woman, adult or child. It is manifestly barbaric. But that is not the way it seems when you feel desperately threatened by your enemies. Then you think that the only good Philistine is a dead Philistine.
This is not to justify the literal actions of Joshua and the Israelites of that period. It is, however, to justify the logic of the message as an important step in the development of faith in God. The most general ideas come first. The finer points are acquired in time.
So without literally having God Himself order the destruction of Canaanite women and children, I can believe in the divine authorship of the book of Joshua. God allowed Himself to be understood and presented in that way - a way that makes pure sense to children and unsophisticated people.
I believe that every word of Scripture is from God - allowing, of course, for a certain percentage of errors in transmission over the years. In that sense it is inerrant, because it is divine. But I don't think that it is literally without factual error, or that it does not incorporate the points of view and prejudices of the many people who actually penned it.
But if "inerrancy" means that God is a baby-killer, this argument won't go anywhere. In my opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by splodge:
2. I believe in providence, so I believe whats in the bible, God wants to be there. Even the gory bits where God is thought of as an ogre by the biblical writers.
That's it. That's what I meant to say. Thanks Splodge.
I'm closest to Splodges cookery manual except that I believe the cookery has evolved still further since the manual was completed, and is still evolving.
ok,I'm gonna make this quick.
You're coal example is far too black and white (no pun intended) to rightly compare it with inerrancy/errancy.
You're right though, if you could show but one single error in scripture then that one error would 'logically' infer that inerrancy cannot be.
You've brought up some good objections to innerrancy, but none that I have not heard in the past. You say that I have not answered you're 'response' about you creating a hamster/whatever and then killing it and how I, as an equal, would call you cruel.
Well, I did answer that. About 2 pages back I posted you saying that the hamster analogy is ridiculous. Why? First, because it's apples and oranges. You're trying to hypothesize a 'theoretical' universe wherin killing (sadistically) you're hamster-creations is the normative action for you, their god. Further, it is a universe that apparantly is polytheistic. You say that I would be your equal and call you cruel. This also implies a universe with a transcedatory moral law above even its gods.
I'm not splitting hairs here. Bonzo, the analogy is so far removed from the universe that we do know that it cannot be successfully applied.
quote:
Well, I did answer that. About 2 pages back I posted you saying that the hamster analogy is ridiculous. Why? First, because it's apples and oranges. You're trying to hypothesize a 'theoretical' universe wherin killing (sadistically) you're hamster-creations is the normative action for you, their god. Further, it is a universe that apparantly is polytheistic. You say that I would be your equal and call you cruel. This also implies a universe with a transcedatory moral law above even its gods.
In hypothesising this theoretical universe I'm showing that it can be considered cruel to cause unnecessary suffering to something you have created. It doesn't have to be polytheistic I would know that chopping the feet of my hamster is cruel without you coming along! I only put you there to help you to realise it!
Let's approach it a different way. How can we say that God is a loving God without judging God?
When you say that genocide is not cruel because a creator did it, and to call the creator cruel is judging God. Then by the same token it must be judging God to say that He is loving.
In fact by the same token we can say nothing whatsoever about the nature of God because that would be judging God.
One thing we certainly could not say about God is that he wishes to communicate with men through the Bible, that would be judging God (by your argument).
Man has the knowledge of good and evil (in your inerrant book he got it when he ate the fruit from the tree). He is able to see a cruel act and understand it to be cruel. When any suffering is inflicted unecessarily on any creature capable of feelings it is cruelty. To argue otherwise is meaningless.
The coal analogy is a pretty good comparison!
quote:
Originally posted by Gauk:
I'm not sure that I'm following how inerrancy is supported by logic.
How about the logic that without religious knowledge that is believed to be accurate there can be no belief, and therefore no religion.
Believing it doesn't make it accurate, of course, and there is a certain amount of uncertainty in everything about religion. But no one has faith in things that they know or suspect to be untrue.
So if you are going to believe something, it is unlikely that the basis of belief will be simply random. If a person believes in Jesus because of the testimony of the Bible, they must have some confidence in the truth, on some level, of this testimony.
I understand that this confidence can range from "there is some core of truth" to "every word is true." But the "every word is true" approach has been the traditional Christian viewpoint for 2000 years. It is logical within its own framework, even if it is illogical that God would command the killing of babies, or that every detail could be literally true, such as Cain finding a wife even though there were no other humans yet.
quote:
But the "every word is true" approach has been the traditional Christian viewpoint for 2000 years.
It may have been commonly held among uneducated people, but the notion that every word is literally true would have moved educated people like Alcuin to tears of laughter - or possibly frustration. 'Genesis tells the story of the making of the world after the manner of a poem' was his comment on it.
John
Of course it is one thing to consider the creation story to be an allegory, and another to deny the truth of such things as the resurrection of Christ.
bonzo, please don't get angry, but it is very frustrating to debate something I have never argued. I know you're frustrated because I have accussed you of using 'straw men' arguments against me. - I intended nothing else than to point out the facts.
Here is what I am talking about:
by bonzo:
quote:
When you say that genocide is not cruel because a creator did it, and to call the creator cruel is judging God. Then by the same token it must be judging God to say that He is loving.In fact by the same token we can say nothing whatsoever about the nature of God because that would be judging God.
One thing we certainly could not say about God is that he wishes to communicate with men through the Bible, that would be judging God (by your argument).
You are arguing against something I have never said.
I 'have' said that it would be wrong to assume that we can superimpose the moral and perogative dynamics of humanity onto deity, but I am not saying that we can't 'say things about God'.
Further, I haven't tried to argue that inerrancy is obvious or even necessary for faith. I hope you realize that my purpose, in this discussion, is to show that anyone who holds to inerrancy is 'justified' to do so. 'Justified' doesn't mean we have all the answers. It doesn't even mean that 'errancy' has weak objections to inerrancy; rather, justified means that a Christian can believe the Bible to be inerrant without violating reason and logic.
It seems that both of us are unwilling to progress this debate any further and for that I apologize (I haven't always been fair in this debate), but if you want to continue I am willing. I ask only that you 'thoroughly' read my posts before responding. I will try to do the same.
My apologies if I have misunderstood, but when you said:
quote:
Your "views" fail to accept the fact that they are judging God in light of their own standards
What exactly did you mean?
If in your opinion we can say things about God then it follows that we can say that committing genocide is not in his nature.
Since the Bible says that God did do this then it's obvious, by logic, that the Bible is wrong on this point.
There is someone who is not prepared to debate. All you do is keep insisting that an argument which is so obviously flawed is logical.
You may feel that your stance is justified. That you have proved that to believe in Biblical inerrancy is a rational, logical thing to do. But you have only convinced one person ... yourself ekalb.
quote:
Of course it is one thing to consider the creation story to be an allegory, and another to deny the truth of such things as the resurrection of Christ.
Indeed so - though the church has certainly had clergy who have taken the position that the resurrection stories are only true in some non-literal sense for at least a couple of hundred years. I wonder who was the first to come clean in public on this position - didn't one of the mediaeval popes talk of having been served well by this myth of a resurrected Christ?
John
Of course if he had gone public with this declaration he would not have been pope. And if the church itself had announced this, it would no longer be a church.
So despite the skepticism of many of the individuals involved, church organizations perpetuate certain ideas as the basis for their existence.
Hosts of Purgatory
Now hear my plea!
Send this to Dead Horses
And save our sanity!
(Almost as good as the spells the Charmed ones use, I think.)
That quote is merely saying that we can't judge God in the same way we judge oneself or another human. It is exactly what I said in my last post. It is wrong to think that God and humanity can be 'talked about' on the same level. Clearly there are diferences. God has some very unique abilities and perogatives that humanity does not. Further, humanity can sin and be evil where as God is perfect.
So, what I am saying is that we should be 'careful' when saying things about God and His nature because He is unique.
That said, I agree with you that we can say positive statements about God's nature. Some folk only think we can affirm what God is not, but I do think that we can affirm what GOd is.
bonzo, the real issue in the particular debate that we are sharing is 'what is the correct interpretation of the Joshua genocide?'. You interpret it to be a cruel act, unbecoming of God and therefore see it as an error within the bible. I interpret it as an act of divine punishment, wholly justifiable within the parameters of divine perogatives and therefore view the scriptures as inerrant.
You must recognize that both views are acceptable on rational grounds. However, both are un-provable. You cannot guarantee that my interpretation of divine punishment is wrong and I cannot absolutely say that your errancy view is wrong either.
Maybe I am the only one that I have convinced of inerrancy If so, that does not mean that my arguments are flawed.
Before I go, I would like to know, bonzo, whether you are a 'logical positivist'. From your arguments and appeals I would guess you are, but I might be wrong.
I've said before (I can't recall if it was on this or another thread) that I'm intrigued by the use of the phrase "Word of God" to describe both the Bible and Christ. The Bible, like Christ, is both human and divine.
The words of Scripture are fully the work of fallible human authors (and later editors and compilers) and subject to all their weaknesses, prejudice and failings. As such it cannot possibly be inerrant.
They are also fully the word of God who is perfect and faithful. As such it cannot possibly be anything but inerrant.
So, just as we follow a Christ who is simultaneously and inseperably fully human and fully divine we also have Scriptures which are simultaneously and inseperably fully of human and divine origin.
Just a few thoughts to digest,
Alan
quote:
Originally posted by ekalb:
the real issue in the particular debate that we are sharing is 'what is the correct interpretation of the Joshua genocide?'.
Several of us have offered positions on this Joshua issue other than Bonzo's. My heart is with you, kalb, but I don't think that you need to interpret the Joshua genocide as directly commanded by God in order to believe that God is the author of Scripture.
Do you see no other alternative? You have only responded to Bonzo's hard line on this.
Then I did not misunderstand you.
Though we can't say that for God to act in a certain way judging Him by human standards, you seem to be saying that you can say that for God to behave in a particular way would be against His own standards.
We must be able to do this or we would not be able to say that He is loving or just.
So by that token it is obvious that if we God were to act in the genocidal way described in Joshua, by his own standards of love and justice he would have been wrong to act in that way. Since he is true to his own standards then it follows that God did not commit genocide.
Alan,
quote:
I've said before (I can't recall if it was on this or another thread) that I'm intrigued by the use of the phrase "Word of God" to describe both the Bible and Christ. The Bible, like Christ, is both human and divine.
The words of Scripture are fully the work of fallible human authors (and later editors and compilers) and subject to all their weaknesses, prejudice and failings. As such it cannot possibly be inerrant.They are also fully the word of God who is perfect and faithful. As such it cannot possibly be anything but inerrant.
But the whole world is God's creation and by the same argument cannot be inerrant since it must be exactly the way God wanted it?
Is that what you're saying? There are no errant people in this world?
I'm rather coming to the conclusion that the whole inerrant/non-inerrant black/white thang is very much a product of the modernist perspective employed by both the evangelical and liberal traditions.
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Is that what you're saying? There are no errant people in this world?
I think I accept the following as a rational view, If this is what you're saying then I think it's worth looking at:-
That the Bible is inerrant in the sense that God is perfect and faithful and so the Bible is the way it is because that's the way God has designed the world.
Consider this :
The existence of Hitler, the way he was, his hatred of the Jews are all part of God's plan for the world. Hitler happened in a world for which God has a plan and a purpose.
Of course that doesn't mean that Hitler was not wrong in what he did, It just means that his wrongdoing is in some way it is part of the plan.
In the same way the genocide committed by Joshua is wrong and the Bible is incorrect to say that God sanctioned it, but the Bible is that way becasue it is part of God's plan.
If we accept this point of view we must treat the Bible as a book containing human errors. But we would be right in asking what God's purpose is in allowing the human errors to be there as they may be important in understanding the wider, inerrant, plan.
This IMO is a reasonable line of argument. I'm not sure if I agree with it or not, but if it's in any way what you're driving at then I would like to see where it goes.
So, just to make sure there is no more life in the Joshua genocide dead horse. The Bible says that God ordered the slaughter of the Caananites; in saying this it is simultaneously entirely accurate and entirely wrong.
If that's not clear it's probably a combination of me getting myself confused and needing a bit of sleep
Alan
There is a stream of thought in the bible that considers, in the final analysis, all destruction and death itself as divine judgement upon sin and we know that death is no respecter of persons or ages.
A very high monotheism makes God ultimately responsible for all events including the demise of the innocent as well as the grossly sinful; it is said that everyone is destroyed because all are interconnected, equally contaminated by original sin etc.
What happened to the canaanites is, in this contaxt, simply an accelerated judgement that happens to us all. We may feel repugnance at what happened to the canaanites because we believe God is love. However this is not simply a biblical problem, it is greatest theological problem: called the "Problem of Evil". Indeed, you, me and everyone are destined to die as well as the poor old cannanites. Well poor us too.
The Joshua story only throws the problem of evil into sharp relief, but it won't go away whether the Joshua story is history or fiction. Indeed the theme of divine judgement is as all pervasive in scripture as the theme of love and mercy.
No, and I don't like the idea of divine judgement either.
That's interesting, It doesn't get round the problem of Joshua and the canaanites in the sense that we cannot justify genocide (Cannan Bosnia or Auswitz) or attribute it to God. But it does move the argument on to the big question of why is dying (and life sometimes) such a bag of shit.
When something bad happens to us, I don't think we are being punished for our wrong (disabled people are no more sinful than the rest of us). Nor do I think that death is necessarily a punishment (though it's a bugger I'll admit!).
I agree that the Bible does seem to point to divine judgement in a threatening tone and this is present in both the OT and NT.
I might be wrong but I don't see any mention of sons being killed for the sins of their fathers in the NT. Are there any examples of instances where God uses men to exact punishment on other men in the NT? If there are they are certainly not the main thrust of the NT.
The concept of judgement certainly pervades the whole Bible, but in the NT I think it centres upon judgement of your own wrongdoing, not judgement of a nation for the wrongdoing of some people within that nation.
It brings me closer to the picture of a developing theology. It makes me even more convinced that the Bible is not a conclusion but a documented starting point from which mankind has developed ideas and morality which have superceded some of the ideas of the Bible just as the NT seems to supercede some of the commonly held values of the OT.
I'm not saying, just because we have problems with the concept of divine judgement, we should start to say that the Bible is obviously wrong on this subject (though it's possible). Rather we should never be too hard line in our viewpoint, just because the Bible says something. We have to consider it and weigh the odds, and even then we might be none the wiser.
From looking at your earlier posts I don't think we're very far apart. Are we?
I've thought hard about your paradox idea, I don't think I can agree for the following reason.
People hold to a paradox of Jesus being fully man and fully God because the Bible doesn't hold evidence to suggest that Jesus was sinful (he was inerrant).
Suppose for example the gospels had contained a story about Jesus, at the age of 17, two timing his girfriends. It would then be impossible for the unblemished lamb idea to be understood. After reading the things he later did, people might say that he was a man inspired by God, but I don't think they would have said he was God.
The Bible, as you have said, does contain errors, so it's fine to say it's inspired by God but not fine to say it's inerrant (equating it with God).
Does that make sense?
Otherwise it is inerrant.
When God said to Moses to leave Him alone while he annihilated Israel, He meant it.
The fact that He didn't reveals far more to me about God, who negotiated with Abraham for the annihilation of the cities of the plain too, than a God who really didn't, really couldn't say that and that the Bible is therefore errant because our liberal induction isn't - which reveals a lot about our limitations for accepting God at His word.
The hard, old school, bronze-age, lethal God who revealed Himself in Christ as more gracious than we can possibly imagine.
So apart from the Bible being wrong when it doesn't suit our liberalism, where else is it wrong?
imagine if you will, every bible and written word relating to it in the world disappears one night and we are left to cope in this world based on the spirit of Jesus's message. if we were able to do that, we might be okay. now imagine everyone has a bible but no spirit of compassion. sound scarily familiar?
i can accept that God is The Word and is inerrant, but not that the bible is The Word...too much like saying the collar is the dog.
(glad you're not mad on cold north wind, m.
)
(as an aside, since this thread isn't about the nature of Christ as such, there is a difference between Christ being human and being a sinner)
Your argument is interesting. I would like it to work. It would be a very good way to say that everbody's right on this thread! Then we'd all be happy.
But, for me, it can't work. I'm not saying that the Bible has errors just because it was written by men who are fallible. I'm saying that it has errors because those errors are self evident.
In the paradox of Jesus (fully God and fully man). The paradox only works where errors in Jesus' character are not self evident. If he had self evident errors then he would be just a good man, not both God and man.
You couldn't say that Jesus was fully God and also fully man, if Jesus could be shown to be a sinner (As it is, He isn't, so perhaps you can say it).
You couldn't say that the Bible has errors (because it was written by man) and does not have errors (because the Bible was written by God), if the Bible can be shown to have errors (which is the case).
I'm not disputing that there is a difference between Christ being human and being a sinner.
I realise that you are not equating the Bible with God but I'm pointing out that when your analogy is applied to the Bible that an inerrant Bible is like an inerrant Jesus. In the Bible's case it has demonstrable errors, in Jesus' case He hasn't.
As you say analogies are not perfect but I can't see how this analogy helps us unless we can make these comparisons.
Those "errors" in the bible aren't exactly "evident" to me and whole lot of other, rational, Christians.
Whether you think that the alternative answers are bunk or not, the fact is that there are logically-consistent answers to the so-called errors that do enable a Christian to keep inerrancy intact.
We've been through this. I'm not going to argue with you on the subject anymore because you are not going to change your point of view no matter what I say.
IMO you have to abandon reason to believe the bible to be inerrant.
You too are intransigent.
And I dare to suggest have copped out by refusing to use your intellect to even posit the proposition that the Bible is inerrant and run with that.
It's easy to run with errancy, we can make God in our liberal image.
But what if you were wrong? We are commanded to love God with all of our mind, all of our intellect, yours is obviously superior to mine, so would you do me the favour of running with at least the posit that it is reasonable to regard the Bible as inerrant?
Just try the proposition on for size? If you won't question our capacity to reason we won't question your capacity to submit to God as He appears to reveal Himself by His word.
So please do reason with us.
Where us can the dialectic go?
quote:
We've been through this. I'm not going to argue with you on the subject anymore because you are not going to change your point of view no matter what I say.IMO you have to abandon reason to believe the bible to be inerrant.
I could be wrong, but I don't remember "having to change one's point of view" as a prerequisite for debating.
-Maybe I'll go look at the guidelines again.
Bonzo, if you don't want to debate anymore that's your choice, but I (if I were you that is) would stay away from such 'blanket statements' as you have made, - quite unfair to stereotype the 'inerrantists' like that.
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
I'm pointing out that when your analogy is applied to the Bible that an inerrant Bible is like an inerrant Jesus. In the Bible's case it has demonstrable errors, in Jesus' case He hasn't.
Whether the writers of the Bible were perfect is largely irrelevant; even if they were perfect they still wouldn't be writing inerrant Scripture because of the inherent limitations of language and how much humans can actually understand. That is why I say that since the evidence is that the Bible was written by apparently free acting human beings the Bible cannot be inerrant.
The main point from the analogy is, I think, that just as saying "Christ was human" is accurate and true it is also so inadequate a description of his nature that it is actually inaccurate and false; the same goes of saying "Christ is God". Likewise, although saying "the Bible is inerrant" is true and accurate it is also false and inaccurate; the same for "the Bible is not inerrant".
I'm still not sure if I'm making myself clear.
Alan
quote:
the fact is that there are logically-consistent answers to the so-called errors that do enable a Christian to keep inerrancy intact.
Sorry, no evidence has been supplied on this thread to back up this claim.
Bonzo:
quote:
IMO you have to abandon reason to believe the bible to be inerrant.
IMHO that is.
It seems that I have had to spend much of my time fighting 'opinions' and 'rhetoric' rather than actual arguments lately.
Your 'opinion' is plainly wrong. There 'have' been arguments and evidences put forth by the inerrantists on this thread - I suggest that you go back and read some.
You might agree with them or you might think that they are the worst arguments/evidences you have ever read, but to deny that they have been posted is simply foolish.
I will debate 'calm', 'thought-out' responses, not your 'opinions' please.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC notAnd I dare to suggest have copped out by refusing to use your intellect to even posit the proposition that the Bible is inerrant and run with that.
I used to believe that the Bible was inerrant. I found it was a view that I could not support in many a debate such as this one.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan CresswellJesus was the perfect human being; evidence that Jesus sinned doesn't make him more human (infact, arguably it makes him less human). But as a human being, even perfect, there were things he couldn't do - eg: be in two places at once.
Not sure you are making yourself clear on this point. How can Jesus sinning make him less human?
The point I was making is that Jesus sinning makes him less Godlike. If you believe in a perfect God it makes him not God.
On the rest of it I think you are clear but I can't agree for the reasons I have stated earlier.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The main point from the analogy is, I think, that just as saying "Christ was human" is accurate and true it is also so inadequate a description of his nature that it is actually inaccurate and false; the same goes of saying "Christ is God". Likewise, although saying "the Bible is inerrant" is true and accurate it is also false and inaccurate; the same for "the Bible is not inerrant".
This seems pretty clear to me, and in the main I agree.
But instead of saying that the Bible is fully human and fully divine, I would say that although it appears to be fully human it is actually fully divine. Or that it is human on the outside but divine on the inside. That is, that it is full of errors, inaccuracies, and appearances in its literal sense, but it holds God within it in a miraculous way.
So it is both full of errors and absolutely true at the same time.
Makes sense to me anyway.
So that we understand one another fully,
give me some non-slippery answers to these two questions before we go further. I think it would help me to understand better where you're coming from if I knew your position on these issues.
Do you believe that God created the world in six days (24hrs each)? Or do you believe the world has evolved over millions of years?
and
Do you believe, that when the Bible says that God told Joshua to kill everyone in Jericho and Ai that that is what God actually did?
quote:
There 'have' been arguments and evidences put forth by the inerrantists on this thread - I suggest that you go back and read some.You might agree with them or you might think that they are the worst arguments/evidences you have ever read, but to deny that they have been posted is simply foolish.
I wasn't denying that inerrantists have posted many things, it was the "logically consistent" description I was questioning.
Call that my "opinion" by all means but, having sadly read the whole thread, you haven't convinced me that you are using logic.
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Do you believe that God created the world in six days (24hrs each)? Or do you believe the world has evolved over millions of years?
quote:
Do you believe, that when the Bible says that God told Joshua to kill everyone in Jericho and Ai that that is what God actually did?
Though I can see, and accept, the clear theological teaching about the need to completely irradicate that which is sinful in our old lives when we come to Christ. And I also see that God may be acting in judgement on them, though I don't recall anywhere in the account in Joshua to state that God was judging them. However, God acting in this way is at odds with much of the rest of Scripture. The obvious explanation, especially given as the instructions to destroy Jericho are in Joshuas words not "the Lord said...", is that Joshua didn't understand God perfectly and got a bit carried away. Thus, the account is accurate but God didn't actually order it. I accept there's spiritual truth there that doesn't depend on the inerrancy or otherwise of the account; but I wouldn't let this (or similar) passage dictate my view of God or Scripture.
These two examples show the human origins of the Bible; they contain description of events from the perspective of the background and knowledge of the original authors. They still do, however, contain words that speak a message relevant to us today showing their divine origin.
But, as I said earlier in this thread (about 2/3 of the way down p3) I don't actually accept the Bible is inerrant, indeed I said
quote:So, I wouldn't expect the Bible to be inerrant any more than I would expect Jesus to be able to be in two places at once despite being God. Whereas "errors" in the life of Christ would imply he wasn't God, errors in Scripture don't necessarily imply the Bible isn't the word of God since I don't think that inerrancy is part of Gods purpose in giving us the Bible.
I think that the books we have actually suit Gods purpose pretty well. Whereas, a set of divinely dictated totally inerrant writings wouldn't be as suitable.
Alan
It's a shame that the length of the argument on the Joshua story in this thread has caused so many to cry 'dead horse'. It's one of many examples which I could have chosen which rather than being 'dead horses' should make clear that a literal interpretation on the Bible is unfounded in logic.
We need to get this literalist view out of the way before we can make progress on the issue of whether, and why the Bible is a specially inspired book.
IMO the 'inerrancy issue' which causes the most problem, for believers and would be believers, is the high profile literalist, creationist view which does damage to the message of Christianity.
If, however, you believe the Bible to be a uniquely special set of writings, without claiming literal correctness, then you hold one plausible view amongst a variety of plausible views. This does no damage to Christ, rather it confirms the broadness of His Church which IMO is a wonderful thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Do you believe that God created the world in six days (24hrs each)? Or do you believe the world has evolved over millions of years??
I am with Alan. God guides the evolutionary process in completely invisible ways, so that all changes proceed according to the phsical laws known to science.
The Bible is not about physical creation but about the spiritual recreation of the human race. So these early stories are an allegroy describing in general terms the spiritual history of humanity, as it was understood by those who created the stories that were later written down in the early part of Genesis.
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Do you believe, that when the Bible says that God told Joshua to kill everyone in Jericho and Ai that that is what God actually did?
No. The purpose of these stories is to reinforce the concept that obedience to God brings blessings.
The entire concept of God promising Abraham and his descendents a particular piece of land, which they are to wrest from the inhabitants, is wrong from beginning to end. The Bible is about spiritual things, not real estate. "Canaan" stands for heaven, and "casting out the uncircumcized" means to get rid of the things in your life that stand between you and heaven.
But this does not mean that the stories are simply mistaken. As Abraham, Joshua and other Old Testament characters understood it, God was telling them to do these things. In these centuries before the incarnation, there simply were not people who could be led and taught more directly, or who were able to transmit a clearer divine message.
The miracle is that, despite the deficiencies of these people, God was able to guide them to record and preserve a message that holds the truth within it, even where it is not literally true. The challenge, then, is to interpret it in a consistent and logical way.
Intellectually and morally inferior 'Literalism' is only positable by people with nasty, illiberal skeletons in the cupboard?
God is Love therefore He didn't order the genocide of the Amorites?
That deals with literalism?
That makes it intellectually impossible to pursue the proposition that God is Love and He DID order the genocide of the Amorites?
Or just dispositionally impossible?
By the way are there literary forms which combine the mythic and the literal? So that Genesis 1-2 is easily reconciled as perfectly historically precise about named individuals and mythic, allegorical about Days of Creation. Or literal about recreation?
Could Noah be true? Jonah? Could God be a faithful and true witness to His intervention in history? Or did God have to bow to our ignorance and tell us fairy stories?
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not:
By the way are there literary forms which combine the mythic and the literal?
A beautiful idea. The metaphoric aspect of the events of the Bible do not necessarily negate their literal reality.
Although I believe that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are pure allegory, with no literal basis in the events as described, I believe that the entire rest of the Bible happened as described.
It was important that these events actually take place.
The reason is that just as these events had to be described as they were in order to fill the requirements of the divine metaphor, they also needed to TAKE PLACE as described in order fulfil those same requirements. They pre-figured Jesus and His wor. If they had not happened then Jesus would have needed to come the moment Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden.
Does that make any sense?
As a non-literalist I apply more or less the same principles to the whole text - I know empirically that God speaks to me through it, but my view on whether it literally happened is more or less a 'balance of probabilities' test, though I can't ignore the baggage I bring with me.
What I can't see is how Martin can look at the 7 days as mythic, but not to apply the same principle to the rest of Genesis, which certainly READS like myth to me - it has the story forms and conventions of myth. Where is the dividing line?
That's not an attack, btw. I'd like to know the answer, I genuinely don't understand the mindset. I understand a rigid literalism rather more easily, even though I don't agree with it.
quote:
Originally posted by Ham 'n' Eggs
Bonzo - do you have any non-selfjustifying basis for believing that the use of reason is pre-eminent? Or have you assumed it, or been taught it and accepted it without question?
I have no basis to believe that the use of reason is pre-eminent other than reason is the thing God has given us to decide what is right or wrong.
(For those who don't know what pre-eminent is the dictionary says 'excelling others; distinguished beyond others in some quality' I didn't know either)
You can say 'I think therefore I am'. But that isn't necessarily true since you might be mad and therefore your logic might be twisted.
What I question is people who say they use reason and clearly do not. I'm quite happy to accept a literalist who says (on a regular basis) that their idea has no basis in reason.
Does that make sense?
Martin PC not
I'm sorry, I've rather ignored your posts so far. The reason is that up until the penultimate one, I hadn't understood a single one (on any thread!).
Your last post I think I fully understood about half of. My intellect is not as great as you imagine! Could you re-phrase it in plainer English? Are your question marks rhetorical or are you expecting an answer. What does dispositionally impossible mean. And what are nasty, illiberal skeletons in the cupboard?
I'm not trying to be funny - I just, plain, don't understand you. Please try to talk down to me at a level we can both understand.
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Truman:
Where I get confused is with those who want not to take 7 day creation literally as Martin does, or to take the first 11 chapters of Genesis non-literally as Freddy does, but then to say that the rest did happen as literally written. Where do you draw the line?
I can certainly understand the question. As I see it there is no way of escaping the need to draw a line somewhere.
No one disputes that at least some of the biblical characters are genuine historical figures, and that at least some of the events actually took place. It is certainly reasonable to accept the historicity of those things in the Bible that can be independently confirmed, and to see the rest of it as "history metaphorized," as Marcus Borg puts it. I happen to believe that more of it actually happened - for the reason explained above in my last post.
To my mind, however, the first eleven chapters are clearly set apart, along with Job, and actually can't have happened as written. But the rest is all within the realm of possibility, assuming miracles are possible.
I realize that it is far-fetched to think that actual conversations could have been preserved over centuries before they were written down, or that Jonah was eaten by a fish and lived. But the acceptance of the possibility of miracles is pretty much a given in Christianity.
Probably the biggest question is whether the Bible is in any sense a book specially written and preserved by God, or if it is simply another ancient book - that has just happened to be central to the belief system of a third of the people on this planet.
What I don't see is why they need to draw a hard and fast line.
Ask me about most of the Bible and I'll say things like:
'There's a fair chance this is what happened'
or:
'I think that it's unlikely that this is true'
There are only a few parts where I have to say:
'To believe this then you've got to abandon reason'
If it could be true why not say so? If you've got good reason to believe it not to be true then argue your point.
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
What I don't see is why they need to draw a hard and fast line.
If it could be true why not say so? If you've got good reason to believe it not to be true then argue your point.
Can't argue with the logic there.
The only question is what is riding on the belief. Jesus said many times that various things happened for the purpose of "fulfilling the Scriptures." If you accept any of the line of reasoning about various biblical events being somehow imperative, then this opens the door to seeing some kind of imperative in the Old Testament as well.
So it may not be simply a bunch of unrelated historical information that is easy for a believer to take or leave piece by piece. It presents itself as a cohesive whole - whether it really is or not. Calling part of it into question may or may not have logical consequences for the rest of it as well.
But, IMO, it doesn't present itself as a cohesive whole.
Take Isiah chapter 53 as the best example of scripture being fulfilled (there are many others).
But is the story of Samson as cohesive?
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
But is the story of Samson as cohesive?
It depends how you interpret it. My belief is that every detail of the Samson story has parallels in the life of Jesus. For example:
1. Samson's physical strength pre-figured the spiritual strength of Jesus.
2. The source of Samson's strength being his hair is reflected in the source of Jesus' stength being the literal Word of God.
3. Samson being a Nazarite has possible linguistic connection to Jesus being a Nazarene.
4. Samson's weakness for women pre-figures the ardent love that Jesus felt for Jerusalem or the church, the "daughter of Zion."
5. Samson killed more of the enemy with his death than in his lifetime, as is also true of Jesus.
I could go on, but you see what I mean. Maybe a lot of these are, or seem, far-fetched, but if you approach the Bible with this kind of mindset it is not hard to see these kinds of connections. They could be all wrong, but I find them fascinating.
The honey is like the reward in heaven.
The bees are like the sins which prevent us from getting there.
The tree is like the cross, the honey is only obtainable by coming to the cross.
Etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
But you can approach Winnie the Pooh and the Honey tree in the same way.
That's right. So it may be totally meaningless.
The compelling reason for me to believe in something like this is a feeling that there must be some sense to all this somewhere. If there is a God in heaven then He must have some kind of plan and system that is somehow graspable.
So starting from the assumption that it makes sense, perhaps I am willing to grasp at straws to see how it makes sense. Or maybe they are more than straws. Who can say? All I know is that I find it very interesting and helpful in my life. It just seems that it should all fit together into a sensible system.
quote:
How about the logic that without religious knowledge that is believed to be accurate there can be no belief, and therefore no religion.
Sorry to turn back to several days ago, but I've been away. I really fail to follow the logic of the above as applied to this discussion. I don't think anyone has advanced the proposition that nothing in the Bible is accurate.
quote:
Originally posted by Gauk:
I don't think anyone has advanced the proposition that nothing in the Bible is accurate.
Sorry. I didn't mean that anyone had. What I meant was to comment on the reliability of the knowledge. If the account in general is not considered to be reliable then it is hard to base a religion on it.
If I read an article in a newspaper I don't have to feel that every detail is exactly accurate to have confidence in the general veracity of the story. At some point, however, if enough details are called into question the whole shebang starts to go out the window.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Probably the biggest question is whether the Bible is in any sense a book specially written and preserved by God, or if it is simply another ancient book - that has just happened to be central to the belief system of a third of the people on this planet.
Ah, an example of my favourite bit from 'Zen & The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'. Wehn confronted with the horns of a dilemma there are many better things to do than be impaled on either of them, of which the best is to grab hold of the horns and vault onto the bull's back...
I don't accept the dichotomy. I don't belive that the Bible is 'just another ancient book', empirically God speaks to me through it like no other, and I respect the weight of tradition that says the church has found God in it. What I question is whether it is necessary to believe it is literally true in order for God to speak through it.
I would suggest that you yourself would answer 'no' to that - you surely find God speaking to you in the story of creation, the story of the fall, the story of Noah. Why then can God not be speaking through a story of Moses, a story of the wandering in the wilderness, a story of Jonah?
My point is that there is no reason for drawing the line where you draw it. If miracles can happen, the flood could have happened and left no sign. Jonah is as much a mythical tale in its form as Noah, and I don't understand how one would draw a line between them.
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Truman:
What I question is whether it is necessary to believe it is literally true in order for God to speak through it.
You correctly guess my answer. It might all be made up. But if it is made up by God it is different than if people just made it up. God in a sense speaks through everything, so I understand that no one is denying His ability to speak through Scripture. I think the question is whether and how the Bible is different than other books. But of course all books are different from each other.
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Truman:
Jonah is as much a mythical tale in its form as Noah, and I don't understand how one would draw a line between them.
Good point. Daniel also has that feel. I draw the line where I do only because this is what my religion teaches and it makes sense to me. It would make perhaps equal sense to draw it any number of other ways - including not to draw it at all.
Some parts of the Bible seem like fact, others like fiction, some are possibly verifiable, others not. But the more I am able to distinguish the true and literal from the untrue and metaphorical, the more help it is in deciding life questions like whether anything happens to you after death and whether it is OK to get a divorce.
The Bible claims to be a vehicle for bringing happiness and peace to this earth. At least that's how I read it. So it is no small task to figure out how to hold it in your mind.
quote:
Originally posted by Mike TrumanI don't accept the dichotomy. I don't belive that the Bible is 'just another ancient book', empirically God speaks to me through it like no other, and I respect the weight of tradition that says the church has found God in it. What I question is whether it is necessary to believe it is literally true in order for God to speak through it.
Nor do I think the Bible is just another book. For me, it's most special aspect is that it contains the stories about Jesus who is special. God definitely does speak to me through the Bible. But I can't remember the last time he spoke to me through Deuteronomy. For me there are large parts of the Bible which are less special, less inspired by God, than many Christian books.
1) God decides the Bible is necessary and picks someone to reveal his message to, who then acts as a sort of celestial scribe.
2) Various people attempt to put down in words what they perceive of God. Some have a very clear vision of God's nature, others have a less clear vision.
IMO position 2 is much to be preferred. It's those authors with a cloudier perception who imagine that God orders genocides. Also, it puts the responsibility for vagaries in Scriptural writing on the human authors, whereas with position 1 you have to conclude either that God really wanted everything in the Bible to be as it is, or He was a poor dictator. But even with position 2, one can still say that God speaks to us through the text.
quote:
Originally posted by Gauk:
IMO position 2 is much to be preferred.
I agree, except that where does that leave God? He is powerless to produce a written revelation?
Certainly in one sense position 2 is the way the process seems to take place. Although the descriptions themselves often speak of a quite clear revelation, more like position 1. But anyone can claim anything, and if I were to claim that God speaks to you through me you would be justified in doubting the validity of what I was saying - and my sanity.
The objections to position 1 are all valid. The solution that appeals to me is that God works within the parameters of position 2 to create a written revelation that is interiorly perfect despite being exteriorly flawed. The idea being that people will eventually discover the real meaning - but only when they are ready and willing to find it.
I admit to being unable to accept a world in which God is not ultimately in charge. I will therefore do anythng to rationalize my way into that world.
quote:
I agree, except that where does that leave God? He is powerless to produce a written revelation?
quote:
I agree, except that where does that leave God? He is powerless to produce a written revelation?
...
I admit to being unable to accept a world in which God is not ultimately in charge. I will therefore do anythng to rationalize my way into that world.
There are so many things which point to a world where God is not in charge. Look around and you wil see good people suffer horrible ilnesses, natural disasters occur and bad people amass huge wealth.
The big question is not whether, but why God doesn't take charge?
So why should the Bible be any different?
God's revelation to us is incomplete in what he shows us through our world. Why should it be complete in what he shows us in the Bible?
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I draw the line where I do only because this is what my religion teaches and it makes sense to me. It would make perhaps equal sense to draw it any number of other ways - including not to draw it at all.
Fair enough. As a matter of interest, do you take that as a final position ('I can't go further than this or important bits of my faith start to drop off') or as your position for the time being?
quote:
But the more I am able to distinguish the true and literal from the untrue and metaphorical, the more help it is in deciding life questions
To my own surprise, as I went through the process of doubting more and more of the literal truth, I haven't found it changes the value of the Bible texts. In fact if anything I've found it makes them deeper.
It depends, I suppose, on how you use them in the first place, and I agree that if I don't believe the 'red letter' passages were all said by Jesus then I don't have the same 'the Bible says, so I will do...' reaction. But on the whole it is what the STORY says that matters most to me. The fact that I think exile was historical but exodus was mostly not doesn't actually change the meaning of either, or indeed the meaning of the two combined.
Gauk: I must be feeling really contrary.. Again, I won't take either of those two positions. I'm nearest to 2 - it's the record of how people saw their encounter with God, BUT EVEN SO God speaks through it to us in a very special way. For me, God has not controlled the words or the contents, but uses them to speak to us.
[fixed UBB]
[ 08 May 2002: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
There are so many things which point to a world where God is not in charge.
It's not that He is not in charge, but that He doesn't seem to be in charge.
God allows unhappy and evil things to happen for the sake of a greater long-run good, which is the freedom of the human race. But all the time He is guiding the human race so that in the long run people will, of their own free will, choose to move away from the things that cause pain and towards those that bring happiness.
The Bible is the same way, as you say. The Lord's influence is often hard to see, or apparently absent, but is there nevertheless. This makes sense to me, as Bible interpretation seems legitimate to me, but I understand that not everyone would go for this approach.
These two elements, God's guidance of the writing of the Word and His guidance of the human race, coincide in the idea that He guides the human race primarily through the Word - which people can take or leave as they wish.
So in the end we can take it or leave it, or see it any number of ways. Each way has its own legitimacy.
However I think there is more to be gained from assuming that the Bible is the fallible work of men who were inspired to greater or lesser degrees.
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
and you're recognising that it may not be the most obvious explanation, then I've got no problem with that stance.
Once again we are in harmony.
I'm sorry for being unclear and will happily expand, especially on the most excellent question of drawing the line between the Biblically historic (but otherwise NOT historic, i.e. non-substantiated by other documents and archaeology) and the allegorical.
I'm afraid I can do it right here, right now, because I'm so simplistic: If a geneology, with lifespans is given, it is absolute.
(Both of Jesus' can be reconciled by BOTH being Joseph's: one his bloodline and one his adopting Father's bloodline IF his blood-father had died and his mother remarried. That, I believe, but will have to research to confirm, was the Jewish tradition at the time.)
So I have NO reason to doubt the creation of Adam and Eve by fiat, the former from river-bank mud, either at the end of a literal week of the RE-creation of life on Earth.
I certainly don't accept the evolutionary explanation, why on Earth, as a non-materialist due to its utter failure to explain the major transitions of creation, should I?
I similarly have no reason to doubt Noah's flood, particularly as the counter current into the Black Sea with its ancient, splash drowned sites, is its echo.
So why should I doubt any specific miracle? The Red Sea parting? Joshua's long day? Hezekiah's 20 minute rewinding of the sundial? Jonah? Etc, etc.
If I can swallow the incarnation, I can swallow the Heilesgeschicht that validates it and is validated by it.
To simplistic I'm sure.
So I have NO reason to doubt the creation of Adam and Eve by fiat, the former from river-bank mud, either at the end of a literal week of the RE-creation of life on Earth OR as the pinnacle of a timelessly mythically portrayed 12-15 billion year old creation process.
ToO simplistic, I'm sure
..-
quote:
ToO simplistic, I'm sure
Yes.
Incidentally, a question for our resident doctor (AC) is it even possible for the waters of the earth to cover the whole earth? (I personally hold that "whole earth" is referring to the exploredland mass of the time, and might have a very small area)
Mt. Ararat is 14 thousand ft high I think. The Pacific is on average 10 thousand feet deep. So a global ocean-ridge volcanic and atmospheric miracle would be required to double the volume of water on the surface. All land ice melting and thermal expansion wouldn't do it.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not:
The volume of water in the Earth's crust and mantle - the fountains of the deep - far outweighs the volume in the Oceans.
Source?
Reader Alexis
skeptical Orthodox guy
I'm just the guy on the bus trying to get home and respect intellectuality in Christians but start to lose it when all they - some Christians - can do is embrace every materialistic fad when materialism and 'scientism' - my term - is so woefully intellectualy inadequate, it seems to me (and Brian Appleyard, an agnostic), it just suits liberal rationalism.
It also smacks of elitism, esotericism.
But what do I know?
Tschuss!
quote:
Originally posted by Atticus:
Incidentally, a question for our resident doctor (AC) is it even possible for the waters of the earth to cover the whole earth? (I personally hold that "whole earth" is referring to the exploredland mass of the time, and might have a very small area)
The size of the known world at the time is irrelevent; there's no barrier around it to prevent the flood draining away so the flood would either have to be very local (ie: the filling of the Black Sea basin) or global. Having said that, Mesopotamia is generally low lying compared to the surrounding territory so to flood this area (but not cover the mountain chains to the north and east and the highground of Saudia Arabia to the south west) a depth of only 100-200m would be needed - that would still need 44750000 km3 of water (a mere 3%) of the volume of the oceans. The melting of all the earths ice caps coupled with thermal expansion of water would result in such a rise in sea water. There is, however, a problem with this: it would need a very rapid melting of ice and global warming, normally such a change in sea level would take centuries, even accelerated by industrial CO2 emissions we are currently seeing sea level changes that will be a few metres in the time scale of decades. From the Biblical account such a sea level change would need to happen over a few months - and, of course, all freeze up again on a similar time scale. I can see no way such a major climatical catastrophy could physically occur.
Of course, if you wanted a truely global flood you'd need a couple of km of water (and you'd still have the highest mountains above water) almost doubling the volume of the oceans. Absolutely no way.
Alan
What's that sound I hear, my friends? What's that sound? I believe it's a faint, croaking sort of neighing! Yes, my friends, this horse has been dying for quite some time. I declare it DEAD.
You all can keep on, of course, over at the board where we keep this sort of thing.
Miserere Dominum horsie mortuus est.
Amen.
<ebullient bubble starts here> I am only on page 5 of this thread...I tried to stop myself after page 2 but could not...it is so refreshing to read such deep, intelligent quotes from everyone. Do you all realise how RARE that is in the Christian World of the Internet?
I have my views (which are obvious by my label of myself in my profile) but I will keep them to myself...until I am done reading all 8 (gasp!) pages of this mis-mash of theological banging of head.
I just had to drop in and say this, you all ROCK MY WORLD (yes, even you whom I thouroughly disagree with you).
<ebullient bubble ends here>
I do hope that when I post my views later (got 3 more pgs to read thru first), y'all will be nicer to me then you were to that little rodent. Poor little guy!
quote:
Purgatory can be a cruel place. I read the inerrancy thread, sat down to compose a contribution and when I log on again the thread has been declared a dead horse!
So here is my effort shamelessly mounted on a new horse with a possibly less than convincing name.Ekalb,
Thanks for your postings on the inerrancy thread – I appreciated their personal aspects.Your interaction with Bonzo lead me to write the following which relates to the issue of epistemology and logic.
Like you I do not believe that there are knock down (unassailable) arguments for or against biblical inerrancy. To some non-inerrantists (Bonzo) that may sound odd or strained since to them the bible so clearly contains contradictions that it cannot be inerrant. I greatly sympathise with this view, but what is a knock down argument for them is clearly not seen that way by others. It all has to do with how belief in inerrancy fits within a whole set of other beliefs about other matters. For inerrantists these other matters outweigh the impact of alleged contradictions in the bible. The other reasons for inerrancy allow them to accept the often intensely strained explanations given to account for alleged errors.
A metaphor that I find extremely helpful in this connection is one used by the philosopher Susan Haack. She likens epistemology to doing a crossword. When you try and solve a crossword you have to do two things at the same time: get the answers to fit the clues and get the answers to fit in with each other. Logically it is possible for there to be more than one solution to a crossword. The different sets of answers may fit the clues and each other.
In practice you may be so certain of the answer to one clue that you are prepared to reject the most obvious answer to another clue because it doesn’t fit with the answer you are most certain of. So people like Wenham and Packer appear to be certain that Jesus believed in the inerrancy of scripture and that Jesus, being God must be right. Being certain of that when they are faced with the clue given by the many apparent errors in the bible they feel that they cannot draw the obvious answer from that clue: that the bible contains errors. Like Ekalb, they live with the tension that creates because the other beliefs seem sufficiently secure and in tune with other clues.
Speaking personally, I spent the first ten years or so of my Christian life holding more or less to an inerrantist view of the bible. At first because that was the brand of Christianity I came to faith in, but later for reasons like Wenham and Packers. Over time, however the strain of trying to fit that ‘inerrancy’ into the crossword lead me to the view that the more reasonable approach was to give up inerrancy. The factors that lead me to abandon that position were many. As someone who had done a biology degree I eventually found young earth creationism, and anti-evolutionism impossible to agree with. This meant that I could no longer take parts of the OT as literally true. I also found that reading stuff on biblical criticism alerted me to the many differences in the gospel accounts. There were moral problems with conservative positions on issues like the position of women, homosexuality etc. There were theological problems with conservative views on other religions. I began to be less happy with the view of Jesus approach to scripture presented by Wenham and Packer – Jesus seems to be far more liberal in his approach to scripture than they would hold.
In the end it seems to me that the whole picture makes more sense if the bible is not seen as inerrant. But, of course saying that the bible is not inerrant is to say very, very little indeed about what it is. In that sense non-inerrantism is not a position but a huge range of possible positions. One may adopt the (still too conservative for my taste) positions like that of John Goldingay and IH Marshall and be non-inerrantist.
One of the saddest aspects of the inerrantist approach over the last few decades has been the tendency of some inerrantists to say that either the bible is inerrant or it is useless. Said of any other book such a statement would leap out at you as being so obviously sheer nonsense you’d laugh at it. But by saying it so earnestly they have managed to make it a shibboleth for many Christians.
My view is similar to others expressed earlier in this thread. The bible gives us a fascinating and mixed bag of writings, which convey all sorts of views to us and in amongst them are views of God and his attitudes and relationship to the world. These views and understandings developed and changed with time. But I have run out of time! More later I hope.
Glenn
--------------------
'This entire doctrine is worthless except as a subject of dispute.' -Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742-1799)
quote:
What's that sound I hear, my friends? What's that sound? I believe it's a faint, croaking sort of neighing! Yes, my friends, this horse has been dying for quite some time. I declare it DEAD.You all can keep on, of course, over at the board where we keep this sort of thing.
The way I see it, regardless of your view of Scriptures (errant or inerrant) tolerance and open-mindedness is called for. Christianity has an embarrassing history of repressing truth just because it doesn't coincide with the "Living Word" as we perceive it. Frankly the more heretics we have saying "It might not be inerrant!" (myself included) the less likely we are to be proven fools by the Copernicus', Galileos and Darwins of our time.
(if "The Word" really is living, it should have no trouble flexing with the times.)
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
wore everyone out, Laura.
)quote:
Originally posted by Young Mr. Coot :
quote:Now, you started this thread by saying you want to debate how we set morality, and you've reiterated it here. Then you follow it up with 'I have set my belief that the Bible is the ultimate, deciding authority'. So er, why did you do that then? Because someone told you to? Just felt like it?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
To go back to the beginning of this thread, I wanted to debate how we set our morality.
I have set my belief that the Bible is the ultimate, deciding authority.
...
The response to my position has been to question the Bible’s justification of itself as God’s word – that this is a circular argument.
...
So, why do I accept the Bible as authoritative over my reasoning? Because it claims to be God’s word, and claims that God reveals himself through his word, and experience shows this to be true – the more I submit myself to it, the more I discover God’s wonderful revelation.
Today, I think I might set my belief that whether the toast lands butter side down will be the ultimate, deciding authority.
You are very right that the response to your position is to question 'the Bible's justification of itself as God's word' but certainly not from me because 'this is a circular argument'. I couldn't give a fig if it was a circular argument. I want to know where 'the Bible justifies itself as God's word'; where 'it claims to be God's word' and where 'it claims that God reveals himself through his word'.
I can accept the prophetic books and the Revelation as such eg. 'The words of Jeremiah... the Word of the Lord came to him...'; 'The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place.' because these assert themselves to be prophecies from the Lord.
I can also accept the words recorded as being Christ's in the Gospels as 'from the Lord'.
But as soon as you start talking sexual morality (I notice homosexuality is a concern for you) those places are not where you look for guidance.
It's Paul's epistles that are the guiding light, aren't they? Now, that's not a bad thing really. In fact, I quite like St Paul. But, it is not God's Word!
I even accept where Paul says 'not I but the Lord':
quote:Do you notice what he says then:
1Cor7:
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
quote:He doesn't dare to ask them to modify their behaviour as an instrument of the Word of God - because God did not say those things - He/Jesus said the bit about divorce that's why Paul can command it as a command from God. But apart from that he is asking them to adhere to moral standards by virtue of being a person with authority to set moral standards.
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord
If St Paul doesn't dare to command those things of people as the Word of God - how do you dare to?!
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:Fair enough. How about...
Originally posted by Young Mr. Coot:
want to know where 'the Bible justifies itself as God's word'; where 'it claims to be God's word' and where 'it claims that God reveals himself through his word'.
1 Thes 2:13 "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe."
2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
And interstingly, Hebrews 3:7
"So, as the Holy Spirit says: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the desert..."
Its the Holy Spirit who is speaking - but the quote is from a psalm witten by a man. So the man writes the words, but it is God's Spirit who speaks.
This is an important point for those who say "I listen to the Spirit, so don't need the authority of the Bible". The Spirit has already spoken through the Bible - so we need to test everything we think he might be saying by what he has already said with authority - his word.
There's loads more I could quote.
quote:Intersetingly, even Paul's words are called scripture - God's word. For again here is a man writing, but the Spirit speaking. So Peter says,
It's Paul's epistles that are the guiding light, aren't they? Now, that's not a bad thing really. In fact, I quite like St Paul. But, it is not God's Word!
"He (Paul) writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
quote:
Originally posted by Young Mr. Coot :
quote:Merp! Reverse! Reverse!
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:Fair enough. How about...
Originally posted by Young Mr. Coot:
...I want to know where 'the Bible justifies itself as God's word'; where 'it claims to be God's word' and where 'it claims that God reveals himself through his word'.
1 Thes 2:13 "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe."
Paul was passionate about one thing, that was to preach the Good News of Christ Crucified. And Paul himself makes a distinction between what is a command from God and what is his desire for the standard of moral conduct of Christians in the various Churches. Anyway, if all the prescriptive (not in a perjorative sense) bits of Acts are the Word of God, it rather makes the Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection a by-word. So nice try, but no cigar.
Now I am not saying that Paul's teachings in the Epistles are without merit. But they should be recognised for what they are: exhortations to a moral standard by a person in authority. And exhortations for a specific time and place. Not words from a mouthpiece for God. And the only one that he says is of God concerns divorce which unlike homosexuality is one of the ones that is often considered negotiable!
quote:Merp! Don't think so. See 2 Timothy 3:15
2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
quote:Paul's (or whoever wrote Timothy, tis unimportant) letters are believed to predate the Gospels. How old is Timothy? 20, 25? It's likely the Holy Scriptures referred to here are the OT. Paul never claims to have written scripture. Scripture is, as it asserts here, God-breathed. He expressly states that what he says is 'I, not the Lord' - more evidence that what he writes is *not* Scripture. Are you going to insist that Paul wrote scripture when he himself never insisted?!
15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
quote:So, I contend again, that except where he notes otherwise, Paul's letters are the writings of someone with authority and trustworthy in interpreting a godly way to live. But not timeless, excisable-as- written-and-transportable-to-modern-life words from the Lord. So, some bits of the Bible you are calling the Word of God and using as your ultimate external authority, are the judgements of a man who has distilled the essence of how to live like Christ, for the people. There are other holy people: Popes, bishops, saints through the ages that are capable of doing this.
Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.
quote:Yes, as I said, I am not contesting the prophetic or mystical writings in the Bibles as not being revelations from God.
And interstingly, Hebrews 3:7
"So, as the Holy Spirit says: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the desert..."
Its the Holy Spirit who is speaking - but the quote is from a psalm witten by a man. So the man writes the words, but it is God's Spirit who speaks.
quote:τας λοιπας γραφας - what is translated as 'the other Scriptures'. This is hardly a clincher that Paul's writings are scriptures. I don't pretend to have a knowledge of NT gk, but from a bit of overlap as a native modern gk speaker, 'γραφας' (someone correct me if wrong) is a common or garden word meaning 'documents/writings'. He doesn't say Holy Scriptures like in 2 Tim 3:15.
quote:Fish Fish:
Coot:
It's Paul's epistles that are the guiding light, aren't they? Now, that's not a bad thing really. In fact, I quite like St Paul. But, it is not God's Word!
Intersetingly, even Paul's words are called scripture - God's word. For again here is a man writing, but the Spirit speaking. So Peter says,
quote:
2 Peter 3: 16
He (Paul) writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Young Mr. Coot:
2 Peter 3: 16
He (Paul) writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures , to their own destruction.quote:Actually, they use exactly the same word (though one is accusative, the other imperative) - and its the word consistently used in the NT for "scriptures" (Matt 21:42, John 5:39 etc.) I don't have time to deal with the rest - and its dead horse teretory - but Peter is definately calling Paul's writings scriptures on a par with the OT writings.
τας λοιπας γραφας - what is translated as 'the other Scriptures'. This is hardly a clincher that Paul's writings are scriptures. I don't pretend to have a knowledge of NT gk, but from a bit of overlap as a native modern gk speaker, 'γραφας' (someone correct me if wrong) is a common or garden word meaning 'documents/writings'. He doesn't say Holy Scriptures like in 2 Tim 3:15.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
No, he's calling both "Writings" - the translation of Graphas. That's all "Scripture" means as well - "The Writings".
If I use the same word for "cats" as in domestic moggies, and "cats" as in the family Felidae, does it follow that I'm saying that tigers and Tiddles are the same kind of thing?
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
quote:I'm not a Greek scholar either, but I very much doubt that the word is used in the imperative.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Actually, they use exactly the same word (though one is accusative, the other imperative) - and its the word consistently used in the NT for "scriptures"
(And Paul said to them, 'Scriptures!' And they scripturesed. Go on, Fish Fish, go and scriptures for us.)
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
I know it isn't, unless Imperative stopped being a verb mood and became a noun case since I left school.
But I let it pass.
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:Not sure when you graduated (probably circa when I did), but I'm pretty sure it hasn't.
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
I know it isn't, unless Imperative stopped being a verb mood and became a noun case since I left school.
But I let it pass.
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:Sorry everyone - another brif dip into the debate which I hope to return to properly tonight.
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
No, he's calling both "Writings" - the translation of Graphas. That's all "Scripture" means as well - "The Writings".
If I use the same word for "cats" as in domestic moggies, and "cats" as in the family Felidae, does it follow that I'm saying that tigers and Tiddles are the same kind of thing?
But for now let me say I got "The Imperative" bit wrong - sorry. however, the nown we're quoting (don't know how to type greek!) appears 51 times in the NT, and every time is translated "Scriptures". Peter himself uses it 2 other times in his letters, and uses it to mean scriptures there. So, by any standard law of interpretation, the reference in 2 Peter 3:16 should be translated "scriptures" - unless you come to the text determined to prove otherwise...
quote:
Originally posted by Young Mr. Coot:
quote:Well no, actually
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:Fish Fish:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
No, he's calling both "Writings" - the translation of Graphas. That's all "Scripture" means as well - "The Writings".
...
...
the nown we're quoting (don't know how to type greek!) appears 51 times in the NT, and every time is translated "Scriptures". Peter himself uses it 2 other times in his letters, and uses it to mean scriptures there. So, by any standard law of interpretation, the reference in 2 Peter 3:15 should be translated "scriptures" - unless you come to the text determined to prove otherwise...
I am using as my source Bible Gateway's NIV and NT Greek versions:
quote:What Timothy has known from his youth are 'the Holy Scriptures', which are obviously OT scripture. In the NT Greek that is 'τα ιερα γραμματα' [the Holy Writings] which is different from 'τας (λοιπας) γραφας' [the (other) writings/documents] that Peter says of Paul's letters (NIV and Gk). I don't think that shows that Paul's writings are on par with the Holy Scripture of the OT.
See Bible Gateway's text of 2 Tim 3:15:
15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
quote:
Originally posted by Young Mr. Coot:
Well, after doing my hostly duties, I've just had another read of this whole thread. Not sure why I have given it so much of my time, possibly a morbid fascination with your stubbornness (coff coff, I mean, 'conviction'), Fish Fish.
I noticed I said 'Acts' when I meant 'NT'; referring to the prescriptive parts of the Bible - Acts of course being traditionally accepted as 'descriptive' rather than 'prescriptive' in more literalist evangelical circles.
Also that imperative/accusative thing; I think you may have been meaning fem. singular: 'τας (...) γραφας' (2Tim3:16) and plural: 'τας (...) γραφας' (2Pet3:16). But my point as mentioned above, is that 2Tim3:15 refers to a different word in the neut. plural: 'τα (ιερα) γραμματα'; for the OT writings.
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:The trouble is, wherever else the word is used, it is used to mean the scriptures. For example, take Matthew 22:29
Originally posted by Young Mr. Coot:
quote:Well no, actually
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:Fish Fish:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
No, he's calling both "Writings" - the translation of Graphas. That's all "Scripture" means as well - "The Writings".
...
...
the nown we're quoting (don't know how to type greek!) appears 51 times in the NT, and every time is translated "Scriptures". Peter himself uses it 2 other times in his letters, and uses it to mean scriptures there. So, by any standard law of interpretation, the reference in 2 Peter 3:15 should be translated "scriptures" - unless you come to the text determined to prove otherwise...
I am using as my source Bible Gateway's NIV and NT Greek versions:
quote:What Timothy has known from his youth are 'the Holy Scriptures', which are obviously OT scripture. In the NT Greek that is 'τα ιερα γραμματα' [the Holy Writings] which is different from 'τας(λοιπας) γραφας' [the (other) writings/documents] that Peter says of Paul's letters (NIV and Gk). I don't think that shows that Paul's writings are on par with the Holy Scripture of the OT.
See Bible Gateway's text of 2 Tim 3:15:
15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
quote:He uses exactly the same words in Greek for "the" and "scriptures/writings". (See also Luke 24:32, 24:45, John 5:39 etc). The only difference is the insertion of the word "other" in Peter's letter. If all the other examples really refer to scriptures, why should we translate the majority as "Scriptures" and only Peter's as "writings"?
Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
I hope you saw my appology to you in Hell ("I want to appologise to Mr Coot for suggesting that he may be intelectually dishonest - that was unfair of me and I'm sorry"). But I must admit, I really cannot see any reason to justify your interpretation!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Young Mr. Coot:
Regarding 'tas grafas' and Scriptures. I guess a salient point here is authorship and who is speaking in the writing. For instance there is a tradition that Mark's gospel is written down from an account by Peter, who in turn got the juicy bits from the BVM. So maybe I would be more convinced if 'tas grafas' was used in that gospel (as I haven't conducted a systematic study I don't know - pls tell me if you or other posters do) to mean the OT, but yet, if the word is used by Jesus it still does not mean that the use of Jesus is the same as the use of Peter.
I think the significant thing for me is that when Paul wanted to stress the OT (the recognised God-inspired writings of the time) he used the 'iepa' (Holy) 'grammata' (writings; a diff. word to 'grafas' - sorry writing this quickly and not using the Char. Map). My view is at odds with say, the Orthodox view, who do see 2Pet3:16 (according to their study bible - a plot! a plot! - no really, I was just reading it to um, see what they think) as evidence that Peter considers Paul's writings on par with the OT.
My personal view is that Peter uses 'tas grafas' because he is referring to both the (considered to be by them) God-breathed writings of the OT and the apostles' writings, but not because they are all in the same category of writings.
Like I said before, even if I was incontrovertibly shown that Paul's writings were God-breathed, it would make little difference to me, because I take as my cue the Orthodox position (for example - no really, I'm not succumbing) which is that the Bible should not be read apart from the Church. And, they were the first (and continue), so, they should know!
Thankyou also, for your apology.
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:p.s. Try Mark 12:24, and almost the same, 14;49
Originally posted by Young Mr. Coot:
Regarding 'tas grafas' and Scriptures. I guess a salient point here is authorship and who is speaking in the writing. For instance there is a tradition that Mark's gospel is written down from an account by Peter, who in turn got the juicy bits from the BVM. So maybe I would be more convinced if 'tas grafas' was used in that gospel
quote:
Originally posted by Young Mr. Coot:
What I'm looking for more is where the author uses the word to describe what Jesus is doing, rather than the words out of Jesus' mouth (and that the author is the same author of the letters called Peter). In other words, strong evidence for me would be a piece of writing attributed to Peter where he says eg. 'Jesus read from the Scriptures'. Rather than Jesus saying 'Today this Scripture etc', because that could be purely writing down the words as Jesus spoke them.
But still, have just done a perfunctory search (I'm not set up for this - any useful books I have are packed in a box) and find Acts 18:28
quote:Even though Acts is not considered to be by same writer as the letters I find this more persuasive because it shows 'των γραφων' (plural possessive) being used specifically for the OT scriptures. If this noun also was used by Peter (or author of the letters) elsewhere to mean the OT scriptures, then I think I would accept it as solid evidence.
28For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.
So I'll move to accepting that Paul's writings were held with the same esteem as the OT scriptures , but I don't see this as demonstrating them god-breathed... I mean, he says they're not in parts!!!
But my interest in pursuing this relates back to your OP, which is to determine whether or not (I think so and am yet to be shown otherwise) if you set your morality by the Bible (specifically the epistles), you are setting it to the moral standards of a man. I am not contesting that he was a man with authority with the power and right to set those moral standards, but the significance is: the moral standards of God are the same yesterday, today, tomorrow; whereas the moral standards of the man are constrained by his context.
In other words, the crucial point is: are the (1 example) Pauline epistles 'God-Breathed'? - I think they themselves don't assert this. Also, I would like to examine the structure of that sentence 2Tim3:16 a bit more closely and I'll start a thread in Kerygmania presently if it has not already been done there or in DH. (Hosts, please advise if this is dead horse territory)
quote:Because I found it to be an interesting discussion, that should have been here in the first place, even though my knowledge of greek is insufficient to actually contribute. I put it here because I was interesting in knowing if there was anything else anyone has to add ... I'd have done it sooner but didn't have time.
Originally posted by Opthalmos:
Why oh why oh why oh why oh why...
quote:Logic -
Originally posted by Young Mr. Coot:
So I'll move to accepting that Paul's writings were held with the same esteem as the OT scriptures , but I don't see this as demonstrating them god-breathed... I mean, he says they're not in parts!!!
quote:These are simultaniously the writings of a man and yet the writings of God. God breathes, man writes. So the standards absolutely are the those of God - and setting our morals by the epistles is setting them by God's standards.
if you set your morality by the Bible (specifically the epistles), you are setting it to the moral standards of a man. I am not contesting that he was a man with authority with the power and right to set those moral standards, but the significance is: the moral standards of God are the same yesterday, today, tomorrow; whereas the moral standards of the man are constrained by his context.
quote:Er, you've missed out the bit where you prove they both understand "scripture" to mean the same thing, or where either of them is necessarily correct in what they say.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Logic -
Paul says All Scripture is God-breathed
Peter says Paul's writings are scripture
Thus Paul's writings are also God breathed
quote:Eek. How horrible. What exactly do you base that on, then?
It's God's will that Jesus dies, and so he controls all the people to get Jesus crucified just as planned
quote:Nope - we've agreed that isn't the case - its the same word. You'll have to follow the discussion above for that.
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
Er, you've missed out the bit where you prove they both understand "scripture" to mean the same thing, or where either of them is necessarily correct in what they say.
And that's even assuming your premises are correct -- I may have become confused, but I thought Mr Coot cited two different words, graphas and grammas?
quote:All scripture from the Christian God - the God Paul defines as "The God of our Lord Jesus Christ".
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
Incidentally, if "all" scripture is God-breathed, that presumably includes the Qur'an, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Adi Granth and so on. Or does Paul not necessarily mean "all" scripture?
quote:That would be the Bible! Which bit makes you go eek?! I feel a new thread coming on...!
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
Eek. How horrible. What exactly do you base that on, then?
quote:Ah, fair enough.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Nope - we've agreed that isn't the case - its the same word. You'll have to follow the discussion above for that.
quote:You see, I don't see Paul specifying that. I see that as your interpretation of the word "scripture".
All scripture from the Christian God - the God Paul defines as "The God of our Lord Jesus Christ".
quote:And more specifically? Where does the Bible suggest that Judas, Caiaphas, Pilate, Herod and the mob who asked for Barabbas rather than Jesus did so at God's behest?
That would be the Bible!
quote:Largely the idea that God would desire such a thing, or inflict the guilt of responsibility for it on human beings.
Which bit makes you go eek?!
quote:Well, I'm not sure I can quote Chapter and Verse on this - But Paul's overall theology is that Jesus is God's son, and the unique revelation of God, and the sole way of salvation. It woyuuld be rather odd if he thought other writings, which say that Jesus is not these things, and thus contradict Paul, are in any way God breathed.
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
You see, I don't see Paul specifying that. I see that as your interpretation of the word "scripture".
quote:Try Mat 26:20-25 where Jesus prophesies Judas will betray him - How could Jesus do this confiently unless he knew Judas would do it? In some sense Judas is completely responsible for denying Jesus (see Acts 1:18), but in another sense he is guided by God to fulfill Jesus' prophecy.
Where does the Bible suggest that Judas, Caiaphas, Pilate, Herod and the mob who asked for Barabbas rather than Jesus did so at God's behest?
quote:But, what about other "scriptures"? The Didache, or assorted Jewish writings (some of which are in the Scriptures according to a very large number of Christians)? They don't all contradict Paul yet most Biblical Inerrantists say they aren't Scripture. Yet James, which arguably does present a significantly different theology to Paul, is presumably one of the God-breathed Scriptures.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:Well, I'm not sure I can quote Chapter and Verse on this - But Paul's overall theology is that Jesus is God's son, and the unique revelation of God, and the sole way of salvation. It woyuuld be rather odd if he thought other writings, which say that Jesus is not these things, and thus contradict Paul, are in any way God breathed.
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
You see, I don't see Paul specifying that. I see that as your interpretation of the word "scripture".
quote:I'm quite sure that the Bhagavad-Gita says nothing at all about Jesus.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:It [would] be rather odd if he thought other writings, which say that Jesus is not these things, and thus contradict Paul, are in any way God breathed.
quote:Oh, that's feeble. He doesn't even name his betrayer, until Judas gives himself away. And how would he have known? Well, according to the story, he's God. Foreknowledge is one of God's traditional attributes. It's a far cry from that to saying that God / Jesus is responsible for Judas's actions, or that they happened according to his / their will.
Try Mat 26:20-25 where Jesus prophesies Judas will betray him - How could Jesus do this confiently unless he knew Judas would do it?
quote:The Didache was only found relatively recenlty - and while definately an ancient writing, it contradics the rest of the NT in many places. For example, it says appostles must not stay in a city for more than 2 days - but Paul stays in Corinth for over a year. There are lots of rules about when you can and can't fast etc - which is very pharisaicle. So I think it right to assume its not God breathed.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, what about other "scriptures"? The Didache, or assorted Jewish writings (some of which are in the Scriptures according to a very large number of Christians)? They don't all contradict Paul yet most Biblical Inerrantists say they aren't Scripture. Yet James, which arguably does present a significantly different theology to Paul, is presumably one of the God-breathed Scriptures.
quote:Paul recognised that all scriptures are God breathed.
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
Alan's point is more sensible, though, and bears significantly on your argument here. Given that there was no canon of Christian "scripture" at the time he was writing, how on Earth are we to know what Paul considered God-breathed?
quote:I'm definately not saying Jesus was responsible for Judas' actions. But I am saying God is in control in such a way as to guide events to the conclusion he wants:
Oh, that's feeble. He doesn't even name his betrayer, until Judas gives himself away. And how would he have known? Well, according to the story, he's God. Foreknowledge is one of God's traditional attributes. It's a far cry from that to saying that God / Jesus is responsible for Judas's actions, or that they happened according to his / their will.
quote:(Isaiah 46:9-11)
I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please...What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
I think I know what Fish fish is getting at, and, in a sense, [shock horror] I agree with him.
quote:"...God breathed..."
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
What I don't see here is any direct evidence that God did work in this manner to produce a Scripture that is inspired in the way Fish Fish thinks it is.
quote:
Hebrews 3:7
"So, as the Holy Spirit says: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the desert..."
Its the Holy Spirit who is speaking - but the quote is from a psalm witten by a man. So the man writes the words, but it is God's Spirit who speaks.
quote:My books are on the other side of the Atlantic at the moment, and I've better things to be doing while visiting my fiance on Valentines Day than Google stuff, but I'm pretty sure the Didache has been known for a long time. I've certainly seen references to it used by several posters on the Ship over the years to demonstrate the antiquity of several church practices. If someone hasn't filled in the details by the time I'm home I'll have a check on that.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
The Didache was only found relatively recenlty - and while definately an ancient writing, it contradics the rest of the NT in many places. For example, it says appostles must not stay in a city for more than 2 days - but Paul stays in Corinth for over a year. There are lots of rules about when you can and can't fast etc - which is very pharisaicle. So I think it right to assume its not God breathed.
quote:Actually I agree that the supposed conflict is largely non-existant, mostly in a matter of emphasis rather than the underlying message. That hasn't stopped people like Luther being very dismissive of this "epistle of straw".
As for James - there's no contradiction - he simply uses some similare words to Paul, but in a different sense and with different application. Its easy enough to resolve any supposed conflict.
quote:It was "rediscovered" in a codex from a monastery in the Holy Land in 1873 and first published (in the modern era) in 1883.
St. Athanasius and Rufinus add the "Teaching" to the sapiential and other deutero-canonical books. (Rufinus gives the curious alternative title "Judicium Petri".) It has a similar place in the lists of Nicephorus, Pseudo-Anastasius, and Pseudo-Athanasius (Synopsis). The Pseudo-Cyprianic "Adversus Aleatores" quotes it by name. Unacknowledged citations are very common, if less certain. The "Two Ways" appears in Barnabas, cc. xviii-xx, sometimes word for word, sometimes added to, dislocated, or abridged, and Barn., iv, 9 is from Didache, xvi, 2-3, or vice versa. Hermas, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen seem to use the work, and so in the West do Optatus and the "Gesta apud Zenophilum". The Didascalia Apostolorum (q. v.) are founded upon the Didache. The Apostolic church ordinance has used a part, the Apostolic Constitutions have embodied the Didascalia. There are echoes in Justin, Tatian, Theophilus, Cyprian, and Lactantius.
quote:I have to say this isn't that far from the way I would use an evangelical commentator I respect to help me interpret the Bible. Of course if there is a huge body of opinion from people who's views I respect I will lean towards their interpretation.
Just to add a little more to the cake mix, (and I know all you guys won't agree with this by a long way); in the Orthodox Church we place great store by how the fathers interpreted Scripture. We don't say that this THE way but we do give their interpretations a certain priority in hermeneutics. If of course something crops up that they were not asked to address or didn't know then we simply proceed on the basis of their method and approach. Since this was itself a catholic (inclusive) mind we feel safe doing that ... but as for some bright spark who has just had a really cool idea about this, that or the other verse .... well, we submit that to the critique of others. It may be true, it may not. Only the mind of the Church (the scribes and editors of God's Word) can do that safely and rescue us from the vagaries of idiosyncratic interpretations penned by individuals no matter how learned.
quote:I have a confession. I have not read this whole thread. Neither am I going to. So if all of this has been said before, forgive me.
I guess my main issue with inerrancy is that if you come to the text with an explicit idea of interpretting such that it doesn't err, than you aren't actually creating the best circumstance for impartial understanding of the text and thus 'true meaning' of the text.
AB
quote:I don't disagree with this. But the Bible assures us in many places that its words are "the word of the Lord" even though they are spoken to us through human people. This part of the great richness and variety of the Bible, yet it doesn't undermine its reliability. IMO anyway.
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Leprechaun
God speaks through the Bible ... certainly ... but he still speaks through fallible human agents. We are not like Muslims who believe that Allah simply dictated to Muhammad what he should write.
quote:Though that begs the question "what is truth?". Is it possible the something factually incorrect could be truth? If so, is it wrong to interpret the Bible to maintain our interpretation of truth?
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The reason I come to the Bible with a presumption of inerrancy now, is because I have come to know the God of the Bible as one who only speaks the truth.
quote:I am a little bit confused as how you agree with Karl's statement that the Bible is not the word of the Lord, and then later in the post say that you believe it is.
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
I agree Karl....Needless to say I do accept the Bible as God's Word but not divorced from the fallible elements that comprise its human expression. More importantly the Word is the Logos. We believe in a Person, not a Book. [/QB]
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Personally I'm not a big fan of saying something can be true without it being true. But there you go...
quote:Well I'm not sure it would particularly, although I know lots of people who would stone me for saying so. I think I believe that the Bible is inerrant, but because of the genre of Genesis don't think it is trying to describe cosmology
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
eg., which would involve accepting the cosmology / creation process description of Genesis.
quote:So, just to clarify, do you think those bits are inerrant, even though they were delivered through people, and often, not in the first person?
You rightly refer to the subset category of prophetic inspiration and utterance as from God.]
quote:I agree with this. I'm nt sure who this is aimed at? I hope I haven't suggested that questions as to how to apply the Bible's teaching today aren't difficult.
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
In my opinion, the 500 pound gorilla is not inerrancy, but the great leap from that notion to the idea that the Bible provides simple, authoritative, indisputalbe answers to every moral issue we individually and collectively confront.
I'm sorry, but I am unable to find more than a scant few issues that I can resolve with a simple "The Bible says....." solution. I find that I have to work through these issues carefully and prayerfully in fear and trembling, and having done so, to nevertheless respect and even love those who reach opposite conslusions (and who in many cases seem to damn and demonize me for my conclusions)
Greta
quote:Well, indeed - but I think post-modernism has some interesting questions - such as what constitutes truth.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
AB, you big postmodern you!
quote:Hmmm. I see what you mean. I think the word myth, implies that the things did not happen. I certainly don't think that is the case for Genesis 1-3, merely that they may not be trying to provide a chronological historical account. In fact clearly they aren't because the events overlap. I think there is a subtle but important line by from saying something masquerading as truth (and Genesis "this is the account of the heavens and the earth..." implies that it does claim truth) isn't true, and saying this something doesn't claim to be true. This would certainly be the case for the parables, which I don't think Jesus ever says are true stories.
Originally posted by AB:
I do think, as moderns, we have become too bogged down with 'facts' as truth, and have lost, say, the truth of a myth. But we are conditioned to view truth in a particular way - even my mind has a reaction to reading the word truth next to myth. Yet if Genesis 1-3 can be genred as myth (which I think you agree with Lep) then one can see the truth it contains, whilst being, as a source of factual information, untrue.
quote:As I said above, this, in my view is quite a large step. From saying God expresses truth by means other than factual accounts, to God expresses truth by things that are factually false. I think this would rightly raise a question for people about whether God could be trusted at all.
So if one has travelled to an acceptance that facts are no longer necessarily needed to convey truth, then is it just a short step to claim that possible factual 'errors' or biases are not necessarily important in the conveyance of truth, nor threats to God's character?
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:Yes. Exactly. Even if every word in 2 Chronicles is true, as I'm not Jewish, I'm not a king, I'm not walking after the iniquities of Jeroboam son of Nebat, and the Assyrians aren't about to carry me off into captivity; it is not always clear what they are saying to me right now. If anything.
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
In my opinion, the 500 pound gorilla is not inerrancy, but the great leap from that notion to the idea that the Bible provides simple, authoritative, indisputalbe answers to every moral issue we individually and collectively confront.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Hmmm. I see what you mean. I think the word myth, implies that the things did not happen. I certainly don't think that is the case for Genesis 1-3, merely that they may not be trying to provide a chronological historical account. In fact clearly they aren't because the events overlap. I think there is a subtle but important line by from saying something masquerading as truth (and Genesis "this is the account of the heavens and the earth..." implies that it does claim truth) isn't true, and saying this something doesn't claim to be true. This would certainly be the case for the parables, which I don't think Jesus ever says are true stories.
quote:This is a partcularly weak argument from someone who believes that the records of Jesus life could well be full of factual mistakes.
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
The problem is not "I can't believe God would say that", it's "a loving, merciful and forgiving God as revealed by Jesus is at odds with the God apparently revealed here".
On a personal level, it's "and this violent, barbaric bastard of a God wants me to serve Him out of love? Get out of it!"
quote:Would God be loving if he didn't punish sin?
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
On a personal level, it's "and this violent, barbaric bastard of a God wants me to serve Him out of love? Get out of it!"
quote:Classic tactic, this, Fish Fish. Point to the very worst atrocities as if they were representative of the point at issue. They are not.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:Would God be loving if he didn't punish sin?
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
On a personal level, it's "and this violent, barbaric bastard of a God wants me to serve Him out of love? Get out of it!"
Would he be loving if he turned a blind eye to the victims of the holocaust and left it unpunished?
Would he be loving if he shrugged his shoulders at al-Qaida and left the terrorists unpunished?
No - he'd be an indifferent, cruel, uncaring God.[/qb]
quote:Can't be both.
There is good news - God does not let sin go unpunished.
But thats bad news for me - because I am a sinner.
quote:Shame He wasn't in such a good mood when He gave Joshua his mass murder orders, wasn't it?
But its great news that Jesus died in my place.
How I love God for his justice and fairness. And how I love him since his love for me is so great that he is punished in my place.
quote:What's the most serious sin in the Bible? Is is terrorism? Genocide? Or is it rebellion against God?
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
I don't get it. Really I don't.
quote:Mark 8:38
If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels.
quote:Is "Yes"?
Most of my family are not Christians. Consequently, according to traditional, bible-based, fundamentalist if you like, theology, they are going to burn in agony for eternity.
And you expect me to love God for this?
quote:Whilst I'm sure you are aware of it, and will surely dismiss it nevertheless, I feel I ought to point you towards the thread on Substitionary Atonement to reveal that not everyone has your take on justice, sin and mercy.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Would God be loving if he didn't punish sin?
Would he be loving if he turned a blind eye to the victims of the holocaust and left it unpunished?
Would he be loving if he shrugged his shoulders at al-Qaida and left the terrorists unpunished?
No - he'd be an indifferent, cruel, uncaring God.
There is good news - God does not let sin go unpunished.
But thats bad news for me - because I am a sinner.
But its great news that Jesus died in my place.
How I love God for his justice and fairness. And how I love him since his love for me is so great that he is punished in my place.
quote:I wonder if the question should have stopped just there?
Originally posted by AB:
But avoiding that particular topic - Fish Fish, do you think...
AB
quote:Ok, sorry - sometimes what seems reasonable when huredly typed here comes across as confrontational - so I appologise for that.
Originally posted by AB:
Fish Fish, don't suppose you could try a slightly less confrontational conversation style, could you? Something less along the lines of, this is the truth, accept it, and more along the lines of, this is how I see it.
quote:
Originally posted by MatrixUK:
Karl - If only you'd get saved, and maybe if you'd been a christian for as long as fish fish, then you'd understand...
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:Ok, sorry - sometimes what seems reasonable when huredly typed here comes across as confrontational - so I appologise for that.
Originally posted by AB:
Fish Fish, don't suppose you could try a slightly less confrontational conversation style, could you? Something less along the lines of, this is the truth, accept it, and more along the lines of, this is how I see it.
In my defence, others make equal claims to know the truth with statements such as
quote:
Originally posted by MatrixUK:
Karl - If only you'd get saved, and maybe if you'd been a christian for as long as fish fish, then you'd understand...
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:So God commands genocide as a punishment for the ultimate sin of rebelling against him?
What's the most serious sin in the Bible? Is is terrorism? Genocide? Or is it rebellion against God?
It seems that its rebellion against God that is the ultimate sin, (which of course leads to the others).
quote:When a nation starts burning its children as sacrifices, and other oher revolting sins, and is in total rebellion to God (Deut 25:18), what should God do? Sit and watch?
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Fish Fish
So God commands genocide as a punishment for the ultimate sin of rebelling against him?
quote:It seems to me that this danger can be applied more easily to those who reject innerancy. If we reject Biblical authority, then we assume the right to determine our own rules, and moral chaos ensues...
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Biblical inerrancy is heady dangerous stuff. In the wrong hands it can easily lead to international terrorism ...
quote:The answer according to the Book of Joshua appears to be "kill all the children". There is some kind of non-sequitur between "These people are terrible, killing their children" and "Therefore, I'm going to get Joshua to kill them all, including the children I'm so concerned about".
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:When a nation starts burning its children as sacrifices, and other oher revolting sins, and is in total rebellion to God (Deut 25:18), what should God do? Sit and watch?
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Fish Fish
So God commands genocide as a punishment for the ultimate sin of rebelling against him?
quote:But you also miss Fr Greg's point. I think you'll find that Al Qaeda think they need to act to prevent the "cancer" of western secularism and imperialism from infecting the good Muslim world.
It seems to me that God needed to act before this revolting cancer spread to other nations around about.
quote:Genocide's OK as long as the culture you are destroying has nasty enough people in it?
Crucially, Israel was not to feel smug or self righteous about their participation in God's judgment - "It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations..." (Deut 9:5)
quote:I'd rather the rational own rules of most of the people I know than the authority that commends genocide.
quote:It seems to me that this danger can be applied more easily to those who reject innerancy. If we reject Biblical authority, then we assume the right to determine our own rules, and moral chaos ensues...
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Biblical inerrancy is heady dangerous stuff. In the wrong hands it can easily lead to international terrorism ...
quote:To be fair Louise, it was Father G who raised the genocide thing, and that was to answer me. I haven't read the whole thread so the repetition is probably my fault.
Originally posted by Louise:
Fish Fish,
This whole Joshua/genocide argument was made and discussed at length right at the beginning of this thread on pages 2-4 onwards.
quote:Erm, yeah - I was responding to what others had raised on this issue. But I'm sure I stoked the flames! Sorry again, everyone, for being too blunt in my postings here.
Originally posted by Louise:
Fish Fish,
This whole Joshua/genocide argument was made and discussed at length right at the beginning of this thread on pages 2-4 onwards.
quote:If it is, then we have an authoritative gold mine from God and this would be marvelous, and could transform the debates riddling the church, and revitalise all we do.
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Fish Fish
Why is it so important to you that the Bible has it ALL right?
quote:Um... yes that's what people thought at the Reformation and we all know how that transformed debates leading to no-one disagreeing on anything, no differences of interpretation and everything being settled once and for all.
If it is, then we have an authoritative gold mine from God and this would be marvelous, and could transform the debates riddling the church, and revitalise all we do.
quote:Its not a hypothetical speculation! As I tried to say above, I've come to the conclusion of innerancy, not becuase I have any reason to, excpet I think the evidence pushes me in that direction. I'm not the inflexable bigott I'm sometimes portrayed as - thats too easy an insult!
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
If it could be proved that there truly was 5% inconsistency ... non-inerrancy if you like ... how would that affect your faith?
I know it's hypothetical and probably an impossible speculation for yourself but I am genuinely interested in how you would adapt ... or not as the case might be.
quote:The way I read your response, you are agreeing with absolutely everything I say. I understand that you think I am the wisest thread writer you have ever encountered.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
But Louise, all we have to do is read it the exact same way that FishFish does, and then we'll all be in agreement.
quote:
Originally posted by MatrixUK:
Karl - If only you'd get saved, and maybe if you'd been a christian for as long as fish fish, then you'd understand...
quote:Matrix, I'm enjoying reading this thread. Do you think you could see your way to dispensing with the hit and run personal attacks?
Originally posted by MatrixUK:
But MT, in order to do that we'll all need to get saved, then fishfish's crusade will be over here and we'll be robbed of his excellent posts...
My, it's a great idea!
quote:Seconded.
Matrix, I'm enjoying reading this thread. Do you think you could see your way to dispensing with the hit and run personal attacks?
Thanks.
quote:I (think) I agree with this. Did you think I wouldn't? Perhaps I'm missing something! Sorry - Fish have tiny brains!!
Originally posted by AB:
Fish Fish,
Perhaps truth rests with more than just facts. Perhaps truth is much more about how it brings about redemption and love and all things Christ-like.
I could therefore happily see more than one valid 'truth'. For the Truth is found in Jesus Christ alone and all truths lead to him - but not necessarily with facts.
AB
quote:These are not personal attacks, merely amusing (i hope) comments that seek to point out the oversimplicity or narrow-mindedness that lies behind certain posts. If, however, you would like to see an example of a personal attack, i refer you to my recent posts in hell. Alternatively, you could call me there and experience them for yourself.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by MatrixUK:
Karl - If only you'd get saved, and maybe if you'd been a christian for as long as fish fish, then you'd understand...quote:Matrix, I'm enjoying reading this thread. Do you think you could see your way to dispensing with the hit and run personal attacks?
Originally posted by MatrixUK:
But MT, in order to do that we'll all need to get saved, then fishfish's crusade will be over here and we'll be robbed of his excellent posts...
My, it's a great idea!
Thanks.
quote:False dichotomy. There is a hell of a lot of real estate between "This interpretation is the only valid one" and "All interpretations are equally valid."
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
If not, then why are all interpretations of the Bible meant to be equally valid?!
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
]quote:Yeah, sure, why not?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Would God be loving if he didn't punish sin?
quote:How does punishing the perpetrators help the victims? Why is punishment the only response that isn't "turning a blind eye"?
Would he be loving if he turned a blind eye to the victims of the holocaust and left it unpunished?
quote:False dichotomy. There are a myriad of other choices between revenge (sorry punishment) and "shrugging his shoulders".
Would he be loving if he shrugged his shoulders at al-Qaida and left the terrorists unpunished?
quote:I don't buy it.
No - he'd be an indifferent, cruel, uncaring God.
quote:This is good news? Dude, that's messed up.
There is good news - God does not let sin go unpunished.
quote:Fair enough. Absiolutely right. I've never claimed to have the true interpretation. I'm just argueing that there is truth, and (in this thread) that the Bible is an innerant document, and so a great source for that truth. But I don't ever claim to be the sole authoritative interpreter of that truth!
Originally posted by Mousethief:
[QUOTE]QUOTE]False dichotomy. There is a hell of a lot of real estate between "This interpretation is the only valid one" and "All interpretations are equally valid."
quote:Is it loving to the victim of sin foir God to shrug his shoulders and over look their pain?
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Yeah, sure, why not?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Would God be loving if he didn't punish sin?
quote:Hope that makes sense
No - he'd be an indifferent, cruel, uncaring God.
quote:I think its good news when we take into account he provides a complete and perfect means of forgiveness and cleansing through his own death. Wow - I consider that to be very good news!!!
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:This is good news? Dude, that's messed up.
There is good news - God does not let sin go unpunished.
quote:Sorry - I forgot to respond to this a week or so ago!
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
Actually, I find "God-breathed" and "profitable for..." rather a weak claim compared with the inerrancy and "actual Word of God" doctrines that are hung upon it. In Genesis Adam's life was "God breathed" but it didn't make him perfect by a long shot, as evidenced by his rather easily accomplished transition to the Dark Side.
quote:The ultimate source of prophetic writings was not man (though he wrote them and shaped them and his personality can be seen in them) but God writing through man.
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
quote:I'm just going by what the Bible seems to say!
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
If we are not punished for our sin, then God does let sin go unpunished.
I call that good news. You call it unjust. I know which I hope for.
quote:Proverbs 11:20-21
The LORD detests men of perverse heart but he delights in those whose ways are blameless.
Be sure of this: The wicked will not go unpunished, but those who are righteous will go free.
quote:Nahum 1:3
The LORD is slow to anger and great in power; the LORD will not leave the guilty unpunished. His way is in the whirlwind and the storm, and clouds are the dust of his feet.
quote:Isaiah 53:5
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
quote:Imagine I punched you in the face.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Is it loving to the victim of sin foir God to shrug his shoulders and over look their pain?
quote:In that case I think it would be best if we didn't punish people for committing crimes at all. Let's just work out who's most likely to commit a crime and teach them not to with a bit of punishment.
IMHO, punishment is only useful if we learn from it. But then, I'm a goddam left-winger, so what do I know.
quote:With respect, you're talking rubbish.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
In that case I think it would be best if we didn't punish people for committing crimes at all. Let's just work out who's most likely to commit a crime and teach them not to with a bit of punishment.
quote:Which is why it so often doesn't work at all.
Originally posted by Stoo:
Punishment works because of cause and correlation.
quote:And the answer to that question is, "No." God is not fair and just. And why should he be?
Originally posted by fish fish:
I guess we are all happy to believe the Bible's teaching that God is love - but less happy to acccept he is a fair judge. So, perhaps I should change my statement to "Would God be fair and just if he didn't punish sin?"
quote:With respect. I am not.
Originally posted by Stoo:
quote:With respect, you're talking rubbish.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
[qb]In that case I think it would be best if we didn't punish people for committing crimes at all. Let's just work out who's most likely to commit a crime and teach them not to with a bit of punishment.
Punishment works because of cause and correlation. If no crime/sin has been committed, then there is no link to forge to encourage the perpertrator not to re-offend.
quote:Not quite what I was trying to say. I was saying that if punishment is to rehabilitate, there must be a link between the crime committed and the punishment. Without the link, it won't work.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Rehabilitative is fine, but, as you rightly point out, there must always be a punitive link.
quote:Only if we were mind readers. You may think it rubbish to say that the point of punishment is is rehabilitate. I, on the other hand, believe it is one of the hall marks of civilisation. I believe Socrates agreed with me.
So it is "rubbish" to say the main point is to change the behaviour of the offender. If so then we would try to do it before they offend.
quote:Funny how Jesus didn't, though.
Retribution for wrongdoing is the core of punishment, says our moral consience. God works the same way.
quote:Er..yes. A punitive link.
Not quite what I was trying to say. I was saying that if punishment is to rehabilitate, there must be a link between the crime committed and the punishment. Without the link, it won't work.
quote:Thare are plenty of ways to discover the likely groups of people to commit particular crimes. In your view - punish them! Stop them behaving that way!
Only if we were mind readers. You may think it rubbish to say that the point of punishment is is rehabilitate. I, on the other hand, believe it is one of the hall marks of civilisation. I believe Socrates agreed with me.
quote:Er,..yes, he went round demanding that people who had done nothing wrong be punished all the time.
Funny how Jesus didn't, though.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:This is where a non-inerrantist asks whether the biblical authors might have made God somewhat in their own images.
It does not therefore make God a sadist that he uses punishment retributively for eternity (although he does, throughout the OT especially, use it to correct) Retribution for wrongdoing is the core of punishment, says our moral consience. God works the same way.
quote:I think this is right. As an individual I am not to take retribution into my own hands (which could turn into uncontrolled or unfair vengeance). But Jesus is not teaching that society should turn the cheek or should not punish - Society needs impartial judges to make those decisions on our behalf.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
In Matthew 5 Jesus is, you are right, saying that WE should not seek retributive justice against people who wrong US. I believe this precisely because God will seek it. So the state in Romans 14 is an instrument of God's justice, and God will avenge those who reject Jesus in hebrews.
quote:But if I, a mere human, can get it into my head that people do not deserve to be punished for wronging me, but rather taught so as not to do the same again, does that not make me more loving than the god portrayed in the OT?
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
In Matthew 5 Jesus is, you are right, saying that WE should not seek retributive justice against people who wrong US. I believe this precisely because God will seek it.
quote:I dunno about you, but in my mind, it's all to do with whether the God of Vengeance found in some places in the Bible is an accurate portrayal. I think he's an excuse for selfish behaviour, personally.
What has this to do with inerrancy?
quote:No, because you are not God. Ultimately it is not important if people wrong you. But if people live in God's creation ignoring Him, giver of life and everything good, THAT is wrong. THAT is important. God's glory does matter.
Originally posted by Stoo:
quote:But if I, a mere human, can get it into my head that people do not deserve to be punished for wronging me, but rather taught so as not to do the same again, does that not make me more loving than the god portrayed in the OT?
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
[qb]In Matthew 5 Jesus is, you are right, saying that WE should not seek retributive justice against people who wrong US. I believe this precisely because God will seek it.
quote:Neither do I! My question is, why not? If she was caught in adultery, deliberately breaking God's commands why wasn't she punished by a just God? The answer is the cross, but I have had this discussion several times over on the PSA thread. I am not doing it again.
I don't for one minute believe that Jesus taught the masses not to stone the woman caught in adultery because it was something God was saving for himself.
quote:There are a two issues here:
I dunno about you, but in my mind, it's all to do with whether the God of Vengeance found in some places in the Bible is an accurate portrayal. I think he's an excuse for selfish behaviour, personally.
quote:No offence, Lep. But that's exactly what you are doing. Please don't assume that your point of view is free of all subjectivity.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But you don't. You read selectively to find a God you like, and say that anything that doesn't fit in with him is a mistake.
quote:AB,
Originally posted by AB:
quote:No offence, Lep. But that's exactly what you are doing. Please don't assume that your point of view is free of all subjectivity.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
[qb]But you don't. You read selectively to find a God you like, and say that anything that doesn't fit in with him is a mistake.
quote:Bollocks. Struggling with God? Welcome to my world.
The other interesting thing about my rules is that I can still be left with a God I struggle with. You can't.
quote:You really haven't got a clue about how I "am" with God, so don't try to imagine you do.
Well you can, but only insofar as you are comfortable with him.
quote:Utter bullshit. This is the problem I have with you that is rapidly heading Hellward - you impune my (and other non-inerrancists) motives continuously. Your mantra is "You just don't like what it says so you say it isn't true". We try to explain the real basis of our position, but you prefer to carry on with your impuning. I get this sort of false witness with Young Earth Creationists, and I can handle you just as well as I can handle those dweebs.
Only inasmuch as he is reasonable You (and I don't mean just you AB but all the people round here who play by your rules) ALWAYS seem to end with a God who thinks that you are fine.
quote:How weird. We end up with the same one. But if I follow your rules, I end up with a God who is misogynistic, homophobic, capricious, internally contraditory, genocidal, and quite frankly the only awsome thing about Him is His gittishness. Now, you may think I should sit back and accept this God, who in the words of Terry Pratchett's Ephebian is "A real bastard of a God", but I'm going to try to find the real one, who I suspect is rather more like Jesus appears to have been.
That you are comfortable with. I end up with a God who I cannot fathom; his awesome holiness or deep mercy. A God that I can't box.
quote:Why do I fecking bother. Post after post explaining my actual approach to Scripture, and still I get this crap flung back.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
What I completely fail to understand with those of you who reject the innerancy of the Bible is how you know anything about God at all. You reject what you don't like, and accept what you do like.
quote:Then READ MY FECKING POSTS!
So how do you know anything about God? And how do you defend your theology against the accusation that you are making God in your own image?
I honstly don't understand this!!!
quote:Speaking for myself, and probably many others in the category of those who "reject inerrancy", we know about God because the Bible doesn't have to be inerrant to speak truly about him. And, indeed, assuming the Bible to be inerrant doesn't stop it speaking falsely about him - as the discussion here about whether God ordered the massacre of innocents has highlighted.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
What I completely fail to understand with those of you who reject the innerancy of the Bible is how you know anything about God at all. You reject what you don't like, and accept what you do like.
quote:Well, that's easy. We simply deny it. We are seeking to understand God as he is. We could just as easily ask you to defend yourself against the same accusation ... how do you defend the position that God is the sort of God who gives an inerrant Bible?
And how do you defend your theology against the accusation that you are making God in your own image?
quote:Well, seeing as what you don't understand isn't the position of many of us that is hardly surprising. Find out what it is we actually believe, rather than base your arguments on assumptions of what you think we believe, and you may find you understand us better (agreement with us isn't required).
I honstly don't understand this!!!
quote:Fish Fish,
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
What I completely fail to understand with those of you who reject the innerancy of the Bible is how you know anything about God at all. You reject what you don't like, and accept what you do like.
So how do you know anything about God? And how do you defend your theology against the accusation that you are making God in your own image?
I honstly don't understand this!!!
quote:No - what he objected to was not their view of scripture, it was that they were spiritually dead, and didn't apply the scriptures to themselves.
Originally posted by AB:
So we find bits of the OT questionable? If the OT was enough to root our theology in, well, we wouldn't have needed Jesus at all, would we? And Jesus was quite, quite critical about those who had the character of God all figured out from Scripture. White washed tombs, indeed...
AB
quote:Matthew 5:17ff
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
quote:But if you have no absolutely authoritative knowledge of God, other than your reasoning, or experience, then how can you claim to know God, or even know you are walking with him? For your experiences or reasoning are subjective, aren't they? But if we have an innerant Bible, we have an authoritative source to go to to seek the truth about God. We may interpret it differently - but so long as we are seeking what it says rather than wjhat we want it to say, we are seeking God's revelation of himself rather than our reasonings about him. And thus we can truly hope to be walking with the real God, and not a God made in our image.
Originally posted by AB:
Because, it's not about knowing, it's about walking with, and in the example of, our Lord Jesus. The Bible is profitable for this, but it's no substitute for walking with the Man Himself
quote:This is one of the most patronising, ignorant and just plain wrong statements I have ever read aboard the Ship. I was going to deal with it in detail, but Karl beat me to it.
You (and I don't mean just you AB but all the people round here who play by your rules) ALWAYS seem to end with a God who thinks that you are fine. That you are comfortable with. I end up with a God who I cannot fathom; his awesome holiness or deep mercy. A God that I can't box.
quote:Same here. When I read the Psalmist's words: One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life something inside me does a leap. Yes, that's the one thing that I want. Trouble is getting there (but that's another issue). However both of your statements, in context, carried the clear assumption that you have a mysterious God who you want to know better, and those of us who don't agree with you don't.
I just want to know God better.
quote:I agree. Except, of course, in that we do have authoritative knowledge of and about God ... it's called the Bible. It's just not an inerrant Bible, it's the Bible I believe God wanted us to have.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But if you have no absolutely authoritative knowledge of God, other than your reasoning, or experience, then how can you claim to know God, or even know you are walking with him?
quote:Where does the spirit fit into all of this? Is he just there to ensure we don't misunderstand scripture? Or perhaps guide our consciences too? Prophetic revelations of God's will? My point is that we can relegate the spirit out of the equation completely if truth is found via human reasoning in a book alone.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But if you have no absolutely authoritative knowledge of God, other than your reasoning, or experience, then how can you claim to know God, or even know you are walking with him? For your experiences or reasoning are subjective, aren't they? But if we have an innerant Bible, we have an authoritative source to go to to seek the truth about God. We may interpret it differently - but so long as we are seeking what it says rather than wjhat we want it to say, we are seeking God's revelation of himself rather than our reasonings about him. And thus we can truly hope to be walking with the real God, and not a God made in our image.
quote:No worries! Speaking for myself, I find it so easy to type first and think later. And the trouble with typing is the irony or humour etc is so easily lost when read in black and white by someone else. Anway - thats me! Cheers!!
Originally posted by AB:
Fish Fish,
Accepted on the pharisees issue. It was a cheap shot typed without thinking it through. Forgive me.
quote:I completely agree - we need the Spirit. But aren't we encouraged to test everything, or test every spirit? How can we do this is we don't have an authoritative standard by which to test.
Originally posted by AB:
Where does the spirit fit into all of this? Is he just there to ensure we don't misunderstand scripture? Or perhaps guide our consciences too? Prophetic revelations of God's will? My point is that we can relegate the spirit out of the equation completely if truth is found via human reasoning in a book alone.
)
quote:But if its not inerrant, I don't see how can it be authoritative? Because if its flawed, the whole thing unravels. Anyone can dismiss anything they don't like in it becuase they can argue "that passage is a human error." Where does the authority lie with such a process? Can we claim it lies in the Bible?!
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I agree. Except, of course, in that we do have authoritative knowledge of and about God ... it's called the Bible. It's just not an inerrant Bible, it's the Bible I believe God wanted us to have.
quote:I am, I'm sure, one of these people.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
...people on this thread who EXPLICITLY SAID it was because they did not like the picture of God the OT that they would not accept it.
quote:I'm really sorry that's how I'm coming across.
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Leprechaun and FishFish I am struggling to love you, because I am commanded to do so in the pages of the Bible. But when you come out with statements like the above I find it very hard. I have no idea what you are like in "real life", all I know of you is what you have posted here. On that evidence, the fruit I see you bearing is arrogance, lack of love and judgementalism. The Bible contains warnings about all these things, and warns me to be on my guard against those who bear such fruits.
I don't want to be arrogant. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:To be honest, I'd be worried if my puny brain, the size of an orange, can ever even begin to make sense of the creator of the whole universe! If I could, I'd suspect he was a creation of my puny brain. The fact that he doesn't always make sense to my thick brain (eg the trinity!) makes revelation seem that bit more likely!!
Originally posted by Stoo:
Maybe he shouldn't make sense.
quote:On the contrary, we do exactly the same thing as you do: we start by deciding what God is like, and then any scripture passage that seems to agree with our point of view is evidence, and any that seems to weigh against it is difficult and needs to be understood in the light of blah blah blah. In short, it gets explained away. Whether it is explained away by calling it a "mistake" or by subtler means is hardly material.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But you don't. You read selectively to find a God you like, and say that anything that doesn't fit in with him is a mistake.
quote:So those who wrote and collected the New Testament -- what authoritative standard did they use? Clearly not the Spirit, by your account, since the Spirit must be tested by something else. But not the NT either because that is what was being tested. By the OT? The plain meaning of the NT contradicts the plain meaning of the OT in a thousand and one places.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I completely agree - we need the Spirit. But aren't we encouraged to test everything, or test every spirit? How can we do this is we don't have an authoritative standard by which to test.
quote:First, IMNSHO, the authority does not, and cannot, lie in the Bible, and to say that it does is nothing less than idolatry. It replaces the Holy Spirit of God with something else.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But if its not inerrant, I don't see how can it be authoritative? Because if its flawed, the whole thing unravels. Anyone can dismiss anything they don't like in it becuase they can argue "that passage is a human error." Where does the authority lie with such a process? Can we claim it lies in the Bible?!
quote:Thank you for replying so graciously.
I'm really sorry that's how I'm coming across. I don't want to be arrogant.
quote:But an inerrant book without an inerrant interpretation is about as useful as a foolproof safe full of gold without a key or a combination. The treasure is in there all right, but there's no way to get it out.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Fair enough. Absiolutely right. I've never claimed to have the true interpretation. I'm just argueing that there is truth, and (in this thread) that the Bible is an innerant document, and so a great source for that truth. But I don't ever claim to be the sole authoritative interpreter of that truth!
There's a big difference between an innerance book and claiming to have an innerant interpretation of the book. The latter would be arrogance - but the former can be an oppinion held with humilty. Perhaps the confusion is why "conservatives" are often called arrogant?
quote:I'll second the motion.
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
<snip> But I will say I was enormously impressed with Josephine's last post. Once again she produces an analogy that, to me, illuminates the whole process. How does she do it? (And why hasn't she written a book explaining basic Christian doctrine?)
quote:True. And your analogies of other documents which aren'r innerant are useful analogies.
Originally posted by josephine:
Authority does not require inerrancy.
quote:How does the HS guide you?
Originally posted by josephine:
Rather, it means that we trust the Holy Spirit to guide us into the Truth. He said he would, and we believe him.
quote:p.s. IMHO (avoiduing arrogance!!!
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Abandon the innerancy of the tool, and you abandon the full authority, introduce the right of the individual to pick what (s)he likes, and thus lose the authority.
)
I find it quite convenient to be able to point to a rule carved in stone. And frankly, that's not a very good reason.
quote:I'd go farther, FishFish. I'd say that the Bible has more authority than any other document. The fact that it's an icon of the Most High God, divinely inspired, and given to and accepted by the Church, is all the authority it needs. You don't have to add inerrancy to it to make it more than it is.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
So while authority doesn't require innerancy, if the Bible is innerant, then it has more authority than any other document.
quote:If you and I are both seeking the truth, the one who Is the Truth said we'd find Him. Whether the Bible is inerrant or not is irrelevant to His promise, it seems to me.
And yes, (in answer to someone else!) we will constantly have to refine our interpretation as the interpretation is not innerant - but if we're aiming to get that interpretation honed, then we're all going in the same direction in seeking the truth extracted from the Word.
quote:I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that we should use the Bible to test God? May it never be so! We don't test God!
How does the HS guide you?
How do you test what he says?
He tells us to test- and gives us the tool to test with. Abandon the innerancy of the tool, and you abandon the full authority, introduce the right of the individual to pick what (s)he likes, and thus lose the authority.
quote:I'd have to agree that the terminology is unnatural and divisive. This factor contributes to my own struggle to see which side of the "line" I fit on. I guess from the inerrant doctrinal position the line looks like it is there, as the inerrant position is an all or nothing position. From my current position it's a rather wide fuzzy line. In my previous post I used the terminology as a convenient label, but it didn't really reflect the issue as I hoped it would (that bloody convenience thing again, getting in the way.
Originally posted by josephine:
(And, for the record, I'm neither an errantist nor an inerrantist. Those are not categories that I find useful, nor are they categories the Church has historically used in understanding the Holy Scriptures.)
)quote:How far back do we need to go for it not to be a "novelty"?
And, it's not as though we're doing anything novel. Infact, in terms of historical Christianity, inerrancy is the novelty.
quote:I'm no historian, so maybe you can put me right here, but looking at this, the concept of inerrancy seems to me to be as much of a "novelty" as the Trinity or the Incarnation; maybe it didn't get a creed all to itself but maybe it just didn't need one at the time like those two doctrines did. (From the little that I know, I thought that such disputes as led to the formation of the creeds were due to varying interpretations of scripture anyway, rather than either side rejecting their authority.) If no-one before Augustine stated it quite so explicitly then couldn't it have been an assumption; inerrancy wouldn't need to be stated until someone suggested errancy?
"For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the Ms. [manuscript] is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it."
Augustine, To Jerome, Epistle 82, 1:3
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:This was patronising. It came out wrong. Its the sort of thing that you can say in a conversation because you can nuance it more, and go further to explain what you mean, not post on a website. In saying that, we are on a website chat here, so it was stupid of me to even go there. I certainly did not mean to imply (as its clear that I did) that no one except me is ever challenged by the Bible. No excuses. Sorry.
You (and I don't mean just you AB but all the people round here who play by your rules) ALWAYS seem to end with a God who thinks that you are fine. That you are comfortable with. I end up with a God who I cannot fathom; his awesome holiness or deep mercy. A God that I can't box.
quote:I think things are a lot more complex than that. I've been trying to find his actual words online (without luck I'm afraid), but in Genesis according to the Literal Sense I.39 Augustine warns people not to bring discredit on the Christian faith by treating the Bible as a source of astronomical information non-Christians now to be incorrect. Clearly, Augustine didn't consider Genesis to be inerrant in respect to astronomical truths. Similar things can be said about people such as Origin, who appear at first to hold to Biblical Inerrancy, but on closer inspection seem to hold a position somewhat different from what many people today take to be meant by the phrase. They tend to hold to inerrancy in the Bible teaching theological truth, but are not pressing that inerrancy to scientific or historical truth.
Originally posted by Fen:
quote:How far back do we need to go for it not to be a "novelty"?
And, it's not as though we're doing anything novel. Infact, in terms of historical Christianity, inerrancy is the novelty.
[followed by quote from Augustine]
quote:I, likewise, particularly like those last seven words. They are, of course, true whether or not one accepts Biblical inerrancy.
I like this approach to the scriptures. Particularly the last 7 words... ("I myself have failed to understand it.")
quote:The NT was compiled by the church recognising the writings of the Apostles - those who had met and were commisioned by the risen JC. The early church didn't impose itself on the texts, so much as recognise which were authentic writings of those commisioned by Jesus. In a sense, they discovered the NT! Just as, I guess, Newton discovered gravity. This discoverey of the NT makes sense when we see the NT writings hang together, and the other non-NT writings are so completely differnet in style and content.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
So those who wrote and collected the New Testament -- what authoritative standard did they use? Clearly not the Spirit, by your account, since the Spirit must be tested by something else. But not the NT either because that is what was being tested. By the OT? The plain meaning of the NT contradicts the plain meaning of the OT in a thousand and one places.
Those who believe the NT to be "inerrant" never seem to have a reasonable theory about where it came from -- and we all know it didn't just fall out of heaven, in white leather and with two colours of ink, in 99AD.
quote:I'm sorry, I can't get my head round this one! How does a belief in innerancy lead someone to murder?! The person committed to innerancy must take seriously the command not to murder. Where is the command to take the life of an abortionist?!
Originally posted by kiwigoldfish:
An "inerrantist" approach to the Bible can lead the reader to assume that bombing abortion clinics is okay, or even a divine calling.
quote:No, its much bigger than that I'm afraid. If one assumes errors, one assumes the ability to spot the errors, and the right to choose which bits of the Bible you find authoritative, and which you want to dismiss as down to human error. The whole authority of scripture unravels before your eyes. Declare one tiny bit of Scripture in error, and we permit anyone to dismiss any commandment they like as human error.
Originally posted by kiwigoldfish:
By assuming that there may be errors in the Bible, the process of interpreting scripture simply includes a few extra possible understandings of a passage.
quote:I'm afraid there is a difference. I am assumming that the Bible contains no mistakes. So I come to it submitting to it as God revealed, perfect, holy, divine authority to tell me about God and Jesus and salvation etc.
Originally posted by josephine:
I do not simply pick and choose which parts of the Bible to accept as written, and which to accept an alternative explanation for, any more than you do.
For you to suggest such is not only an error, it's an insult.
quote:Yes please - I'd love to know!!!
Originally posted by josephine:
Now, you asked how we know what the Holy Spirit is saying -- do you want an answer? I can provide one. Or do you want to continue bearing false witness against your brothers and sisters in Christ?
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
quote:I'm sorry that's the impression you have. In my defence I'd say that I trust a much bigger and more sovereign God than you give me credit for. I trust a God who is able to communicate clearly and has chosen to do so. But if I abandon innerancy, I weaken God, saying he is either unable or unwilling to commmunicate clearly to us.
Originally posted by kiwigoldfish:
To Fish Fish;
It seems to me that you have a struggle believing that God is big enough to communicate with other Christians without having the hammer of inerrant scripture to whack them with. It comes across like you don't trust Him, and so need the hefty, harder to refute words carved in stone. I don't know if this is truly what you are feeling, but it's what I'm naturally reading from your posts.
quote:I want to simply put
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
After the storm of controversy on Friday night, I'm peeping my head above the parapet again to say a couple of things...
...Pax.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
- but then I'll be accused of idolatry, and thus inconsistancy with the Bible. But I guess you know what I mean.
quote:What I'm about to explain is how the Orthodox understand Holy Scriptures. I'm neither theologian nor saint, so my explanation is not inerrant. And there are others on this thread who are not Orthodox; I'm not pretending to speak for them. They might have a different explanation.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Declare one tiny bit of Scripture in error, and we permit anyone to dismiss any commandment they like as human error.quote:Yes please - I'd love to know!!! [/QB]
Not true at all, as I'll show in a moment.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by josephine:
Now, you asked how we know what the Holy Spirit is saying -- do you want an answer? I can provide one. Or do you want to continue bearing false witness against your brothers and sisters in Christ?
quote:If we go for a simple majority, then indulgences were absolutely fine and dandy because most people used them in Medievil times, and the reformation was mistaken. (Though of course, as Orthadox, I guess you might think the reformation was indeed mistaken).
Originally posted by josephine:
The next principal is universality. That simply means that, since the Holy Spirit is given to the Church as a whole, to all Christians, if you have one person, or a small group, teaching X, and the rest of the Church believes Y, then Y is more likely to be right. God doesn't play favorites. He doesn't withhold the truth from one group of Christians and reveal it to another. It's all there for everyone to see.
quote:I think you might need to widen your perspective. Indulgances might have been acceptable for a majority of Christians in Western Europe just prior to the Reformation, but in terms of the history of Christianity prior to that and including Christians outwith Western Europe (including the Orthodox) then you may well find that even a "simple majority" wouldn't be met - and if you weigh in with the "spiritual depth" of those who cmae before or since (much theological thought behind indulgances seems, to me, to be very lightweight) then the case for indulgances becomes very weak indeed.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
If we go for a simple majority, then indulgences were absolutely fine and dandy because most people used them in Medievil times, and the reformation was mistaken.
quote:As I see it, most (if not all) of the idiots who are bombing abortion clinics are fundamentalists, who believe in an inerrant bible. They read the OT accounts and see how God commands His people to go and kill evildoers. They see abortionists as evildoers who need to be removed. They start to believe that they have this same scriptural call to cleanse society of this scourge. Yes, it is a bit of a stretch, but no more a stretch than some other examples given of the risks of rejecting inerrancy.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:I'm sorry, I can't get my head round this one! How does a belief in innerancy lead someone to murder?! The person committed to innerancy must take seriously the command not to murder. Where is the command to take the life of an abortionist?!
Originally posted by kiwigoldfish:
An "inerrantist" approach to the Bible can lead the reader to assume that bombing abortion clinics is okay, or even a divine calling.
quote:Fair enough - my illustration perhaps fails historically. But perhaps not - the majority in the RC church perhaps did adopt indulgencies. No matter - at very least it demonstrates the weakness of the "majority" determining theology.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:I think you might need to widen your perspective. Indulgances might have been acceptable for a majority of Christians in Western Europe just prior to the Reformation, but in terms of the history of Christianity prior to that and including Christians outwith Western Europe (including the Orthodox) then you may well find that even a "simple majority" wouldn't be met...
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
If we go for a simple majority, then indulgences were absolutely fine and dandy because most people used them in Medievil times, and the reformation was mistaken.
quote:Happy to agree with this point. We will have nut cases who misinterpret innerant scriptures (anti-abortionists) and nut cases who hear God outside the scriptures (Yorkshire Ripper) - innerancy probaly makes no difference to nutters. But for everyone else, in determining truth and righteousness, I still hold that an innerant scripture are our strongest standpoint.
Originally posted by kiwigoldfish:
...But I was pointing out that assuming inerrancy will not protect one from serious error.
quote:Well, I'm glad we've sorted that out then! You're post has won me over! I submit!!
Originally posted by Papio:
.........or it might be if inerrancy was in any way credible.
quote:Fish Fish, the test is not what a simple majority of Christians at one place and time believe. If it were, we would all be Arians now.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Fair enough - my illustration perhaps fails historically. But perhaps not - the majority in the RC church perhaps did adopt indulgencies. No matter - at very least it demonstrates the weakness of the "majority" determining theology.
quote:Fair enough. I don't dispute this.
Originally posted by josephine:
But the Holy Spirit leads the Church. Always, in all places, at all times.
quote:Antiquity. Universality. Consensus.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Lets use an example - the Bible teaches X. But the church wants to go headlong down path Y. How does the church know not to take that path unless it turns to the scriptures?
quote:Now, I don't want to seem to simply disagree with everything! But I disagree! The whole of the OT is about a relationship with God. God calls Abraham into a relationship with him, and promises relationship with his descendents. He brings them out of Egypt to have a relationship with them. This is the covenant - a covenant of relationship. This is fundamentally the same in NT - God does the work, and comes to us to establish a relationship with us. So, in that sense, I think it wrong to say "mankind's relationship with God changed" in this way.
Originally posted by AB:
Actually, Fish Fish, I want to suggest something. Maybe we don't need to 'know'. Whatever the theological ramification of the incarnation, mankind's relationship with God changed. Out went covenant agreement, in came relationship language.
quote:...how do we know we are truly communicating or reaching out to him if we discredit what he has given us - that which time and time and time again claims "thus says the Lord"?
Originally posted by AB:
Maybe actually God wants us to reach out to Him, and not just follow the manual which he supplied.
quote:I'm sorry - this is going in circles, and I'm sure I've done this before! But, in summary...
Originally posted by josephine:
Let's back up a bit, Fish Fish. If you have just the Bible, how do you know that you understand it correctly? How do you know whether you're to take your enemies babies and dash their heads against the stones? How do you know whether you're to sell all that you have and give it to the poor? How do you know whether women are to cover their heads in Church? What authority do you have to guide you in the correct understanding of Scripture other than your own self?
quote:p.s. We are told that this is not the case. We are warned frequently about false teachers - who can and do lead churches astray. But how do we make a judgment about false teachers and what they teach if we have no bedroack, no absolute, no standard by which to measure?
Originally posted by josephine:
So we accept the Bible, and understand it as the Church teaches us to understand it, according to the principles I have explained. If you follow those principles, you cannot go headlong down a wrong path.
quote:Antiquity. Universality. Consensus.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But how do we make a judgment about false teachers and what they teach if we have no bedroack, no absolute, no standard by which to measure?
quote:I do not believe in inerrancy. Not of the Bible. Not of the Church. Not of anything. It is not a concept that has any use or value to me.
It seems to me that you instead believe in the innerancy of the church!!!
quote:Fish Fish, I don't think you understand. The nature of mankind's relationship with God changed with Jesus Christ. I must have done. The Law fulfilled, the curtain torn, surely you must agree that we are no longer 'owned' by the covenant, but now by Jesus Christ.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
The whole of the OT is about a relationship with God. God calls Abraham into a relationship with him, and promises relationship with his descendents. He brings them out of Egypt to have a relationship with them. This is the covenant - a covenant of relationship. This is fundamentally the same in NT - God does the work, and comes to us to establish a relationship with us. So, in that sense, I think it wrong to say "mankind's relationship with God changed" in this way.
quote:But this can take 100's of years to filter through. That 100's of years - whole life time's of people being taught flasely while the church gets round to sorting out what it believes. Sorting out what the Spirit is saying - when the Spirit has already said everything we need to know and conveniently had it written it down for us!! If I take your doctine, I'm reinventing the wheel, very slowly indeed, when I can take the book off the shelf and read!
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:Antiquity. Universality. Consensus.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But how do we make a judgment about false teachers and what they teach if we have no bedroack, no absolute, no standard by which to measure?
quote:
So we accept the Bible, and understand it as the Church teaches us to understand it, according to the principles I have explained. If you follow those principles, you cannot go headlong down a wrong path.
quote:Yep - I agree with this.
Originally posted by AB:
Fish Fish, I don't think you understand. The nature of mankind's relationship with God changed with Jesus Christ. I must have done. The Law fulfilled, the curtain torn, surely you must agree that we are no longer 'owned' by the covenant, but now by Jesus Christ.
quote:Yes, agreed. Yes, we are to strive for perfection. Yes our salvation is assured.
Originally posted by AB:
However, we have grace, we are to strive for perfection, but to know that our treasure is assured despite our sinfulness.
quote:Romans 6:1-2
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?
quote:Romans 6:15
What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
quote:Please tell me where you get a scriptural justifcation for this, because IMHO I really don't think you are correct!
Originally posted by AB:
[QUOTE] I simply don't think that 'knowing' is as important in our everyday relationship with God as it was back then for we have Jesus now.
quote:
YOU have become the authority, sitting over the Bible, determining what is true and acceptable. Who one heaven or earth gives you that right?!!!!
quote:I am sorry. This posting lark is quite tricky, getting the hang of what people are saying. So, sorry for misunderstanding you.
Originally posted by AB:
Fish Fish,
I have to warn you, I am so utterly annoyed at you at the moment that I have had to slow down and stop myself posting something rash and which I will later regret. I shall try and be reasoned, but please do not take my efforts at being polite to mean that I don't think you have been smug, patronising and glib.
Why are you quoting Romans 6 to me? That's not be standpoint at all, nor is it the logical conclusion of my thinking. Please don't create a straw man of my position and please don't assume I have never read Romans 6. Just because I reject inerrancy, doesn't mean that I don't study my Bible and be challenged by it's contents.
quote:Let me try again. If you say that the scriptures have flaws in them, then we are at liberty to discuss to what extent the flaws stretch thoughout the Bible. That, I would suggest, is a fairly arbitrary decision. You have concluded that "it's Jesus who claimed that the 2 commandments were greatest and that everything hangs on those points" - but it would be an equally fair conclusion to say that, the passage where Jesus is recorded as making these claims, is one of the passages in error.
Originally posted by AB:
And as for your second post addressed to me, well - where do I start? First off, it's Jesus who claimed that the 2 commandments were greatest and that everything hangs on those points.
quote:I've never claimed that cos the Bible doesn't claim that. But I would claim those who reject biblical innerancy remove the anchor of their faith and can drift into any area of false teaching that they choose to accept. They may or may not danger their salvation depending on what particular teaching they choose to adopt.
Originally posted by AB:
But let me ask you the reverse - where does it claim that certainty in scriptures is essential to salvation?
quote:But the Biblical canon took lifetimes to decide upon and there were many, many, many generations of men and women who lived, worked, worshipped and died before St. Paul was ever born. Therefore, your objections to Josephine's arguement based on length of time strike me as, perhaps, besides the point.
Originally posted by Fish-Fish
But this can take 100's of years to filter through. That 100's of years - whole life time's of people being taught flasely while the church gets round to sorting out what it believes. Sorting out what the Spirit is saying - when the Spirit has already said everything we need to know and conveniently had it written it down for us!! If I take your doctine, I'm reinventing the wheel, very slowly indeed, when I can take the book off the shelf and
quote:Which brings us back to the question Josephine asked, and I seem to have missed your answer too, namely
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I can take the book off the shelf and read!
quote:Basically, whether the Bible is inerrant or not, you can't just take it off the shelf and read it. You have to do something else to ensure you've understood it correctly. For most evangelicals that would be through application of reason and learning (your own, plus that of others through study groups, commentaries, sermons etc) within a context set by the traditions of that group.
If you have just the Bible, how do you know that you understand it correctly?
quote:This should read:
Originally posted by Papio The Dork
Moreover, the fact that there are errors, discreptancies and contradictions in and between between the four canonical actually seems to me to add to their validity, not detract from it
quote:I had convinced myself that I wasn't going to weigh in on this debate any more, and I'm not really, just to say that Alan while I see your point, I think you have overstated it. Inerrancy doesn't provide "pop the question through the grinder" answers to every question, but it does considerably narrow the field of interpretations by ruling out those that plainly contradict the rest of the Bible.
An Inerrant Bible is no different from an "errant" one if it isn't clear enough to be understood by all without ambiguity.
quote:Yeah, it's worked out that way from time to time. And you know what? That's okay. We're not saved on the basis of doctrinal perfection. We're saved based on the mercy and grace and love of the Most High God.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:But this can take 100's of years to filter through. That 100's of years - whole life time's of people being taught flasely while the church gets round to sorting out what it believes.
Originally posted by josephine:
Antiquity. Universality. Consensus.
quote:This gets back to my question, that you haven't answered, and that Alan courteously repeated.
Sorting out what the Spirit is saying - when the Spirit has already said everything we need to know and conveniently had it written it down for us!!
quote:Read my lips, Fish Fish. I do not believe in inerrancy. Not of the Bible. Not of the Church.
Furthermore, you do indeed have a view of the innerancy of the church long term if you belive what you say:
quote:
So we accept the Bible, and understand it as the Church teaches us to understand it, according to the principles I have explained. If you follow those principles, you cannot go headlong down a wrong path.
quote:But surely no-one here is saying that the Bible has no validity whatsoever. I'm certainly no inerrantist, as you know, but I certainly evaluate what I believe the Bible is saying by taking note of whether an interpretation is in line with the whole of the Bible. That's just good practice. Nothing in a non-inerrantist position prevents such good practice. The important thing to me (and it's been said many times before on this thread) is whether or not the Bible is authoritative, not whether or not it is inerrant.
Inerrancy doesn't provide "pop the question through the grinder" answers to every question, but it does considerably narrow the field of interpretations by ruling out those that plainly contradict the rest of the Bible.
quote:Josephine, as always
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by josephine:
Antiquity. Universality. Consensus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But this can take 100's of years to filter through. That 100's of years - whole life time's of people being taught flasely while the church gets round to sorting out what it believes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, it's worked out that way from time to time. And you know what? That's okay. We're not saved on the basis of doctrinal perfection. We're saved based on the mercy and grace and love of the Most High God.
quote:But JJ, even our discussion here goes to show that being an inerrantist (for better or worse, this is not meant to be a moral judgement) limits the number of possible interpretations.
JJ wrote
Lep, you wrote:quote:But surely no-one here is saying that the Bible has no validity whatsoever. I'm certainly no inerrantist, as you know, but I certainly evaluate what I believe the Bible is saying by taking note of whether an interpretation is in line with the whole of the Bible.
Inerrancy doesn't provide "pop the question through the grinder" answers to every question, but it does considerably narrow the field of interpretations by ruling out those that plainly contradict the rest of the Bible.
quote:No worries!
Originally posted by Papio:
Fish-Fish, I apologise for my arrogant quip earlier. It didn't help the discussion and so I am sorry.
quote:Ok, fair point about the Bible not being [i] written [/] by God. It is clearly written by men - we see their characters clearly on each page. However, the Bible claims much more than inspiration - it claims things such as "Thus says the Lord", and "God breathed" - implying the words do come from his mouth. I'm afraid I'll be repeating myself if I go back on what I've already posted above on this. Suffice to say, the claim is for the Bible to be more than inspired, but to be fully guided by God, and thus essentially innerant.
Originally posted by Papio:
In any case, being inspired by God is not the same as being written by God or dictated word for word by the Holy Spirit. For example, I can be inspired by a beautiful sunset to paint a picture, by a scene of devastation to write a poem, by a lover to write a song. In each case however it is me, and not the source of my inspiration, that creates the painting, poem or song.
quote:2 points in summary of what I've previously posted
Originally posted by Papio:
For me, an insistence on an inerrant Bible is actually damaging because, I believe, there is evidence of scientific, historical, geographical and literary errors in the Bible, as well as misqoutes etc.
quote:Agreed. Absolutely agreed. But, if we take up the anchor of the authority of the Bible, then we can drift into areas of false teaching or worse that definately can endanger our salvation.
Originally posted by josephine:
Yeah, it's worked out that way from time to time. And you know what? That's okay. We're not saved on the basis of doctrinal perfection. We're saved based on the mercy and grace and love of the Most High God.
quote:I don't propose to answer each of the examples you raise as I haven't time I'm afraid. But, in general response:-
Originally posted by josephine:
This gets back to my question, that you haven't answered, and that Alan courteously repeated.
The Spirit already said everything you need to know. So how do you know that God is Three Persons with one Nature? That Jesus Christ, our Lord, is one Person with two Natures? How do you know whether to call Mary, our Lord's Mother, the Mother of God, or the Mother of Christ, or simply the Mother of Jesus -- and how do you know whether it matters? How do you know whether icons are the necessary implication of the Incarnation of God, or whether they are idols?
quote:I am really sorry for offending or upsetting you, and for attempting to tell you what you belive. I am sorry that each time I post here I seem to cut corners to save a bit of time, and tread toes in so doing. Sorry!
Originally posted by josephine:
Read my lips, Fish Fish. I do not believe in inerrancy. Not of the Bible. Not of the Church.
You seem to have a real talent for telling other people what they believe, rather than paying attention to what they tell you they believe. Rather than saying, "you do indeed believe X," as if you know more about what I believe than I do (this being one of the big reasons that people keep telling you that you come across as arrogant) why don't you try saying, "I don't understand -- doesn't Y imply X?" It would be more respectful, and you just might learn something.
quote:Oops - three posts above, these last 3 paragraphas are a quote that I forgot to delete, and not what I wanted to say! If a host would be able to delete those, and this email, then that would be fantastic
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
For me, an insistence on an inerrant Bible is actually damaging because, I believe, there is evidence of scientific, historical, geographical and literary errors in the Bible, as well as misqoutes etc. Therefore, to insist that the Bible must stand or fall on the perfection of every verse is, for me, to inisist that the Bible must fall.
Moreover, the fact that there are errors, discreptancies and contradictions in and between between the four canonical actually seems to me to add to their validity, not detract from it. If there were no contractions at all, I would suspect collusion. I would suspect that four clever crooks had cooked up a scam and a con. However, the fact that some of the gospels are not very well written is evidence against this.
Police witness statements of events we know to have happened often show some contradiction in the detail. For example, Witness A may state that the get-away car was red while Witness B is sure that the car was blue. The prescence of comparable errors in the gospels strongly suggests that they were written by honest men who had either seen the events themselves or had heard about them from people who had. It suggests that the evangelists were genuine, not collusionists.
quote:That's a pity then, FF, because I'm guessing that you absolutely need to address such examples for your position to be even vaguely comprehensible, let alone coherent or convincing, to most of us.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:I don't propose to answer each of the examples you raise as I haven't time I'm afraid.
Originally posted by josephine:
This gets back to my question, that you haven't answered, and that Alan courteously repeated.
The Spirit already said everything you need to know. So how do you know that God is Three Persons with one Nature? That Jesus Christ, our Lord, is one Person with two Natures? How do you know whether to call Mary, our Lord's Mother, the Mother of God, or the Mother of Christ, or simply the Mother of Jesus -- and how do you know whether it matters? How do you know whether icons are the necessary implication of the Incarnation of God, or whether they are idols?
quote:I corrected my boss' maths the other day.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
if we... have the right to dismiss even the smallest bit as error, then we have assumed authority over the Bible. And thus the Bible loses its authority.
quote:Hi - I've tried to answer it in principle -
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I'm having genuine difficulty in seeing how, after repeated attempts by many different posters, you could fail to see the importance of this challenge to your position.
CB
quote:
The Bible tells us everything we need to know for salvation. It gives us frameworks and guidelines how to work out how to behave etc. The authority of the Bible has been essential in determining church doctrine. The church has wrestled with big doctrinal issues over many years - but concluded that the scriptures teach the trinity and dual personality of God. The church submitted itself to the authority of the scriptures in coming to these conclusions. And that is what I am arguing for here. Of course the church should work out its doctrine, and it may take centuries. But if it does so submitting to the authority of the Bible, rather than its own collective wisdom, then I believe the church will have good reason to beleive it has discovered the truth.
quote:But, FF, (and I'm very far from being the first to point this out here) there are many different and coherent ways of reading Scripture that would legitimate a unitarian position as well as a trintarian one. Your example merely shows that a "plain reading" does not yield the right answer alone - which is precisely why the Church needed to sort out it's Christological position in lengthy and difficult Council gatherings. Of course the doctrine of the triune nature of the Godhead is not contrary to Scripture, but it isn't the only way to read Scripture with integrity either. The Spirit guided the Church into that truth, but it was a particularly complicated and drawn-out process. If Scripture were clear on the issue, it just would not have needed to be that way.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:Hi - I've tried to answer it in principle -
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I'm having genuine difficulty in seeing how, after repeated attempts by many different posters, you could fail to see the importance of this challenge to your position.
CB
quote:
The Bible tells us everything we need to know for salvation. It gives us frameworks and guidelines how to work out how to behave etc. The authority of the Bible has been essential in determining church doctrine. The church has wrestled with big doctrinal issues over many years - but concluded that the scriptures teach the trinity and dual personality of God. The church submitted itself to the authority of the scriptures in coming to these conclusions. And that is what I am arguing for here. Of course the church should work out its doctrine, and it may take centuries. But if it does so submitting to the authority of the Bible, rather than its own collective wisdom, then I believe the church will have good reason to beleive it has discovered the truth.
quote:I'll agree inerrancy results in limits of interpretation. But then again so does any other view of Scripture, at least those views that hold that Scripture has a level of authority. In many cases, we will end up with the same problems and solutions for many "problem passages". For example, whether or not we accept Biblical inerrancy we object to the apparent barbarism of God ordering the genocide of Caananites - and many of us see this as a "problem" because it is at odds with other Biblical expressions of the nature of God (rather than just "we don't like it") and seek to address it by reference to other Biblical passages. By accepting Biblical authority, whether or not we accept inerrancy, we use the same approach for the same reason to these problems.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
our discussion here goes to show that being an inerrantist (for better or worse, this is not meant to be a moral judgement) limits the number of possible interpretations.
quote:and:
2. Regarding alleged contradticions, I'll repost what i said before as no one has ever really responded to this
quote:And you express surprise that people find you arrogant? You really do take the biscuit, Fish Fish.
I don't propose to answer each of the examples you raise as I haven't time I'm afraid.
quote:Thanks for the biscuit.
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
In subsequent posts, Fish Fish wrote:
quote:and:
2. Regarding alleged contradticions, I'll repost what i said before as no one has ever really responded to thisquote:And you express surprise that people find you arrogant? You really do take the biscuit, Fish Fish.
I don't propose to answer each of the examples you raise as I haven't time I'm afraid.
quote:OK, then -- rather more constructively:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
2. No one answered my question - and thats why I thought I might repost it - and also as it answered a question raised of me.
quote:They don't, as chesterbelloc has pointed out.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
1. I did go on to answer the question by explaining some principles - which hopefully began to answer the specific examples raised.
quote:Ok. I'll have a stab at answering this - but can I flag up the one heck of day I've just had?!!
Originally posted by josephine:
Please pick one example from my list, and show how the plain reading of Scripture unambiguously supports whatever your position is, and how any alternative reading is clearly and unequivocally wrong.
If the Bible alone is the supreme authority, without reference to or need for interpretation by the Church, you shouldn't have any trouble at all.
And can I also suggest that I'm not the only person who comes across as aggressive, arrogant, or patronising on this site? For myself, I try to avoid personal insults in my posts. I don't think they are helpful in the debate. And when i am on the receiving end - I do find it rather agrivating that while I am trying my hardest to answer questions and interact with Christians from another perspective, that I am constantly slammed for being arrogant etc. That's not a criticism of anyone in particular - its just an observation as the person most often as the object of those accusations. But again, I appologise for the times when I am overly blunt.quote:If we abandon innerancy, and assume some authority
Inerrancy doesn't provide "pop the question through the grinder" answers to every question, but it does considerably narrow the field of interpretations by ruling out those that plainly contradict the rest of the Bible.
While this is not a simple answer to many of the hard questions we face, it does provide a solid framework to operate in, and there is a plain difference between doing Interpretative stuff with an inerrant presumption, and doing it without.
quote:I don't have such statistics. This is simply annecdotal. But it seems to me, that when we talk of errors in the Bible, there are remarkably few considering the size of text, and most are of the order of a couple of numbers here and there etc. That is not to dismiss them as unimportant - but to observe that it seems increadible to me how consistant the Bible is in doctrine and morality.
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
Before being convinced by your argument from consistency, I'd expect to see a statistical analysis of how many inconsistencies and errors one might expect from a set of texts of this range and antiquity (which is probably impossible to come by anyway), rather than relying on your subjective expectations. I'd expect this -- and the necessary subsequent examinations of the texts to see how many of these there actually are -- to be carried out by somebody rather more disinterested than your good self...[etc]
quote:I don't agree that the Bible isn't crystal clear in declaring itself to be God's authoritative word! Do I have to go over the reaosns I believe this again?
Originally posted by AB:
#1 Why didn't He ensure the Bible more clearly defined itself that way? This debate shows that it isn't.
quote:My argument above is that, if there is a good explanation for such apparent error, since the error is so small when compared to the overall amazing consistance of the Bible, then explanations to questions such as yours carry immense weight.
Originally posted by AB:
#2 Why didn't He better protect it against translation errors (for an example, see Psalm 40(v6) and Hebrews 10(v5), spot anything at odds?
quote:I've answered that in part above.
Originally posted by AB:
#3 Why does He allow honest believers, praying for guidance to come to alternative interpretations?
quote:But, FF, I repeat: who is to decide precisely what "the authority of the Scriptures" is? You speak as if it were clear from the Scriptures themselves what "authority" they have. This is nonsense. The Church herself decided which of the texts was to be received as "authoritative" (and in what way), not the other way around!
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I am suggesting that the church should submit itself to the authority of scripture when formulating its doctrine and morality. The church has been given a gold mine - an authoritative source and reference for determining its doctrine - the Bible. The Bible is not laid out as a doctrine text book, and so we have to work hard to understand it in formulating our doctrines.
quote:The doctrine of the Trinity as a "summary" of the texts is an idea that I admit to finding utterly bizarre! Also, your implicit dichotomy between slavish binding to the strict "plain" reading of the Scriptures and "trying to impose an agenda" is plain false. The Scriptures were one hugely important tool for the Church in trying to formulate for herself who Christ is, but how could the Church have come to the authoritative conclusion on the person of Christ with just the texts? So huge and central a doctrine soc clearly derivable from a braod overview of some particularly tricky texts, without using her "accumulated wisdom"? You really believe that? No additional help upon the special intercession of the Spirit? I really don't understand that, which is why I'm left really scratching my head at the following:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
So - you ask for an example. Let me take the Trinity. As I understand things, the reason we have the doctrine of the Trinity is because of the texts in the Bible that say that Jesus and the Father are one, that the Spirit is God, and passages that mention all three together. The doctrine of the Trinity is not spelt out in the the Bible. However, it seems to be assumed that God is triune (ege in the passages above). The early church, in an attempt to summarise the texts, came up with the doctrine of the Trinity. This was the church sitting under the scriptures, trying to make best sense of them, and not trying to impose any agenda to have a triune God!
quote:The text is set as what? It's not a bus timetable. So the text is such that, even after all the Councils and centuries of controversies, we can't be sure we've got it right evwen yet? What kind of plain authoritative text is this?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I would argue that the doctrine of the trinity still is subserviant to the Bible. The Bible is set and authoritative - but the doctrine is a sort of systematic summary of the text. The text is set, but the doctrine is open for improvement as we understand the text better. So, yes, the doctrines can take centuries and longer to hone and formulate (I was wrong to mock the long time scales before - sorry). We may yet improve this summary of God as we come to understand the text more.
quote:If I may be permitted to slightly nuance FF's answer here, as, I think has been made clear, for may people here authority and inerrancy do not imply one another.(so the answer "it is authoritative" is not sufficient in itself) And apologies for repeating myself, as I think I wrote this somewhere else. I think that inerrancy follows from the character of God as revealed in the Bible, and believing that God verbally inspired it. Now, as I have said elsewhere, if you do not believe that the Bible is inspired ("breathed/spirited out") by God, there is no need to even have this discussion.
Originally posted by AB:
#1 Why didn't He ensure the Bible more clearly defined itself that way? This debate shows that it isn't.
quote:No, its not nonsense! Its too easy to dismiss my position as nonsense!! And I have answered this before.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But, FF, I repeat: who is to decide precisely what "the authority of the Scriptures" is? You speak as if it were clear from the Scriptures themselves what "authority" they have. This is nonsense. The Church herself decided which of the texts was to be received as "authoritative" (and in what way), not the other way around!
quote:Agreed. But in order for the church to operate within some God given boundaries, and knowing that people will err and stray unless they have some boundaries, God has given us the scriptures. If you abandon their authority, or water their authority down, then the church can drift into all sorts of heresy - as indeed it did pre-reformation.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The Church herself is the continuation of the revelation of God to the world
quote:Ok then - how did we get the doctrine of the trinity if not by formalising what is written in the scriptures?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The doctrine of the Trinity as a "summary" of the texts is an idea that I admit to finding utterly bizarre!
quote:You misunderstand me. I am NOT saying the church is not invoved in interpreting the scriptures or forming doctrine. I am NOT saying the Spirit is not massively involved. But what I AM saying is that the Spirit has already spoken to us with authority, and so we can test what we think the Spirit may be saying to us today by comparing with what he has said in the past, becasue he does not change.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
No additional help upon the special intercession of the Spirit?
quote:The text isn't changing. Its set.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The text is set as what? It's not a bus timetable. So the text is such that, even after all the Councils and centuries of controversies, we can't be sure we've got it right evwen yet? What kind of plain authoritative text is this?
quote:I think I agree - but again so long as perfect means completely perfect - ie without error!
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Oh, one more thing, I would be quite happy to ditch the word inerrant if it has baggage for people, and go with perfect instead. Maybe that's better because its actually a word the Bible uses repeatedly of itself. But I don't think that implies any less of a standard of accuracy...
quote:But communication is a relationship involving more than just God. God (in Christ or in Spirit) may not have changed, but we his people have. Why then must both the message and its meaning be unchanging when the context in which they are received has changed? I don't understand.
.....what I AM saying is that the Spirit has already spoken to us with authority, and so we can test what we think the Spirit may be saying to us today by comparing with what he has said in the past, becasue he does not change.
quote:What language is it set in?
The text isn't changing. Its set.
quote:I think that for most of us, you are right.
our differences over error, underneath it all, probably boil down to differences in understanding what it means for Scripture to be God-breathed.
quote:Why do I say this. Clearly, at face value, what you say is true. However:
I think that God doesn't need to use the word inerrant of his words, or a particular document, because to say that's someone's words are untrue is a slight on their character. As such, God establishes his character and leaves us to accept the implications about the things he says.
quote:And have Protestant groups been any better Post-Reformation? There are at least as many examples of inerrantist-type belief leading into heresy and error. For every Torquemada, I can quote a Matthew Hopkins, for every Borgia Pope, a Jim Jones (not the Bish of Liverpool, the guy in the central American Jungle). Holding doctines of inerrancy seems at least as poor as the alternative view in preventing error.
But in order for the church to operate within some God given boundaries, and knowing that people will err and stray unless they have some boundaries, God has given us the scriptures. If you abandon their authority, or water their authority down, then the church can drift into all sorts of heresy - as indeed it did pre-reformation.
quote:PnP, I can't (honestly) work out if you are being obtuse or not. No one is suggesting that context has no relevance, merely that changing contexts cannot force us to accept that the Bible truth must be doubted.
Honestly, this business of scripture being hard and fast, as if context has absolutely no bearing, baffles me.
quote:Given that I (and, I think, my fellow non-inerrantists) are saying that the Bible is God's word in less than a totally literal sense, in what way is this a condemnation of our position?
Lep Qouth
I think that God doesn't need to use the word inerrant of his words, or a particular document, because to say that's someone's words are untrue is a slight on their character
quote:Exactly my point Papio - the issue is inspiriation not inerrancy really. I was not trying to condemn your position, merely point out the logical conclusion of my own position on inspiration.
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:Given that I (and, I think, my fellow non-inerrantists) are saying that the Bible is God's word in less than a totally literal sense, in what way is this a condemnation of our position?
Lep Qouth
I think that God doesn't need to use the word inerrant of his words, or a particular document, because to say that's someone's words are untrue is a slight on their character
I don't think that Karl or anybody else here is attempting to insult God or blaspheme his character!
quote:Forgive me. I come to the debate having just been in correspondance elsewhere with a Presbyterian clergyman who has argued that there is no room for 'interpretation' of scripture. Believe it or not, such a view - that context has no bearing - is held by some, even if not by contributors to this thread.
PnP, I can't (honestly) work out if you are being obtuse or not. No one is suggesting that context has no relevance, merely that changing contexts cannot force us to accept that the Bible truth must be doubted.
quote:If the Bible is perfect (and all of it is of equal weight, a view I assume Fish Fish holds btw) then if Paul says "I do not permit women to speak in Church" then that is hard and fast. Isn't it? Of course it is mighty complicated, but complicated context doesn't undermine unambiguous commandment if you believe that the Word of God is set for all times and places.
Your 1 Cor 14 example, makes it sound like those who believe in the Bible's "perfection" simply assume that this command is not relevant because our cultural context has changed.
quote:I've been trying to understand the views expressed by those who believe the Bible to be a) error free and b) not open to debate (as to its meaning) for a very long time. I apologise if the tone of my posts gives any other impression.
Can we please (and I am trying not to sound narky here) try to actually understand what the opposing view is, and how it works before setting up straw men to knock them down?
quote:It wasn't.
PS Why did I "quoth" this quote. I am trying to work out if this was an implied insult or not, do feel free to explain.
quote:Yep - can't deny that!
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
And have Protestant groups been any better Post-Reformation? There are at least as many examples of inerrantist-type belief leading into heresy and error. For every Torquemada, I can quote a Matthew Hopkins, for every Borgia Pope, a Jim Jones (not the Bish of Liverpool, the guy in the central American Jungle). Holding doctines of inerrancy seems at least as poor as the alternative view in preventing error.
quote:Yes, but interpreted by other texts, taken in context, etc. So I echo Lep when he talks about the hard work we need to do with these texts.
Originally posted by Ponty'n'pop:
If the Bible is perfect (and all of it is of equal weight, a view I assume Fish Fish holds btw)...
quote:Not sure where you get this from - but I'll repsond for myself - No! I'm arguing that we have an innerant text with a flawed interpetation which is constantly being honed and improved.
Originally posted by Belle:
So, it's not so much that it's an inerrant text - more that there is an inerrant interpretation?
quote:Just curious... each verse is as important as those that come before and after? Is each word as important too?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:Yes, but interpreted by other texts, taken in context, etc.
Originally posted by Ponty'n'pop:
If the Bible is perfect (and all of it is of equal weight, a view I assume Fish Fish holds btw)...
quote:Belle,
Originally posted by Belle:
In fact - whether or not there is a true or inerrant meaning becomes academic, since it is not possible to discern whose understanding is the inerrant one by appeal to a text we all admit is open to interpretation.
quote:By limiting possible interpretations, aren't you in danger of missing the correct one?!
When discussing this with Alan I pointed out that the interpretations are limited considerably by holding to inerrancy.
quote:But the whole basis of my argument is that the scriptures are, indeed, authoritative, and thus useful as per 2Tim 3:16, for the above purposes, and that authority is in no way diminished by jettisoning inerrancy, which (as I guess you know by now) I believe to be a doctrine that weakens scripture's position rather than enhances it, because it requires one to believe in, as it were, two impossible things before breakfast.
I guess that just reinforces the need for the church and accountability - and if the church as a whole holds to the innerancy and authority of scripture, then when a group starts erring (as with your examples), then the church has the authoritative texts to use in its correcting and rebuking. But lose the scriptual authority, and the sects will still go AWOL - but the church doesn't have the tools with which to correct them.
quote:I think that very possibly this is true, but is it because coming from an inerrantist background will automatically lead one to particular views of atonement, heaven or hell, etc, or because the culture of churches which espouse inerrancy also espouse the aforsaid points of view. In other words, does the doctinal standpoint on these issues come from the bible, or do we read the Bible in the light of our doctrinal standpoint, and therefore see in it what we expect to see. Please note, I am not saying that is the case, certainly not for any of the posters here. But I do believe that some people imbibe the whole PSA/Inerrancy/literal hell belief set from, as it were, their mother's milk, without actually examining the bases of these belief sets too carefully.
And while it does not provide automatic answers to difficult questions, it is interesting to note that the Christians who hold to an inerrantist viewpoint do tend to agree about a number of other issues that a lot of us would disagree about here - models of the atonement, nature of heaven and hell etc.
quote:And this couldn't have anything to do with the similarity of their backgrounds, ecclesiastically-wise-speaking?
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
And while it does not provide automatic answers to difficult questions, it is interesting to note that the Christians who hold to an inerrantist viewpoint do tend to agree about a number of other issues that a lot of us would disagree about here - models of the atonement, nature of heaven and hell etc.
quote:Erm - not each English word as they are always only an approximate translation.
Originally posted by Stoo:
Just curious... each verse is as important as those that come before and after? Is each word as important too?
quote:I'm in serious danger of repetative strain injury by typing the same thing so many times! But here goes...
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But the whole basis of my argument is that the scriptures are, indeed, authoritative, and thus useful as per 2Tim 3:16, for the above purposes, and that authority is in no way diminished by jettisoning inerrancy, which (as I guess you know by now)
quote:I think I said above that salvation is not dependent on accepting the innerancy of the scriptures. So, no, I would (and do) urge them to consider Jesus, and if they can't accept the other stuff but accept him then great.
Originally posted by AB:
And a quick bonus question for Fish Fish. If you were talking to a non-Christian who positively couldn't stomach the thought of divine genocide in Joshua, yet was hungry to know Jesus - would you break down that barrier between him and His Lord? Or would you insist that he take the whole package or nothing? (this is a situation I quite often find myself in, by the way).
AB
quote:I wouldn't say that this is necessarily so. I see it more as a case of recognising God's authority, over us and the scriptures (He is bigger than them, let's not lose sight of that.)
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
If you accept that there are errors in the text, then you assume the authority to determine those errors. You assume authority over the text. How, then, can you claim that is has authority over you?
quote:Well I sort of see your point, but authority doesn't really work that way. I guess if the bible were a single text, then you would indeed be in authority over it if you were to make a judgement on its inspiration and accuracy. But as you yourself pointed out, not every text is of equal value to the church. And it is the church that gave us the scriptures. I hear the argument that what they did was to recognise the pre-existing inspiration of those texts, but, by your argument of above, it is clear that the church took authority to judge that level of inspiration. John is in, Thomas is out. If it was capable of doing it then, whilst still considering itself to be under the authority of those scriptures, or more importantly, of God, it is capable of the same task now.
If you accept that there are errors in the text, then you assume the authority to determine those errors. You assume authority over the text. How, then, can you claim that is has authority over you?
quote:I think that this is certainly, in theory a possibility. However, I think there is ample evidence in the Bible that God did not expect the Scriptures to be seen in this way. Eg - the minor prophets are basically sermons condemning God's people for not listening to Deteronomy. Never once is the caveat given that Moses could have got it down wrong, this is never even floated as a possibility. It would be quite unfair of God to expect obedience to things he hadn't said. Similarly, Jesus in Matthew 5 is determined that not even a jot of the Law and the Prophets should be sidelined or ignored, and this is also seen in Pauline thought - Romans 15 "whatever is written is former days is for our benefit". I certainly think in the later writings if there were parts of God's word that were not really his word, he would have made it clear, rather than constantly berating/encouraging based on the complete obedience to it. This is obviously open to the riposte that you think the bits of the Bible I have pointed out are errors (!) but there is nothing I can do about that.
1) The process by which we received the scriptures was not one of divine dictation. I don't think even the most ardent inerrantist would argue for that. Thus the possibility exists, as it were, that God's words, if you like, were misheard by the human authors. This implies no slight on God's character.
quote:But is the Bible fit for the purpose which we (at least I) claim it is fit for if it is unreliable? Can it introduce us to the true God, and be the introduction point for a relationship of faith (which means taking promises as reliable and trusting them) if it is not in fact trustworthy? I think there is also something here about the fact that God bases his relationship with people, and his expectation that they should trust him on the fact that his actions and words have been true and trustworthy in the past. Certainly throughout Deuteronomy he expresses this sentiment repeatedly. I would submit that the Bible is not fit for this purpose, to bring us to faith in God's promises, if in itself it is not trustworthy. No matter what you think about the tenses in 2 Tim 3:16 the Bible is supposed to make us "wise for salvation".
2) There is no reason to interpret scriptural "perfection", to use the current in term, to mean "inerrant". Many would argue that "perfection" refers to fitness for purpose. Thus, "The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul," is just a poetic way of saying, "one of the best paths towards spiritual refreshment is Bible reading," a sentiment with which we would probably all agree. I would submit that the inerrancy or otherwise of the text has no bearing upon its efficacy to be a vehicle through which the Holy Spirit can interact with an individual. Indeed, it is at least possible that 2Tim 3:16 (the "God-breathed" scripture) refers to the present inspiration, rather than the original inspiration of the text.
quote:Hmmm, I wouldn't agree. I don't think the Bible ever makes this distinction between grace and truth. Truth leads us to grace, and grace keeps us in truth. I think (perhaps because of your experience of Conv evo Christians) you make a link between legalism and inerrancy that shouldn't follow. Truth leads us to relationship, rather than blocking us from it. In fact, I can only really get to know you, if you are telling me the truth about yourself.
It is at least possible, surely you would agree, that God does not want a cut-and-dried, infallible Bible, because the purpose of the Scriptures is to lead us into relationship with the Word, that is Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, rather than have us follow a rule-book.
quote:JJ, we have already discussed this on the PSA thread, and you know that I do not accept this. I would refer you to my earlier post where I talked about the relationship between the Jesus of the Gospels and the God of the OT. Its interesting, even if you do write off the OT God as being inconsistent, that we have that same Jesus (recorded by the same author if you accept Johannine authorship) promising to kill someone's children because they have lead God's people away from the truth. This sounds quite like the rationale for getting rid of the Canaanites in Joshua, that they will lead God's people astray...Anyway, this may need another thread..
If the Joshua account is true, (wrt God's instructions, rather than the historical facts) then Jesus was wrong when He said "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father", because there is no way to could reconcile such an incomprehensibly evil act with the Jesus we read of in the New Testament, or whom I see incarnated in my brothers and sisters.
quote:AB, I don't think I said that God couldn't use a fallible Bible. Of course he could. I am saying that he chooses not to; he expects us to put such high stock on his words, (to stake our eternity on his promises being true no less) that he himself makes the link between his words and his character that his words are to be viewed as he is. Now if there was any hint that God didn't stand by some of the things he has revealed then I would think you have a point, but I would also be wondering what reason I have to trust his promises in the Gospel. I think your point is about us and our fallibility is good, but the fact that we are fallible and God's word is not is why I would, in evangelism always want to keep the message the central thing, and my life as a pointer to it, rather than "our lives are the message" that you hear people say. But that's another debate.
My point, therefore, is why God can't use a fallible Bible too? If God's redemptive message can still win out through the muddy waters of our collective witnesses, can't it also win out through the odd mistake and bias here and there? Why, since we represent God down here, aren't we perfect and innerrant? Or why doesn't God use agents who are?
quote:Where, exactly?
we have that same Jesus (recorded by the same author if you accept Johannine authorship) promising to kill someone's children because they have lead God's people away from the truth.
quote:Revelation
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
quote:Where, exactly?
we have that same Jesus (recorded by the same author if you accept Johannine authorship) promising to kill someone's children because they have lead God's people away from the truth.
You now have me scared.
quote:Sorry Lep, I wasn't implying that you thought that God was incapable of using a fallible Bible, but I was trying to point out that you feel God is 'constrained' by His character - and I was trying to counter that by sharing the the realm of teaching and proclaiming with us fallibles indicates that it's perhaps not as clear cut as we would like. If God is willing and able (in His character) to allow us humans to misrepresent Him, why then the special case for the Bible?
I don't think I said that God couldn't use a fallible Bible. Of course he could. I am saying that he chooses not to; he expects us to put such high stock on his words, (to stake our eternity on his promises being true no less) that he himself makes the link between his words and his character that his words are to be viewed as he is.
quote:By seeing them mirrored in life? By seeing, in your life, that God is in control? And, to put it Biblically: "If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether [Jesus'] teaching comes from God or whether [He] speaks on [His] own. (John 7:17)
...but I would also be wondering what reason I have to trust his promises in the Gospel
quote:I think that particular passage is open to a non-literal translation, myself.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:Revelation
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
quote:Where, exactly?
we have that same Jesus (recorded by the same author if you accept Johannine authorship) promising to kill someone's children because they have lead God's people away from the truth.
You now have me scared.
Ah yes, I meant to say "if you accept Joahnnine authorship of Revelation". Apologies. Its in Rev 2:23.
quote:Thank you for your reply in such non-pejorative, objective terms. Revelation 2 is clearly describing a situation where Jesus "doesn't like" Jezebel.
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
quote:I think that particular passage is open to a non-literal translation, myself.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:Revelation
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
quote:Where, exactly?
we have that same Jesus (recorded by the same author if you accept Johannine authorship) promising to kill someone's children because they have lead God's people away from the truth.
You now have me scared.
Ah yes, I meant to say "if you accept Joahnnine authorship of Revelation". Apologies. Its in Rev 2:23.
A literal translation gives us a Jesus who says "Suffer the little children, unless I don't like their mother in which case I'll murder the little bastards" - doesn't quite work, really.
quote:Thank you. Most gracious. I appreciate it.
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
My apologies if you thought I was talking to you like an idiot. I was merely expressing my opinions on the passage and the reason I find a literal interpretation incompatible with Jesus as He is otherwise revealed. Again, my apologies if you took it differently.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:, ad so, of course, I wouldn't make that riposte!!
This is obviously open to the riposte that you think the bits of the Bible I have pointed out are errors (!) but there is nothing I can do about that.
quote:But our faith is not in the Bible, it is in Jesus. An introductory point is just that, it is not a complete representation. We know His promises are true because we find them to be so. I feel sure that, in your own personal experience, important though the Bible clearly is to you, it is a relatively small, if central part of your relationship with God. It is a useful tool, no doubt it helped you to come to faith, and continues to help you grow in faith, but it is God's actions, not his words, that save you, as it does me. I contend that to say the bible is not inerrant is not the same as to say it is untrustworthy, as a whole, but merely that, in certain parts, it expresses sentimets that are not those of the Divine authour (though, of course, they are those of the human author.) As for it "making us wise unto salvation", of course it does, it's what we have, but it insufficient in and of itself. It might tell us all we need to know to be saved, but it is the Holy Spirit who does the saving, not the words of the book, be they ever so inspired.
But is the Bible fit for the purpose which we (at least I) claim it is fit for if it is unreliable? Can it introduce us to the true God, and be the introduction point for a relationship of faith (which means taking promises as reliable and trusting them) if it is not in fact trustworthy?
quote:Fish Fish, how is that not "sitting over" the text, and elevating your own reason above the plain words? Why is it any different from when other people do that with other passages?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Taking a verse out of context, we could conclude that the Bible tells us of people wanting to smash babies heads against rocks - so we should do the same.
But in its context, smashing baby's heads is a cry of anger and pain from Israel in captivity - it doesn't claim to be prescriptive of how we are to behave - it seems instead to be descriptive of how they were feeling. When interpreted by the rest of scripture, we build a picture of a people in rebellion who should turn back to God in repentance rather than smash babies heads against rocks.
quote:Can I first of all echo all that Leprachaun has said about the character of God being revealed in his words, and his words being true. I think that is an excellent and convincing argument.
Originally posted by kiwigoldfish:
A less trivial example is the council at Jerusalem, to discuss the Gentile issue. Those guys could have talked around in circles debating the circumcision thing, but suddenly the attention turned not just to biblical precepts, but experience. (Acts 15:12.) And in that instance, by recognising where God was at, they actually tested the scriptures against their experience, which is back to front from what we are normally told. At other times they tested experience against scripture - but at all times they assumed that they were under God's authority.
quote:So far we've been defending the claim for the Bible's innerancy and truth as God's pure revelation. The argument against innerancy has been largely based on "error" texts. I have argued that, if there are solutions to these minority of texts, we should take these solutions seriously.
Originally posted by kiwigoldfish:
Rather than assuming authority over the text, from what I've read here the non-inerrant approach would seek God's authority over the text, and more importantly their own lives. Yes, motives and preconceoptions will muddy the issue, but I don't think the position is as untenable as you imply.
quote:But I really don't think this is a fair ananolgy for the Constitution does not claim to be the revelation of God to man - it doesn't claim the same level of authority. It doesn't claim to be written by perfect people.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The analogy earlier on this thread with the US Constitution (with the usual caveats of not taking the analogy too far) seems to me right. No-one would claim the Constitution is infallible or inerrant, yet it gives authority to the US state. There is even a Supreme Court whose function (as I understand it) is to sort out the implications of the Constitution and to ammend it as necessary. So, by your logic, the Supreme Court has authority over the constitution, yet the Supreme Court sees itself as the servant of the Constitution, and draws its authority from the Constitution. So I don't see that there is any necessary contradiction in having a non-inerrant source of authority.
quote:Good question! I think because
Originally posted by Talitha:
quote:Fish Fish, how is that not "sitting over" the text, and elevating your own reason above the plain words? Why is it any different from when other people do that with other passages?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Taking a verse out of context, we could conclude that the Bible tells us of people wanting to smash babies heads against rocks - so we should do the same.
But in its context, smashing baby's heads is a cry of anger and pain from Israel in captivity - it doesn't claim to be prescriptive of how we are to behave - it seems instead to be descriptive of how they were feeling. When interpreted by the rest of scripture, we build a picture of a people in rebellion who should turn back to God in repentance rather than smash babies heads against rocks.
quote:But that is precisely my point. If a text which has no pretentions to inspiration can, notwithstanding any flaws within it, be universally regarded as authoritative within its own sphere, how much more can a text which we all, I think, agree is inspired to a greater or lesser extent. Clearly, its authority will be enhanced compared to such a text, not diminished. Yet no-one in the States, as far as I know, wants to throw out the constitution because it is not perfect.
But I really don't think this is a fair ananolgy for the Constitution does not claim to be the revelation of God to man - it doesn't claim the same level of authority. It doesn't claim to be written by perfect people.
quote:But this is precisely the process which leads many non-inerrantists to question the Joshua texts. If it is wrong for people to smash babies heads against walls in Babylon, it is wrong for them to do it in Canaan, and for the same reason. If we come across a text which indicates that God is asking people to do that, then that text is, IMHO in error, because it is clearly against the teaching of the rest of the Bible, and most especially the teaching of Jesus. Spiritualise it all one likes, those were real people being murdered in a most brutal and horrific way. I don't see how anyone could believe this was commanded by the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Its not so much me trying to find a clever interpretation, and thus sit over the text - its more an attempt to let the text interpret the text - and so sitting under the whole text.
quote:Good question! I think because
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Fish Fish, how is that not "sitting over" the text, and elevating your own reason above the plain words? Why is it any different from when other people do that with other passages?
quote:this is very interesting stuff indeed. It seems to me that God never makes this distinction between "I spoke these words" and "I work through my Spirit". Rather because God's words are "spirited/inspired/breathed" by Him they do indeed do his work. This is not to take away from the Holy Spirit's work at all, because he brings these words to us, and if the word is living, it is because it is brought by the Spirit, but it deos mean that putting our faith in God's words is trusting God.
It might tell us all we need to know to be saved, but it is the Holy Spirit who does the saving, not the words of the book, be they ever so inspired.
quote:is an argument my heart has a great deal of sympathy with . I really can understand the emotional appeal of it, but it does not actually address the can of worms it opens.
I don't see how anyone could believe this was commanded by the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
quote:Sorry - this isn't what I meant at all - but I can completely see how that comes accross - so applogies. What I was saying about "clever interpretations" was in no way a dig at anyone but myself. It sometimes looks like "innerantists" have to make some very clever interpretations to get themselves out of tricky situations or genocidal passages. I was trying to deffend myself against that accusation. So total appologies to Papio and Josephine for my mistake. I hope you can see I was not trying to cause offence, or claim it was you doing the clever interpretations.
Originally posted by Papio:
So all non-inerrantists ignore the context and try to use the Bible to make themselves feel smart?
quote:Sorry - the reason I keep slipping between "you" and "the church" as the arbiters of truth is that I see both the individual and the church as flawed and sinful. So when we are talking of innerancy, the opposite is sometimes summarised by me as "You" meaning either "you" or "The Church". But of course, there is a difference between individuals and the church as you rightly point out. So, sorry again for when I use the phrases interchangably.
Originally posted by josephine:
But I believe that the final arbiter of correct interpretation is not me, but the Church. Instead of trusting myself to get it right, all by my lonesome, I trust the accumulated wisdom and holiness of the people of all places and times who have loved and served God. I know that I may sin in such a way that I drive God's Holy Spirit away from me, and while I pray that I do not, I trust, with all my heart, that the Holy Spirit has not and will not ever leave the Church. God never said that the gates of Hell would not prevail over me, nor that I am the butress and foundation of the Truth, but he said those things of the Church.
Therefore, I submit myself to the Bible, and not to the Bible as I understand it (because I know that, in my weakness and sin, I can twist the words to mean whatever I want them to mean), but the Bible as it has been revealed to, entrusted to, and interpreted by the Church, which is the very Body of Christ.
quote:Sorry - again I was not implying you were trying to be clever. And you clearly don't want to set yourself as authority over the Bible. Many people don't. But what I am arguing for is that the logic that, if we think we (individually or the church) have the right to spot Biblical errors, then logically we (individually or the church) are claiming to be superior or authoritative over the text.
Originally posted by josephine:
I understand how that's different from what you do. What I fail to understand is how my approach implies that I'm just trying to be clever, how it implies that I just want to set myself up as an authority over the Bible.
)
quote:This doesn't jive with my understanding of what the Bible says about the Church. The Church (not the Bible) is the ground and pillar of the truth (1 Tim 3:15), and our Lord promised that He would establish it so that the gates of Hades would not prevail against it. Which is, taken at face value, the basic Orthodox take on it.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But I believe the problem is the same. Even though the church is blessed with the HS, and even though there is tons of wisdom in the church, there is also tons of sin, and lots of agenda's which cloud and complicate any discussions. And this is why I believe the church both can and does err and wander from the truth. It seems to me that the only conceivable way to avoid this is to accept the Bible as the authoritative word of God - God speaking to his church in a form we can refer to and study and submit to as wise and God given.
quote:The point that I was making was specifically about the covenant requirement for circumcision. It is impossible to equivocally prove from the OT that circumcision was no longer mandatory. Some of the pro-circ lobby could have refused to listen to Paul and Barnabbas's reports that God was indeed blessing the Gentiles on the basis that the Scriptures were pretty darn clear on the issue. Instead they recognised the work of God, and saw His authority coming down separately from scriptural revelation.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:Can I first of all echo all that Leprachaun has said about the character of God being revealed in his words, and his words being true. I think that is an excellent and convincing argument.
Originally posted by kiwigoldfish:
A less trivial example is the council at Jerusalem ... blah blah ... but at all times they assumed that they were under God's authority.
As for the example from Acts - I don't think its as clear cut as you present. The expereinces Paul and Barnabas report are the product of their thier proclamation of the gospel - a gospel based on OT prophecies (God's word) and Jesus' teaching (God's word). Through this gospel, gentiles were being saved (v11). Their experience was confirming the revelation from God and what Jesus taught. But the theology came first. Others were still catching up to revelation from Jesus.
quote:I find it kind of ironic that you quote 1 Timothy 3:15 when the whole book is all about how the church can be riddled with false teachers - and thus far from the truth. The solution for Timothy is to follow the Apostle's teaching - "the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me." (1:10-11) which we now have as our NT.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:This doesn't jive with my understanding of what the Bible says about the Church. The Church (not the Bible) is the ground and pillar of the truth (1 Tim 3:15), and our Lord promised that He would establish it so that the gates of Hades would not prevail against it. Which is, taken at face value, the basic Orthodox take on it.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But I believe the problem is the same. Even though the church is blessed with the HS, and even though there is tons of wisdom in the church, there is also tons of sin, and lots of agenda's which cloud and complicate any discussions. And this is why I believe the church both can and does err and wander from the truth. It seems to me that the only conceivable way to avoid this is to accept the Bible as the authoritative word of God - God speaking to his church in a form we can refer to and study and submit to as wise and God given.
quote:I guess my answer to this would be the same as the post above - these are the apostles, comissioned by Jesus, and different from us. Their teaching is what is now our NT, and so when they were wrestling with these issues, they were uniquely guided by God to work out these doctrines. And while the doctrines could not perhaps be worked out from the OT, they were an reasonable conclusion from what Jesus had taught - and the appostles knew what he had taught them and commissioned them to teach.
Originally posted by kiwigoldfish:
The point that I was making was specifically about the covenant requirement for circumcision. It is impossible to equivocally prove from the OT that circumcision was no longer mandatory. Some of the pro-circ lobby could have refused to listen to Paul and Barnabbas's reports that God was indeed blessing the Gentiles on the basis that the Scriptures were pretty darn clear on the issue. Instead they recognised the work of God, and saw His authority coming down separately from scriptural revelation.
My point was not that the circumcision covenant was an OT error, but that the early church had no problem accepting authority based on whether it was a fallible source (Paul and Barnabbas were presumably fallible, subjective experience is also fallible.) I was specifically looking at the issue you raised regarding whether or not we could judge a source of authority, and pointing out that authority comes from all directions, it's not a simple one way flow model.
None of which excludes the possibility of infallible scriptures (please remember that this tends to be my default setting.) I'm just teasing out little sub issues along the way, in what is actually a quite a complex issue.
quote:Kind of a moot point really, considering Paul spends a considerable amount of time in the first chapter underlining his own fallibility. If the gospel was entrusted to a fallible person, surely it could be entrusted to a fallible Church and contained within errant scriptures?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I find it kind of ironic that you quote 1 Timothy 3:15 when the whole book is all about how the church can be riddled with false teachers - and thus far from the truth. The solution for Timothy is to follow the Apostle's teaching - "the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me." (1:10-11) which we now have as our NT.
quote:Paul seems confident about his teaching - but his authoritative teaching is confirmed by another apostle, Peter, when he writes (with a very high view of scripture) -"Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16)
Originally posted by kiwigoldfish:
quote:Kind of a moot point really, considering Paul spends a considerable amount of time in the first chapter underlining his own fallibility. If the gospel was entrusted to a fallible person, surely it could be entrusted to a fallible Church and contained within errant scriptures?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I find it kind of ironic that you quote 1 Timothy 3:15 when the whole book is all about how the church can be riddled with false teachers - and thus far from the truth. The solution for Timothy is to follow the Apostle's teaching - "the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me." (1:10-11) which we now have as our NT.
quote:Fair enough.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I guess my answer to this would be the same as the post above - these are the apostles, comissioned by Jesus, and different from us. Their teaching is what is now our NT, and so when they were wrestling with these issues, they were uniquely guided by God to work out these doctrines. And while the doctrines could not perhaps be worked out from the OT, they were an reasonable conclusion from what Jesus had taught - and the appostles knew what he had taught them and commissioned them to teach.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
quote:OK, I understand that you believe God guided them to infallibility on these matters. But where does the idea that this guidance was unique come from? What makes you believe that the insights of these men were more special than those of (say) the author of the Gospel of Thomas, or indeed your own?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Their teaching is what is now our NT, and so when they were wrestling with these issues, they were uniquely guided by God to work out these doctrines.
quote:Different from us in what way? Being commisioned by Jesus? Aren't we all called by Christ? Or were they somehow 'better placed' than us because of their proximity to the incarnate God, whereas we have the Holy Spirit? Don't get me wrong - we owe so much of our faith to the witness of the early church and the apostles in particular, but I don't see why we should regard their relationship with God in Trinity to be any more special than ours.
these are the apostles, comissioned by Jesus, and different from us.
quote:Again, why were these people 'uniquely guided by God'? Isn't that a straight-jacketing of God? Can't God continue to guide his people in respect of doctrine?
Their teaching is what is now our NT, and so when they were wrestling with these issues, they were uniquely guided by God to work out these doctrines.
quote:First, let me just say that if the authority of the books in question were so apparent to the Church at the time, it puzzles me that there was any need for the lengthy and complex process of Conciliar discernment that led to the formation of the Canon in the first place.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I don't see the church as sitting over the texts, in editorship, deciding which were in and which were out, and chopping the bits they didn't like. Rather, the church recognised the scriptures when they read them - their authority was apparent - their apostolic authoriship was their mark of authenticity - and also their consistency with the rest of scripture. When you compare the Biblical books with those which were rejected, these rejected texts massively contradict / teach different things about God etc.
So, in summary - the church recognised what was given rather than sitting over the text and editting it.
quote:This is just to assume that the Scriptures are the supreme and sole authority for the Church. I reject both those claims ( apart from anything else, they are both very late ideas, not significantly pre-dating the Protestant reformation), and refer you to my answer of some moments ago.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:Agreed. But in order for the church to operate within some God given boundaries, and knowing that people will err and stray unless they have some boundaries, God has given us the scriptures. If you abandon their authority, or water their authority down, then the church can drift into all sorts of heresy - as indeed it did pre-reformation.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The Church herself is the continuation of the revelation of God to the world
quote:By the careful process of discernment in the Spirit, and from her accumulated wisdom and experinece of being Christ's Body, using sacred scripture as one very important resource. I find it impossible to see how it could have been so dogmatically determined by proof texting, as you seem to suggest.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:Ok then - how did we get the doctrine of the trinity if not by formalising what is written in the scriptures?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The doctrine of the Trinity as a "summary" of the texts is an idea that I admit to finding utterly bizarre!
quote:But you are already assuming that the Spirit has nothing to add to our understanding other that through what has been revealed in the Books! The Spirit does not change in that the Spirit does not contradict Itself, but the Spirit lives and speaks to the Church constantly as the Church needs to hear and learn - it's just not all repetition, you know! If the Spirit had said everything that was required in Scripture, there would be no need for continued discernment once we'd got the "plain" meaning of the Scriptures sorted out. The Spirit is not a voice or a message but a Person of the Godhead. Words alone, no matter how inspired, will not exhaust the message to the Church - the dialogue between God and the Church is a living personal one.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I am NOT saying the church is not invoved in interpreting the scriptures or forming doctrine. I am NOT saying the Spirit is not massively involved. But what I AM saying is that the Spirit has already spoken to us with authority, and so we can test what we think the Spirit may be saying to us today by comparing with what he has said in the past, becasue he does not change.
quote:But the dialogue between the Church and her Lord is not "set". The Scriptures are just one interpretative tool for the discernment of God's life-giving Word.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:The text isn't changing. Its set.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The text is set as what? It's not a bus timetable. So the text is such that, even after all the Councils and centuries of controversies, we can't be sure we've got it right evwen yet? What kind of plain authoritative text is this?
quote:Oh, I think you are absolutely right! My defence on the grounds of solutions to tricky passages being available doesn't cerry much weight if you don't beleive innerancy. But its added weight if
Originally posted by kiwigoldfish:
So your explanations of the "gaps" or issues people see in inerrancy are adequate defence if you begin with the presumption of inerrancy. But they are inadequate if you begin with the presumption of non-inerrancy. And vice versa.
quote:I have to confess, I don't quite understand this. Are you arguing that the broad agreement between the individual books of the Bible is a pointer to its inerrancy?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
We acknowledge the vast majority of the text (written by many people over many centuries) is hugely consistant - I think this gives added weight to the argument
quote:While I'm not sure I agree with this (I don't know about FF, I suspect not) it is not the point if this discussion. The point is the one that you make. That the Spirit does not contradict what he has said before. The discussion we have been having is about whether errors in the Bible show that it does contradict itself (either because He made a mistake, or as most people seem to be saying, because He didn't inspire it effectively). No one is arguing here (I don't think) that He does not give more revelation (either in the NT or now) but simply whether there are errors based de facto on supposed contradictions.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The Spirit does not change in that the Spirit does not contradict Itself, but the Spirit lives and speaks to the Church constantly as the Church needs to hear and learn - it's just not all repetition, you know!
quote:So Paul lied then when he said the church was the ground and pillar of the truth?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I find it kind of ironic that you quote 1 Timothy 3:15 when the whole book is all about how the church can be riddled with false teachers - and thus far from the truth.
quote:
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
OK, I understand that you believe God guided them to infallibility on these matters. But where does the idea that this guidance was unique come from? What makes you believe that the insights of these men were more special than those of (say) the author of the Gospel of Thomas, or indeed your own?
quote:The apostles are different from us in being specially commissioned by the risen Jesus as his messengers - it seems they are different from us as disciples - So, they are specially blessed with the HS to accurately remember and record what Jesus said (John 14:26). And they speak authoritatively from God (2 Peter 3:2). So, they teach in a way that we do not.
Originally posted by Ponty'n'pop:
Different from us in what way? Being commisioned by Jesus? Aren't we all called by Christ? Or were they somehow 'better placed' than us because of their proximity to the incarnate God, whereas we have the Holy Spirit? Don't get me wrong - we owe so much of our faith to the witness of the early church and the apostles in particular, but I don't see why we should regard their relationship with God in Trinity to be any more special than ours.
quote:That seems to me what we are being told in the NT. But, of course God can still guide us - I've never denied that - but I will keep banging on about him giving us authoritative and innerant boundaries with which to guide us.
Originally posted by Ponty'n'pop:
Again, why were these people 'uniquely guided by God'? Isn't that a straight-jacketing of God? Can't God continue to guide his people in respect of doctrine?
quote:Sorry - will have to place my hands up to ignorance about this church history. But, it still seems to me, that what we have in the NT today is the apostles teaching - and waht was rejected was seen to not be their teaching. Sorry to not know more on this!
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
First, let me just say that if the authority of the books in question were so apparent to the Church at the time, it puzzles me that there was any need for the lengthy and complex process of Conciliar discernment that led to the formation of the Canon in the first place.
quote:Part of the answer must be that "ignorant and unstable people distort [the scriptures] ...to their own destruction." (2Peter 3:16)!
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Again, I repeat: if the Bible is the sort of plainly and supremely authoritative text you claim, why the honest and godly disagreement between His people, or the need for lengthy "interpretative" processes?
CB
quote:Yes. But more than broad agreement - the consistant message of God's love and justice, the prophecies fulfilled, etc...
Originally posted by Stoo:
I have to confess, I don't quite understand this. Are you arguing that the broad agreement between the individual books of the Bible is a pointer to its inerrancy?
quote:No - the consistance is much more than that. Wew could gather texts from many religions which talk about God, wut banging them together in the same book would not give us a consistant picture of God at all. So, I would suggest, you are way underestimating the consistancy of message in the Bible.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Consistency of theme is hardly surprising in a collection of texts about God collected by a God-centred community who believed that it was important to preserve stuff about God. It's like saying a stamp collector consistently applied herself to Philately.
quote:No - The fact that there are false teachers aplently teaching un-truth is clear evidence that Paul does not always believe every church is the ground and pillar of the truth. The church is the ground and pillar of the truth when it is basing its teaching on the truth - and Paul explains that is found in the apostles teaching etc...
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:So Paul lied then when he said the church was the ground and pillar of the truth?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I find it kind of ironic that you quote 1 Timothy 3:15 when the whole book is all about how the church can be riddled with false teachers - and thus far from the truth.
quote:But the point is, the books were picked precisely because they were consistant. You might as well argue that it's amazing that all the plays in a Shakespearian anthology were written by Shakespeare.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
And since it was written by many people over many centuries, some of whom didn't know what others had written, I find its consitancy totally amazing.
quote:From Matthew 5:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
What Lep said above about no one in the Bible correcting previous bits - saying "oops, God didn't say this" or "the writer was wrong to say that".
quote:This is your spin. This isn't what Paul said. You don't believe what Paul said. Hypocrite.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
No - The fact that there are false teachers aplently teaching un-truth is clear evidence that Paul does not always believe every church is the ground and pillar of the truth.
quote:Oh come on! You are proof texting - the very thing "innerantists" are accused of! Lets read what Paul says about the church in the context of the letter, and even the verses around it. Either he is completely schizophrenic in saying the church is the source of truth in one sentance and prone to error in another - or he was qualifying what he meant. Please lets read everything that he says rather than take it out of context.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:This is your spin. This isn't what Paul said. You don't believe what Paul said. Hypocrite.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
No - The fact that there are false teachers aplently teaching un-truth is clear evidence that Paul does not always believe every church is the ground and pillar of the truth.
quote:No - they were picked because of their apostolic authorship.
Originally posted by Stoo:
quote:But the point is, the books were picked precisely because they were consistant. You might as well argue that it's amazing that all the plays in a Shakespearian anthology were written by Shakespeare.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
And since it was written by many people over many centuries, some of whom didn't know what others had written, I find its consitancy totally amazing.
quote:At first glance it seems you have a good point. Jesus does seemt o be correcting the OT. However...
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:From Matthew 5:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
What Lep said above about no one in the Bible correcting previous bits - saying "oops, God didn't say this" or "the writer was wrong to say that".
You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' ,But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother, will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. ...
You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. ...
quote:This OT law was reigning in vengeance - restricting it to an eye for an eye. Jesus again takes the principle of reigning in vengeance, and applies it even more stringently. So he is not correcting it in the sense of "This is totally wrong" - rather (as above) "This is good, apply it more deeply"
Originally posted by josephine:
You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. ...
quote:"Love your neighbour" is an OT quote, whuich again Jesus reinforces. "Hate your enemy" is not an OT quote - its a misquote, perhaps by the pharisees, excusing hatred and vengeance. So Jesus is not correcting the OT, but a misquotation.
Originally posted by josephine:
You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you ....
quote:And the Church Fathers who compiled the Bible confirmed the "apostleship" (I'm assuming you're talking both OT and NT authors here) of the authors how, exactly?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
No - they were picked because of their apostolic authorship.
quote:But as others have said, this assumes that we have nothing more to learn beyond what has already been revealed, that God has nothing more to say to us, even though we are constantly seeking renewal in faith and witness.
quote:
Originally posted by Ponty'n'pop:
Again, why were these people 'uniquely guided by God'? Isn't that a straight-jacketing of God? Can't God continue to guide his people in respect of doctrine?
To which Fish Fish replied:
That seems to me what we are being told in the NT. But, of course God can still guide us - I've never denied that - but I will keep banging on about him giving us authoritative and innerant boundaries with which to guide us.
quote:P'n'p
If the Spirit had said everything that was required in Scripture, there would be no need for continued discernment once we'd got the "plain" meaning of the Scriptures sorted out. The Spirit is not a voice or a message but a Person of the Godhead. Words alone, no matter how inspired, will not exhaust the message to the Church - the dialogue between God and the Church is a living personal one.
quote:No one is arguing that the Spirit can't guide or continue to reveal to us!!!
Originally posted by Ponty'n'pop:
But as others have said, this assumes that we have nothing more to learn beyond what has already been revealed, that God has nothing more to say to us, even though we are constantly seeking renewal in faith and witness.
Chesterbelloc sums this up eloquently above:
quote:P'n'p
If the Spirit had said everything that was required in Scripture, there would be no need for continued discernment once we'd got the "plain" meaning of the Scriptures sorted out. The Spirit is not a voice or a message but a Person of the Godhead. Words alone, no matter how inspired, will not exhaust the message to the Church - the dialogue between God and the Church is a living personal one.
quote:Woah there skippy. I've read this comparison with schizophrenia in another essay on innerrancy before and it really bothers me.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Either he is completely schizophrenic in saying the church is the source of truth in one sentance and prone to error in another - or he was qualifying what he meant.
quote:Sorry - terrible example. I totally retract that.
Originally posted by AB:
quote:Woah there skippy. I've read this comparison with schizophrenia in another essay on innerrancy before and it really bothers me.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Either he is completely schizophrenic in saying the church is the source of truth in one sentance and prone to error in another - or he was qualifying what he meant.
It's like HIDEOUSLY offensive to those who have suffered with or who have loved ones who suffer with it (as I do) as it in no-way represents the actual condition. Please, Fish Fish, never use that example again.
Right, let's carry on.
AB
quote:Fish Fish, I did read your quote very carefully:
Originally posted by FF:
No one is arguing that the Spirit can't guide or continue to reveal to us!!!
quote:What you seem to me to be saying is that the Spirit cannot reveal to us anything new, that everything that has to be said has already been said, that the boundaries have been fixed.
But, of course God can still guide us - I've never denied that - but I will keep banging on about him giving us authoritative and innerant boundaries with which to guide us.
quote:Ah, now I can see what this has to do with inerrancy. This is a character of God issue again - does God say things and then contradict himself? He says he doesn't. Our whole faith relies on Him not doing that.
PnP wrote:
God is too big to be put in boxes. We are too small to say 'the boundaries have been set'.
quote:But this is based on a very specific (and 'modern') take on truth, vis that it is only expressed through facts. God could remain consistent in expressing truth through a message that might be factually untrue or factually changing. This need not be an 'error' but simply a different way of communicating truth.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
This is a character of God issue again - does God say things and then contradict himself? He says he doesn't. Our whole faith relies on Him not doing that.
quote:Glad you feel we're back on track. In response to this comment, I'd add two things.
Ah, now I can see what this has to do with inerrancy. This is a character of God issue again - does God say things and then contradict himself? He says he doesn't. Our whole faith relies on Him not doing that.
That is why the Bible remains a solid guide, not because we are boxing God, but because he can be trusted to stick by what he says.....
quote:I'm nervous about commenting on the example you use for the dead horse reason. So I'll steer clear. But as, you rightly say, our ability to spot contradiction is so skewed, it seems to me that it doesn't make much sense to build a whole theology on the assumption that there are contradictions and that we can spot them, as "errancy" does. It assumes a level of intelligence and theological clarity on our part that the Bible writers did not have.
Originally posted by Ponty'n'pop:
Firstly, about God and contradiction. I would argue that because our relationship with God is a moving one, then God saying something which to our (imperfect) understanding appears contradictory is not necessarily so. Thus, for example, I argue that God approves of gay relationships founded in love. On the one hand, this may be contradicting God's dictate (given through Moses or Paul), on the other it is wholly consistent with the pattern (nay commandment) given by Jesus of approving of love wherever and whenever it is found. I underline that our understanding is imperfect but so too then is our ability to say that there is or is not contradiction.
quote:As I have said before, and as you point out, the real issue is inspiration - if you don't believe in verbal inspiration there's no reason to accept inerrancy. I do believe God "inspired" the Bible writers in ways he does not do to me.
Secondly, God can be trusted to stick by what he says, of course, but can he be trusted - no that expression is wrong - can we bind him to stick to what others said on his behalf. Can you bind him to stick to the wisdom you have received? I can't.
. Things have moved on a bit, and I've been somewhat remiss in answering some of the points with which I had earlier committed myself to deal. I don't want to take us back too much, but I do want to answer one point from Lep. quote:I agree with the basic slant of this, as far as it goes. Of course, in denying inerrancy, I am not denying the truth of the Bible, no, really, I'm not, I'm just saying that in some places, some authors got it wrong. The question that this seems to posit for you is, why has an omnipotent God allowed such errors to go uncorrected. It was this impled question that I was seeking to address. If I could just deconstruct your scenario for a moment. You are right in saying that all constructive relationships rely on truth. Certainly, there is no future in a relationship based on a lie. However, the basis of our relationship with God is in Jesus through the Holy Spirit. The bible is (or may be, for some, even most,) important, but it is not the basis, per se, of our relationship. Just bear with me, whilst I develop this. In a human relationship, whilst truth must always be present, it is not necessary, or even desireable, that it be totally revealed, at every stage in that relationship. A child will know that her mother loves her from birth, but won't understand, or even know that she is, say, a doctor, until much later on. Is she diminished by being unknowing of this truth? Not at all.
Truth leads us to relationship, rather than blocking us from it. In fact, I can only really get to know you, if you are telling me the truth about yourself.
quote:a) I'm not building a whole theology on an assumption that there are contradictions; my theology (if it's mine) is built around the belief that God makes scripture relevant for today and in that, the relationship between God, scripture and the Church is forever changing (even if God doesn't change...)
But as, you rightly say, our ability to spot contradiction is so skewed, it seems to me that it doesn't make much sense to build a whole theology on the assumption that there are contradictions and that we can spot them, as "errancy" does. It assumes a level of intelligence and theological clarity on our part that the Bible writers did not have.
quote:Oh, there's nothing in particular which gives the Gospel writers greater authority. I suppose it's a fairly undeveloped part of my hermeneutic (learn a new word every day...) but if called to account for why I personally give more weight to the words that Jesus said (or should that be 'reported to have said'?
You seem to pass all parts of the Bible through a sift of Jesus' words - if they contradict his words they must be wrong. What gives you such faith that the writers of the Gospels were able to authoritatively and accurately record his words, but the writers of the OT and Paul might have been mistaken in passing on God's words?
) then it can be nothing other than my own personal, private experience of God, which, thus far at least has been primarily supported by Christ's teaching of love and acceptance rather than, er.., some of the less tolerant examples of behaviour which the Bible provides and in parts even advocates.
quote:seems to me to put the cart before the horse. I would have thought that the default theology of the Christian church is not inerrancy, but the Orthodox Position (TM). It is rather that inerrantist position seeks to build a theology based on inerrancy. As evidence for this, I suggest that it is unture that non-inerrancy (rather than errancy, which I accept as shorthand, but does rather give the impression that it is the possible errors, rather than the possibility of errors, which become important ) requires:-
But as, you rightly say, our ability to spot contradiction is so skewed, it seems to me that it doesn't make much sense to build a whole theology on the assumption that there are contradictions and that we can spot them, as "errancy" does.
quote:I have tried to address this in my, unfortunately rambling and lengthy, previous post.
It assumes a level of intelligence and theological clarity on our part that the Bible writers did not have.
quote:That brings us back to the question of to what extent the Bible is God's word, and to what extent it is the words of the human author. There is also the question of genre, and how we understand it. For example, is a historical book, (say, Ruth) historical in the modern sense of the word, or is it a book trying to show how
I do not believe he can or does pass on truth through factual error. This, to me, would be a dissemblance of the worst kind if that was his explanation of how his words can be true, while actually being false.
quote:Guess it's because I have a relationship with Jesus, but I don't have one with Paul or Samuel
What gives you such faith that the writers of the Gospels were able to authoritatively and accurately record his words, but the writers of the OT and Paul might have been mistaken in passing on God's words?
quote:I think this is a false dichotomy. If, as Christians, we believe that Jesus was truly God and truly human, then there is at least one case in which the words of (a) human being are also God's words. Yet, even, in the case of Jesus those words were mediated by the imprecisions of human langauge, socially and historically conditioned - dare I say, factually inaccurate and imperfect, in somce instances. Far from being failings, these point to the necessarily analogical relationship between divinity and humanity, and the social and historical mediation of God in history. Could this understanding of the Incarnate Word help our view of the Scriptural Word?
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
That brings us back to the question of to what extent the Bible is God's word, and to what extent it is the words of the human author.
quote:And, indeed, the Bible contains many examples of exactly this sort or "errant" accounts nevertheless expressing truth - presumably in the manner God intends.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I can think of plenty of ways in which something which is factually incorrect, or something which is factually correct but incorrectly reported, could be used by God to express truth.
quote:That's my view also, but I could never have phrased it so eloquently
Far from being failings, these point to the necessarily analogical relationship between divinity and humanity, and the social and historical mediation of God in history. Could this understanding of the Incarnate Word help our view of the Scriptural Word?
quote:I cannot speak for Josephine, but it's fine so far as I am concerned.
From Fish Fish
So total appologies to Papio and Josephine for my mistake.
I sometimes phrase things badly as well.
I don't agree with 100% of what you say, but I am working from a methodology (if that's not too highfalutin' a word) that is very similar to your way of approaching the whole question. quote:Hmm, I think neither of these views (surprisingly). It seems to me that the Bible gives us very little clue of the mechanics of how God inspired it. Occasioanlly we get an insight (Daniels' dreams and John in Revelation, Peter's description of prephecy in 2 Peter) but the true answer to this is the cop-out I don't know. What I think it does say is that
Which brings us on to a question to which I would like someone on the inerrantist side to respond, viz, what do you understand by verbal inspiration. Does it imply the human author choosing every original word according to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Does it mean the author is conscious that he is writing an inspired text. I have never believed either of these to be so, and had always assumed that, apart from a few die-hard literalists, my view was shared by most christians. I thought they wrote what they wrote, and that over time the community (Church Fathers or OT eldership) discerned that, yes, this person wrote what they wrote beccause God had touched them in the writing.
quote:Not faulted or stained no! But mediated. The only way God, or anyone else, can talk to us is to use an accepted system of signs, shared understandings and conventional meanings. The only way God as a, human being, can talk to us is as a human being with social/ historical conditioning and common assumptions of his time. We need to escape from the (gnostic) idea of pure revelation, unsullied by history and society, whether in our approach to Christ or to the Bible. What is of God/ what is of humanity is a false dichotomy, certainly with regard to Christ, but 'what is of enduring value/ what are we to derive from this' is a fair question. I would say it is answered by shared reading within the community of faith, in the context of Tradition, praying for the guidance of the Spirit. As we mull over the scriptures within the Church we develop convictions about what is important. And yes, we disagree - but, in a sense, that is a sign that the tradition is still alive.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
2) DOD's post - again I see what you mean, but I can see again no internal evidence that we are to regard Jesus representation of God to us as faulted or stained by his humanity, rather he was God revealing himself to us in a human for so we could understand. Aside from the hermeneutical problem your view leaves us with (which things were human and which were from God) I would have thought the NT writers would give us some indication of this. To be honest your post was a bit over my head (bear of little brain) so I may be oversimplifiying.
quote:I don't think I disagree with this as a general principle. The discussion is about error - so if you are saying that because communicated through a particular place and time, that means some of the record was mistaken , then I disagree.
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
The only way God as a, human being, can talk to us is as a human being with social/ historical conditioning and common assumptions of his time.
quote:This was my point I think. Jesus was 100% man and yet an accurate perfect revelation of God. This is exactly what I am claiming for the Scriptures. The argument that an analogy with Christ allows for error in the Scriptures assumes that Christ was not able to represent God's perfection to us. It was that with which I was disagreeing.
Originally posted by AB:
Lep,
#1 And what was Jesus if not 'tainted' by our humanity? Why can't scriptures be so natured? Can they be considered, like Jesus (and thus in character with God's revelation) 100% man and 100% from God?
quote:No, that truth cannot be properly expressed through something that makes a claim to be historically true, but is in fact not. (well some truth may be expressed through this, but it would be wrong to say that it is de facto true) And that, if there was any reason why we should view God's earlier revelation of himself in the Bible as flawed he would have
#2 Sorry to keep harping on about truth - but your stumbling block is that it's not in God's character to be 'untrue' thus there can be no errors. Yet this is entirely based on a system that says that truth cannot be expressed through flawed, imperfect means.
quote:Agreed.
So it comes down to how we have made our decision of inspiration, and whether we are willing to examine that assumption.
quote:Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeep, not my point. My point was that humanity is flawed, just by taking on our skin, by walking our world, he was taking on all of our crappiness - yet through all of that showed God's nature. God gave up part of his 'perfection' to share with us our humanity - why not also with the Bible too? If the Bible contains errors, it only reflects badly on God if he was responsible for them - and that is an assumption that I don't make.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The argument that an analogy with Christ allows for error in the Scriptures assumes that Christ was not able to represent God's perfection to us. It was that with which I was disagreeing.
quote:Oh come on Lep - of course truth can be expressed through flawed reports, if you free yourself from the requirements that it has to be only expressed through facts. Is the message of Jonah deminished if you don't take it that he was literally in the belly of a fish? Is the message of Genesis deminished if you don't believe there actually was a talking snake? Is the message of Joshua deminshed if you don't believe God commanded a bloody genocide?
No, that truth cannot be properly expressed through something that makes a claim to be historically true, but is in fact not. (well some truth may be expressed through this, but it would be wrong to say that it is de facto true) And that, if there was any reason why we should view God's earlier revelation of himself in the Bible as flawed he would have
a) told us this and
b) not harped on at length about how disobedient his people had been to his earlier revelation of himself.
quote:Right. Well I think it was DOD's point to which, you will find, I was originally responding.
Originally posted by AB:
Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeep, not my point.
quote:Ab, again I say I don't disagree with this. Of course God expressing himself in a way which we understand is always going to have to accomodate himself to our small minds and finite brains. But I actually think this backs up my position more than yours. If God was able to do this in Christ while still accurately representing himself, then why not in the Bible? Just because God was accomodating himself to us does not necessarily or even by extrapolation imply errors in this revelation.
My point was that humanity is flawed, just by taking on our skin, by walking our world, he was taking on all of our crappiness - yet through all of that showed God's nature. God gave up part of his 'perfection' to share with us our humanity - why not also with the Bible too?
quote:As you rightly said in your last post this is an issue of understanding inspiration, which we have been circling around for a while. I would say I'm not sure that God gives us any indication in the other texts that these were not his words, and that he is not responsible for revealing them (quite the opposite in fact) so that will remain my default position unless I can find indications in the text to the contrary.
If the Bible contains errors, it only reflects badly on God if he was responsible for them - and that is an assumption that I don't make.
quote:Er...yes. Sort of undermines Jesus' parallel with the resurrection as a real event doesn't it?
Oh come on Lep - of course truth can be expressed through flawed reports, if you free yourself from the requirements that it has to be only expressed through facts. Is the message of Jonah deminished if you don't take it that he was literally in the belly of a fish?
quote:Ah, I see what you are getting at now. I think the issue with Genesis and Joshua are probably issues of genre - does it purport to be an historical fact? I'm not sure Genesis does completely, and there is certainly symbolism mixed in with the reality. The Bible itself also gives us reason to believe that the snake is symbolic of the Devil as he is pictured as a snake elsewhere.
Is the message of Genesis deminished if you don't believe there actually was a talking snake?
Is the message of Joshua deminshed if you don't believe God commanded a bloody genocide?
quote:Because according to your own earlier argument Jesus was revealing a God entirely different in character to the God of Joshua that these people believed in. That seems to be your starting point for assuming mistakes in Joshua. If Jesus was assuming these real mistakes which were so at odds with the real God, and he was doing his best to reveal God to us I would certainly have expected him to point out human errors in earlier revelation, rather than backing them up (as he does in the Jonah example), and it seems, treating the whole thing as authoritative and faultless in Matthew 5.
Why would Jesus have to point out the historical problems with the OT to his contemporaries who had no call to disbelieve anything there at the time?
quote:My assumption, and again, it may not be one you share, I don't know, is that if God was holding the people so firmly to obedience to the law and the prophets he would have been kind and just enough to point out to them the bits that were not from him so they wouldn't be castigated for disobeying and disbelieving those parts. Those events and laws which you seem to be so quick to write off as mistaken or irrelevant, it seems to me the minor prophets would have been appalled at that approach as would Jesus himself.
Of course God has a pop at his disobedient people, but that is in no way based on anything with or without errors. They had a nailed down covenant that they repeatedly broke - again I'm baffled as to how you think it's relevant to inerrancy?
quote:No one has suggested that it did. I think that there is a difference of approach here. ISTM that you are arguing from a philosophical position that deduces infallibility to be true, because the alternative is not acceptable to you . You believe that it attacks the basis of the faith, the trustworthiness of God, etc.
If God was able to do this in Christ while still accurately representing himself, then why not in the Bible? Just because God was accomodating himself to us does not necessarily or even by extrapolation imply errors in this revelation.
quote:I think AB did actually
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Lep, you wrote:quote:No one has suggested that it did.
If God was able to do this in Christ while still accurately representing himself, then why not in the Bible? Just because God was accomodating himself to us does not necessarily or even by extrapolation imply errors in this revelation.
quote:Maybe I misunderstood.
"What was Jesus if not tainted by our humanity"
quote:I agree with this. My point is that the Bible necessarily requires a different approach than other texts because it claims to be the revelation of true honest and trustworthy God. If you don't accept that, that is your call,but I don't think anyone is disputing that. As I have said many times, what and how people reveal things about themselves shows something about them. If God does this inaccurately, and even moreso does not correct previous errors that were brought into the text by human intervention, then what does that say about Him?
I think that there is a difference of approach here. ISTM that you are arguing from a philosophical position that deduces infallibility to be true, because the alternative is not acceptable to you . You believe that it attacks the basis of the faith, the trustworthiness of God, etc.
We see no reason why the errors in source material should detract from God's character.
quote:I'm afraid on this particular text, I entirely disagree. Jesus, if quoting in this way something he knew to be untrue is both
That he did so tells us very little about what he thought of the passage, except that he knew it would be familiar to his listeners.
quote:I don't think the last sentence follows at all. In what way does Jesus resurrection depend on the Jonah account being true. If I tell you that I followed in the footsteps of some fictional character, say, one of the pilgrims in Canterbury Tales, would you be justified in deducing that I am not telling the truth because the person never existed, and therefore had no feet in whose steps I could follow, or would you just think I'd been on a journey from Southwark to the county town of Kent.
I'm afraid on this particular text, I entirely disagree. Jesus, if quoting in this way something he knew to be untrue is both
1) allowing us to think the resurrection might not be true
2) is lying when he says that the men of Nineveh will condemn "this generation" because they didn't in reality repent at Jonah's preaching.
His point relies on the story having actually happened.
quote:Very well.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I don't think we need a discussion of the text. Just an interpretation which requires the Jonah story to be historically accurate.
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
. My intention was not to "cast doubt" on this passage. quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
3)Is Jesus inconsistent with the God of the Old Testament? (incl. the Joshua stuff...)
quote:Can I respond to this issue, with something I've been thinking about. I hope this isn't another tangent, but a defence of what seems to be the trickiest part of the Bible. If this is a tangent, then I'm really sorry for raising it again!!!
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
This is a point I cannot get to. I cannot find a way of seeing genocide as anything other than inherently evil - ergo, God would not command it.
quote:In the sense that God speaks through the words on the page as they are read (rarely IME), but more especially when expounded and meditated on (which automatically roles interpretation into the process of hearing God speak).
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
1) In what sense is the Bible "God's word"?
quote:Now, that's a big question. I don't think "truth" and "factual accuracy" are necessarily mutually dependant. A "lie" can speak truth (eg: through parables), and something factually accurate can lie.
2) What is truth - what type of "truth" claim does the Bible make? (incl. issues of genre)
quote:No. Though, he may be inconsistant with some interpretations of the OT.
3)Is Jesus inconsistent with the God of the Old Testament? (incl. the Joshua stuff...)
quote:You've probably missed something, but seems a good place to start.
Are these the main issues, or have I missed any?
quote:A big bit of me wants to reply that it isn't. Arguably, talk of the Bible as God's Word is jargon, and as such it both carries too much baggage and is incomprehensible to the point of serious misunderstanding to all but the initiated. Besides, if we want to be really pedantic, the Bible makes it clear that God's Word - which I sometimes paraphrase as God's Complete Message is given to us in the person of Jesus - the message brought in human form. We continue to seek the message, using holy writing of course, but also using other forms of communication, of which even the Ship of Fools is part. Yes, the Bible is important, but God's Message is bigger than even the Bible.
1) In what sense is the Bible "God's word"?
quote:I'm completely with others who have said here that 'God's truth' is not defined by nor constrained by a requirement that each and every report contained within the Bible is factually accurate. The Bible contains too many different types of writing other than the 'historical' for factual accuracy to be a prerequisite of truth. OK, so it's not always easy to spot the difference between an allegorical story and one which is a historical record (eg the Creation Myth) but that doesn't stop us understanding the Truth (eg that God is Creator) unless of course we get hung up on the factual accuracy stuff.
2) What is truth - what type of "truth" claim does the Bible make? (incl. issues of genre)
quote:Forgive me for my avoiding answering this directly, but I think it's the wrong question. To me, it's not whether Jesus is consistent with God, but rather whether the relationship between God (Father or Son) and the people of God is consistent. It is not, for a very good reason. God in the OT has a relationship with the people which is characterised by rules and regulations. God in Christ moves us to a point where the relationship is founded on love and trust. Does this mean that God is somehow different? No, I don't think so - it means that we're growing up, we're moving on.
3)Is Jesus inconsistent with the God of the Old Testament? (incl. the Joshua stuff...)
quote:
1) In what sense is the Bible "God's word"?
quote:I think this is where we disagree then. I think it is, that it claims in many places to be, and that while there must be much more about God that we don't know from the Bible, it contains all that he needs us to know.
A big bit of me wants to reply that it isn't.
Yes, the Bible is important, but God's Message is bigger than even the Bible.
quote:While I don't agree with your subjective analysis, (it wouldn't work for me if it was "x") I don't think in this case it really matters. Psalm 23 does express a wonderful human reaction to God. But tha's the great thing about the Bible - it reveals God to us through human agents. I don't think this limits its perfection, but does in God's grace, help it to chime with our experience.
One final point on this is that if "The Lord is my Shepherd" is "God's Word" rather than a wonderfully human response to God, then, for me, it loses its impact.
quote:
2) What is truth - what type of "truth" claim does the Bible make? (incl. issues of genre)
quote:I think you are arguing with a straw man here. No one is saying that truth cannot be communicated through anyhting except factual accuracy. Of course it can always be communicated through poetry, parable etc. What I cannot accept is that the Bible communicates truth through historical error - to use the most common example here, that the Bible is wrong is claiming God commanded Joshua...
I'm completely with others who have said here that 'God's truth' is not defined by nor constrained by a requirement that each and every report contained within the Bible is factually accurate.
quote:
3)Is Jesus inconsistent with the God of the Old Testament? (incl. the Joshua stuff...)
quote:Again, I'm not sure who you think disagrees with this. Its not me. My contention is that the revelation does indeed progress, but not in such a way as to contradict itself. I'm not sure how your view is relevant to that. (Sorry that sounds rude, its not meant to be, its just what I think!)
Forgive me for my avoiding answering this directly, but I think it's the wrong question. To me, it's not whether Jesus is consistent with God, but rather whether the relationship between God (Father or Son) and the people of God is consistent. It is not, for a very good reason. God in the OT has a relationship with the people which is characterised by rules and regulations. God in Christ moves us to a point where the relationship is founded on love and trust. Does this mean that God is somehow different? No, I don't think so - it means that we're growing up, we're moving on.
quote:A few further thoughts then. Perhaps its like this...
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
Fish fish - what is so abhorrent is the indiscriminate slaughter.
Were all the children and babies also guilty of the sins of Canaan and deserved death? If not, God ordering such a massacre is being unjust.
Unless you do believe in sentencing babies to death for the sins of their parents?
)
quote:Why did God just go for this nation, then? What about the people populating the British Isles at that point? Child sacrifices weren't as uncommon in antiquity as we like to think. Why did God command the destruction of this nation, but not the others who were sinning just as much (maybe the Israelites could not have been used, but perhaps a well-placed volcano might have done the job?)?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
If a nation turns totally against God, to the extent that they are sacrificing children etc, then they are a danger to other countries round them Almost like a cancer if you like. If they are not removed, they could infect the rest of society. God perhaps saw these people passing over a line that he could stomach no more.
quote:Sounds like "Kill 'em all - let God sort 'em out".
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:A few further thoughts then. Perhaps its like this...
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
Fish fish - what is so abhorrent is the indiscriminate slaughter.
Were all the children and babies also guilty of the sins of Canaan and deserved death? If not, God ordering such a massacre is being unjust.
Unless you do believe in sentencing babies to death for the sins of their parents?
If a nation turns totally against God, to the extent that they are sacrificing children etc, then they are a danger to other countries round them Almost like a cancer if you like. If they are not removed, they could infect the rest of society. God perhaps saw these people passing over a line that he could stomach no more.
As for the indisciminate nature of it all - perhaps we have too "worldy" a view. If any of the people killed deserved God's judgement, then it simple came on them earlier than we would prefer. But if any of them did not deserve judgement, then even though they die they would inherit much more - eternal life. So, even if it seems unjust and unfair to us, God could easily resolve such apparent injustice. So, for myself - I'm 33 - I don't want to die yet - and if I got wiped out cos of the judgment of the UK it would seem a shame to have not lived longer - but "For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain ."
quote:My point is that if you want to use the courtroom analogy you need to recognise that the testimony of the accused is part of the evidence that it's perfectly reasonable to submit to the court.
Originally posted by Papio:
Sorry Alan - I am not sure I understand what point you are making?
quote:Ok, I shouldn't have said it was inadmissable. Should have said it isn't proof. Apologies.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:My point is that if you want to use the courtroom analogy you need to recognise that the testimony of the accused is part of the evidence that it's perfectly reasonable to submit to the court.
Originally posted by Papio:
Sorry Alan - I am not sure I understand what point you are making?
quote:Lep and I will agree to disagree. For my part, I'll clarify my position (at present) as simply as possible.
I did not offer the Bible's claim to be the word of God as "proof" that it is. Rather that I have taken that claim to be true (and would be confused as to how I could take any of its claims to be true if not that one), thus I was disagreeing with PnP. As I have said MANY times in this discussion, I can completely understand why people who don't accept that claim do not accept inerrancy. My confusion is about those who say it is God's word and yet it has mistakes. This, it seems to me, inevitably casts a slur on the character of God.
quote:OK, as one of the said people, I'll have a go, at the risk of repeating myself.
My confusion is about those who say it is God's word and yet it has mistakes. This, it seems to me, inevitably casts a slur on the character of God.
quote:By this reading of the texts, they are still God's word, still inspired, but nothing is implied as to their inerrancy. I think I would also like to add that there are parts where the Godly and the human input are at odds. In other words, where the human author had one intention and God had another. There are several examples of where Jesus quotes OT scriptures which have, in their context, a clear meaning, which He then radically reinterprets.
I believe that it is inspired and profitable for me to read, some parts direct from God to a specific people, some advice from Godly leaders to us, and the records of events where God showed himself.
quote:Well, I don't know. I don't have the mind of God, fortunately. I was just proposing a possible (reasonable?) solution to the "genocide" passages. As for the exact reasons why God chose those nations - perhaps they are not recorded so we aren't tempted to say "Oooh, I wonder what that would be like" and fall ourselves!
Originally posted by Stoo:
Why did God just go for this nation, then? ...
quote:The trouble with arguing that we are relying on a circular argument is that you too are using a circular argument! It goes a bit like this - "It seems reasonable to me to conclude the Bible has errors because my reason tells me so." Or variations on that idea.
Originally posted by Papio:
There is, however, a flaw in your reasoning. Namely: that the Bible claims that the Bible is God's word is inadmissable as evidence. Saying that the Bible is God's word because the Bible says it is seems to be a bit like saying that Little Jonny Smith can't have stolen the apple because Little Jonny Smith says he didn't.
quote:The particular passage in question here (I think) is the Joshua passage where it is recorded that God said something, and it is disputed by "non-inerrantsists" that God said this. No matter what view of the literature you take, God is very clear that people who claim to have words from him but do not are in serious trouble. If this is an historical inaccuracy, then yes I do think it undermines the truth of the text. Maybe I'm just a modernist, but it is clear that the NT writers viewed other events recorded in the historical OT books as real events. I am really honestly only trying to allow the Bible to interpret itself, I have no vested interest in God having ordered the destruction of Jericho.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Is that truth diminished by the odd historical inaccuracy, if modernist historical accuracy was neither the aim or the claim?
quote:JJ it seems to me that you make the link here between Jesus and Scripture as revelation without making the necessary theological implication. There was a human agent to God's revelation in Jesus. This revelation was not flawed. It could perfectly possible be the same for scripture (and in fact, as both are variously described as "the word" I think the link becomes even stronger)
But either way the presence of a human agent gives rise to the possibility of flaws in the text. Indeed, without special measures from God, the presence of a human agent would compel the presence of flaws. That, as I believe, he doesn't intervene specially to prevent those flaws does not seem to me to reflect badly on God's character. Indeed, if I can say this reverently, it may be that God does not want a perfect, flawless written revelation of himself. After all, he has a perfect, flawless human revelation of himself.
quote:Riiight. Trying not to be offended here.
This can be an embarrassment to the Church.
quote:I agree. This is an issue of interpretation is it not, rather than inerrancy?
On issues of slavery, astronomy, biology, time and time again Biblical truth has been misread, to the great detriment of the Church. If we can all agree on this, then is there not a chance that today's hot potatoes might not be looked back on in the same light in a hundred years time.
quote:I don't think the former is a practical effect of inerrancy. I think all my view of Scripture is to say you can be fully and accurately resourced, without being misled as to what you need, but does not say that God has everything to say in detail about everything in the Bible. I think, though, that I may not have followed you properly, please tell me if that is the case.
Basically, there are two models of educaton. The teaching model and the learning model. The former is, as it were, a closed model. "This is the information, these are the facts/skills. Aquire them and you will be fully equipped". The latter is more open. "These are the resources. What is most important is to have the skills to access those resources".
quote:You are doing the same thing you accuse us of - appealing to a higher authority - the experts. But why accept them as experts - because they claim to be? That's circular! Because there is evidence which back's their claim? Again, this is circular, for they have produced that evidence.
Originally posted by Papio:
Fish Fish - my reasoning is this. Historians, Geologists and other experts tell me that there are errors in the Bible. I can't see a reason not to believe them. I can read for myself that the Bible contains contradictions and several versions of some passages.
Why is that circular?
quote:No, I'm not saying that. I'm simply arguing for recognising that the Bible's "self attesting" to being the word of God is not so weak a position as some would assume. It is a sort of circular argument - but one appealing to a greater authority - God and his word.
Originally posted by Papio:
So the only way to have a sensible view point is to abandon reason?
Sorry, but 'fraid I gave up that sort of Christianity.
quote:I'm afraid they are arguing in a circular fashion. It goes a bit like this:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I have to go with Papio here. Geologists giving the date of the earth are not arguing in a circle. A bibliolater claiming the Bible is God's Word because it says it is, is.
quote:Fish Fish,
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
By appealing to the Bible as the ultimate authority, I'm not losing reason - but I am relying on a greater authority. That authority is self attesting (circular...) - but is attesting to being God's word and not the reasoning of man, and thus of a different order to the experts you quote.
quote:Because God seems to expect his words to be everything we need to get to know Him, to trust him, and expects us to stake our very eternity on his promises. It seems to me both objectively unfair and internally inconsistent with the God of the Bible that he would ask us to do this on promises or revelation that are innaccurate and untrue. The fact is that if there are mistakes in God's revelation of himself, he has no business asking me to entrust everything on those promises, to believe that he is how he says he is, and to give up my life to follow those (according to you, incorrectly passed down) commands.
Originally posted by Papio:
Leprechaun - I am definately in the "the Bible contains errors and is still the word of God" camp. I can see why you think my position is untenable if you take a rather literalist view of the phrase "word of God". I don't agree, but I can see your point. What I am struggling to understand is why it causes you so much trouble that some of us here have a much less literalist interpretation.
Why can't the Bible be God's word, mediated through human beings? Why can't God have allowed the writers of the Bible to make mistakes, in the same way God allows contemporary Christians to get things wrong? I don't follow your reasons for rejecting this position.
quote:Not so much of a different order, I think, but of a different nature. Using the geologists example, geologists think what they think because of empirical evidence. They, in effect, apply the scientific method. Conclusions are based on research, evidence, and the testing of hypotheses. Now, I fully accept that when we are dealing with geological time-scales, such evidence is hard to come by, but nevertheless, over time, geological theory has changed in response to the data available. So, I think that it can be shown that this is not a circular argument. It is bolstered by external objective (if not always certain) evidence.
By appealing to the Bible as the ultimate authority, I'm not losing reason - but I am relying on a greater authority. That authority is self attesting (circular...) - but is attesting to being God's word and not the reasoning of man, and thus of a different order to the experts you quote.
quote:Of course, just because someone is an expert does not make them right, but if they have come to their conclusions honestly, and with no axe to grind, and if the vast majority of other such honest observers have come to the same conclusion, I think we can fairly say that their position is likely to be an accurate (though not, of course, complete) account of the real nature of things. If it were not so, it would imply that God had skewed the evidence to trip us up, which has implications for God's character far more serious that any abandonment of inerrancy would have.
You are doing the same thing you accuse us of - appealing to a higher authority - the experts. But why accept them as experts - because they claim to be?
quote:I've now seen you give this argument several times, and I'm getting rather fed up with it. It's crap, to be honest.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
By appealing to the Bible as the ultimate authority, I'm not losing reason - but I am relying on a greater authority. That authority is self attesting (circular...) - but is attesting to being God's word and not the reasoning of man, and thus of a different order to the experts you quote.
quote:Is my circular reasoning better if I trust this rather than if I trusted, say, the computer manufacturer (who claims only the reason of man) who told me when my hard drive was made?
This is the word of the LORD:
You should always cook your chicken properly before you eat it. Northerners are inherently better than Southerners and are My Chosen People. Northerners will inherit the Earth.
quote:Its not absolute empirical evidence without interpretation. The geologists reason it to be empirical evidence because it seems reasonable to them to conclude this. Its exactly the same argument. So, to use your sentence about me, but changing it to the geologists - "Their position is, in effect, a derived from a philosophy which has, as an a priori assumption, that the geology is what they believe it to be, in the way in which they believe it to be it." They too are unwilling to "accept external 'out of loop' evidence" such as God saying he was involved in forming the mountains because it seems unreasonable for that to be true. Their reasoning seems reasonable to them. This is a circular argument
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Using the geologists example, geologists think what they think because of empirical evidence.
quote:ISTM that you have more faith in science to reveal its truth to us than in God to reveal his!!! I would argue that the Bible is every bit as reliable as the rocks, or any other scientific empirical evidence - not least (and in answer to the post asking why I believe it before the Koran etc) because it is written by many people over many centuries, and yet its consistency is stunning. It also speaks so wisely into life that its self attesting wisdom proves true in life. Its a book beyond all books.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Of course, just because someone is an expert does not make them right, but if they have come to their conclusions honestly, and with no axe to grind, and if the vast majority of other such honest observers have come to the same conclusion, I think we can fairly say that their position is likely to be an accurate (though not, of course, complete) account of the real nature of things.
quote:I'm not sure this is the claim to be honest. I think, what I would say about this, is that all claims to ultimate authority are inherently circular. It is then our value judgement as to whether the Bible should be given that position or one of the other competing claims for authority, eg our reason.
Originally posted by Stoo:
You claim your circular reasoning is better than that of a non-inerrantist because you rely on something that you say claims to be God's word in its entirity and sufficiency, and a non-inerrantist relies on something that doesn't make that claim.
quote:Congratulations on getting so far, I re-read my post last night and even I couldn't understand it!!??
I think, though, that I may not have followed you properly
quote:I have quoted your response at length because it is a moving, passionate, and eloquent defence of your position, and thus bears repetition, but also because it seems, to me, to get to the knub of this debate. For me, your words have great emotional resonance. Nevertheless, I find in them the differences between us. To me, my salvation lies, not in the promises of God, but in the person of Jesus. Of course, I know that you would not disagree with that statement, but there is still a difference of emphasis. I think we are once again back to our old battle on the Penal Substitutionary Atonement thread, concerning the character of the Father, and how salvation actually works. I don't believe that, on the last day, I will have to stand before God and hold him to his promises to let me in to heaven, as if in some way he were reluctant. I think that " while he (I) was still a long way off....".
Because God seems to expect his words to be everything we need to get to know Him, to trust him, and expects us to stake our very eternity on his promises. It seems to me both objectively unfair and internally inconsistent with the God of the Bible that he would ask us to do this on promises or revelation that are innaccurate and untrue. The fact is that if there are mistakes in God's revelation of himself, he has no business asking me to entrust everything on those promises, to believe that he is how he says he is, and to give up my life to follow those (according to you, incorrectly passed down) commands.
quote:Fair enough. Have re-read his post, and it all hinges on what Fish Fish means by "the greater authority". I had assumed that he meant circular reasoning based around God was "greater" than circular reasoning based around man. I can see that that's not the only interpretation.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I'm not sure this is the claim to be honest.
quote:How so? I'm sure there are many geologists, maybe at least one on these boards, who passionately believe that God was involved in the creation process. They just dispute that he did it in the way that you believe he did, if, in fact you do believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. If you don't, I'm not sure what point you are making.
They too are unwilling to "accept external 'out of loop' evidence" such as God saying he was involved in forming the mountains because it seems unreasonable for that to be true.
quote:I don't think you can draw this inference from my posts, and regard it as an unhelpful caricature of what I actually believe.
ISTM that you have more faith in science to reveal its truth to us than in God to reveal his!!!
quote:I could probably sign up to everything that you have written there, apart from the last sentence, which is a bit vague. But I am not an inerrantist. Go figure!
I would argue that the Bible is every bit as reliable as the rocks, or any other scientific empirical evidence - not least (and in answer to the post asking why I believe it before the Koran etc) because it is written by many people over many centuries, and yet its consistency is stunning. It also speaks so wisely into life that its self attesting wisdom proves true in life. Its a book beyond all books.
quote:Well, at least no-one could argue with the last part of that prophecy
This is the word of the LORD:
You should always cook your chicken properly before you eat it. Northerners are inherently better than Southerners and are My Chosen People. Northerners will inherit the Earth.
quote:Except reason isn't an authority, in that sense. ISTM that inerrantists seem to see two conflicting sources of authority - reason and Scripture and want to insist that where the two conflict, Scripture invariably trumps reason. Liberals, on the other hand, are deemed as upholding the authority of reason against scripture, which is seen as a bad thing.
Its not absolute empirical evidence without interpretation. The geologists reason it to be empirical evidence because it seems reasonable to them to conclude this. Its exactly the same argument. So, to use your sentence about me, but changing it to the geologists - "Their position is, in effect, a derived from a philosophy which has, as an a priori assumption, that the geology is what they believe it to be, in the way in which they believe it to be it." They too are unwilling to "accept external 'out of loop' evidence" such as God saying he was involved in forming the mountains because it seems unreasonable for that to be true. Their reasoning seems reasonable to them. This is a circular argument
quote:Callan, I think the seeming "contradiction" in this story has been discussed already in this thread. And the Judas "contradiciton" has also been discussed on the literality thread. There are perfectly feasible answers to these questions, but I will admit wanting to find them relies on one being previously committed to the Bible being inerrant (in my case beacuse of the character of God).
Originally posted by Callan:
Now consider 2 Samuel Chapter 24 which tells us that God instructed David to take a census and then used this as an excuse to punish Israel. The same story is told in 1 Chronicles 21, except that the author of Chronicles attributes the inspiration for the census to Satan. Now clearly these accounts cannot both be right. If Satan inspired David then the author of 2 Samuel got it wrong. If God instigated the census then 1 Chronicles must be in error.
quote:Because they don't tell me about Jesus, the Son of God!
Originally posted by AB:
and what is it that you don't like about the Hindu scriptures that leads you to doubt its inspiration? Or the Koran? Or the Buddhist path to enlightenment?
quote:That was a joke! Sorry!!!
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:I don't think you can draw this inference from my posts, and regard it as an unhelpful caricature of what I actually believe.
ISTM that you have more faith in science to reveal its truth to us than in God to reveal his!!!
quote:No - I don't think that. I actually come from a scientific background, and it took me ages to become a Christian. i did, in the end, by treating Jesus "scientifically" - investigating the evidence and drawing the conclusion that he was who he claims to be.
Originally posted by Grey Face:
Fish fish, I get the feeling you're someone who thinks that science and Christianity are in opposition. Would you say that was true?
quote:Why should that matter? Try to answer non-circularly.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:Because they don't tell me about Jesus, the Son of God!
Originally posted by AB:
and what is it that you don't like about the Hindu scriptures that leads you to doubt its inspiration? Or the Koran? Or the Buddhist path to enlightenment?
quote:In a sense its something I can't avoid. I believe Jesus is the Son of God largely because the Bible tells me - and the Bible tells me Jesus had a hgh view of scripture. There is evidence external to the Bible which seems to confirm Jesus as divine, which gives weight to accepting the circularity of the argument. But it is still circular, I agree.
Originally posted by Mousethiefovich:
quote:Why should that matter? Try to answer non-circularly.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Because they don't tell me about Jesus, the Son of God!
quote:Would they need to know? Not if truth can still be expressed through flawed text.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
If I assume there are errors in the text, then I have to explain why Jesus didn't sit down with his disciples and correct them - "look chaps, that bit is terribly mistaken." Or "Can I just ammend the ful stop there, and the odd word here?"
quote:Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep, he said the Law, not the Bible whole.
Rather, he said not a jot of it was to be changed.
quote:Ok, But where, other than "not one jot of the Law" does Jesus seem to take an innerrant position. Simply quoting text "as is" is not proof that Jesus took inerrancy as standard, he may simply have been using familiarity as a vessel for his message. Fish Fish, you may proof text all you like for this one.
And where there are apparent erros, I must assume they are not in fact errors because Jesus didn't think them errors. And so if there is a reasonable explanation of the errors, I'll accept that it.
quote:actually AB, he said he did not come to abolish the law and the prophets. Most people I have read seem to take the view that this refers to the whole Old Testament. (although I am willing to take correction from better read people than myself here)
Originally posted by AB:
Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep, he said the Law, not the Bible whole.
AB
quote:Actually, to be fair, Jesus did say "Law" when refering to the last little stroke:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:actually AB, he said he did not come to abolish the law and the prophets. Most people I have read seem to take the view that this refers to the whole Old Testament. (although I am willing to take correction from better read people than myself here)
Originally posted by AB:
Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep, he said the Law, not the Bible whole.
AB
Certainly it is a pretty wild interptetation to say that Jesus valued the Torah more than the rest of the OT, rather most people who say that Jesus did not stand by the OT say from Matthew 5 that it was the law he wanted to alter, by fulfilling the spirit of the prophets.
There's other stuff, but I'll have to come back later....
quote:But he says this in context of affirming the prophets, and saying "I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." which is equally affirming of the fact that he won't correct the prophets at all.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Mat 5:17-18)
quote:But I'm certainly not convinced that either acceptance of inerrancy is as important as you seem to believe, or that Jesus treated the scriptures as inerrant, in the way in which we mean the expression. Certainly he had a high view of scripture. I would claim that I have a high view of scripture. That is not the same as inerrancy.
What matters is if I am right or wrong. If Jesus is SoG, and if he treated the scriptures as innerant (as I believe), then who am I to say to him that they are not innerant? It may not make sense to view them as innerant when I look at them cold. But when I accept Jesus' treatement of the scriptures., I can't avoid innerancy.
quote:So why doesn't he correct what is in error rather than make statements such as Matthew 5:16-17?!! I see nothing in what Jesus says and does to back up your interpretation. I sounds rather like you are arguing from silence! So, can you back up your theory with evidence? (Scientific!) If not, I see no reason to change!!
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Fish Fish:
You wrotequote:But I'm certainly not convinced that either acceptance of inerrancy is as important as you seem to believe, or that Jesus treated the scriptures as inerrant, in the way in which we mean the expression. Certainly he had a high view of scripture. I would claim that I have a high view of scripture. That is not the same as inerrancy.
What matters is if I am right or wrong. If Jesus is SoG, and if he treated the scriptures as innerant (as I believe), then who am I to say to him that they are not innerant? It may not make sense to view them as innerant when I look at them cold. But when I accept Jesus' treatement of the scriptures., I can't avoid innerancy.
quote:But again, thats not how Jesus treated scriptures, as mere secondary, error filled reports of the Jewish "church". So why should I act differently to Jesus?
Originally posted by dyfrig:
But the scriptures in a sense are actually a secondary source about Jesus. The primary source is the experience of the Church through the ages - the scriptures are a record of that, but they are not the only or primary record.
quote:Could you give an example of a situation in which science and scripture seem, to you, to be at odds, then?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
[QUOTE]I actually come from a scientific background, and it took me ages to become a Christian.
But, now as a Christian, when science and scripture seem to conflict, who do I believe?
But, I think it scientific to accept the Bible as solid empirical evidence along side rocks, chemicals, equations etc. This is becuase of who I believe Jesus to be (Son of God) and the way he treats the Bible (as (it seems to me) innerant and authoritative). Since he is the Son of God, and since I submit to him, then the Biblical evidence carries more weight than the scientific theories in a case of conflict between Bible and boffin.
quote:As Fish Fish has pointed out, Jesus is only referring to the Law when he points out that not one jot will change. Yes, he mentions the "Law and the prophets" at the start of that block, which you correctly identify as referring to the OT, yet he specifically only mentions the Law when pointing out that not one bit is out of place. Why would he do that, if already referring to the Law and the prophets? Perhaps because he was referring to a clause only applying to the Law?
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
actually AB, he said he did not come to abolish the law and the prophets. Most people I have read seem to take the view that this refers to the whole Old Testament. (although I am willing to take correction from better read people than myself here)
quote:The logical conclusion of this argument AB is to suggest that Jesus wanted to change the prophets but not the law. As I was trying to point out, this would be an extremely radical interpretation, as the normal "Jesus changed the OT" argument is that Jesus changed the law to fulfil the spirit of the prophets.
Originally posted by AB:
As Fish Fish has pointed out, Jesus is only referring to the Law when he points out that not one jot will change. Yes, he mentions the "Law and the prophets" at the start of that block, which you correctly identify as referring to the OT, yet he specifically only mentions the Law when pointing out that not one bit is out of place. Why would he do that, if already referring to the Law and the prophets? Perhaps because he was referring to a clause only applying to the Law?
AB
quote:because he says this in context of affirming the prophets, and saying "I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." which is equally affirming of the fact that he won't correct the prophets at all.
Originally posted by AB:
quote:As Fish Fish has pointed out, Jesus is only referring to the Law when he points out that not one jot will change. Yes, he mentions the "Law and the prophets" at the start of that block, which you correctly identify as referring to the OT, yet he specifically only mentions the Law when pointing out that not one bit is out of place. Why would he do that, if already referring to the Law and the prophets? Perhaps because he was referring to a clause only applying to the Law?
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
actually AB, he said he did not come to abolish the law and the prophets. Most people I have read seem to take the view that this refers to the whole Old Testament. (although I am willing to take correction from better read people than myself here)
AB
quote:There's nothing "mere" about a secondary source, L.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But again, thats not how Jesus treated scriptures, as mere secondary, error filled reports of the Jewish "church". So why should I act differently to Jesus?
quote:D,
Originally posted by dyfrig:
quote:There's nothing "mere" about a secondary source, L
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But again, thats not how Jesus treated scriptures, as mere secondary, error filled reports of the Jewish "church". So why should I act differently to Jesus?
Show me how Jesus uses and treats scripture.
quote:Why doesn't he correct the errors - I don't think it ever entered his head that people would be exercised by such questions. They really weren't, and aren't, germaine to his mission, IMHO. Of course, what was actually in Jesus mind at the time is not accesible to us, and I accept that my explanation is as likely or unlikely to be correct as yours. Nevertheless, I think that the overwhelming evidence is that Jesus held the Scriptures with a lightness of touch which doesn't suggest an inerrant position. This is not to say he didn't regard them as authoritative, or have a high view of them, merely that he used them creatively.
So why doesn't he correct what is in error rather than make statements such as Matthew 5:16-17?!!
. It's just a question of which position has us jumping through fewer hoops.
quote:I disagree. The Bible itself, and the lives of Christians throughout centuries of experience, are littered with examples of us finding out about God's Living Word (Jesus) by means other than the written word. The experience of the early church setting aside strict requirements of Jewish law is evidence of (requirements of) the written word and the (requirements of) the Living Word being viewed differently, the latter clearing winning through.
On reflection I think this rests on a division between God's living word and written word that I'm not sure the Bible itself justifies.
So the way we find out about God's living word (Jesus) is through the written words (themselves interestingly described as living) breathed out by God. The Bible itself never seems to draw a line to say that we should view one differently than the other, in terms of God speaking to us.
quote:No he doesn't - the sermon on the mount is not a contradiction of the law - it pushes the law more deeply. We discussed this a few pages ago, so I'll not go over that again.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
What is certain, however, is that He immediately launches into a series of examples where he directly contradicts the Law.
quote:As I've said three times now!!! - Matthew 5:16-17 - He defends the law as inerant, but also says of the prophets "I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." which is equally affirming of the fact that he won't correct the prophets at all. And I agree with Lep when he says to say Jesus accepts the law as innerant but not the prophets would make a fascinating thesis. I'd buy a copy!!!
Originally posted by AB:
So I re-ask Fish Fish, where does Jesus suggest an inerrantist view of the Bible (not just the Law)?
AB
quote:FFS Fish Fish, explain how not "not abolishing but fulfilling" means that they are without errors. Surely he can fulfill the message of the prophets without them being completely error free - there are hundreds of posts explaining so in this thread, but I want you to explain from this passage how Jesus is claiming inerrancy for the prophets. The Law I'll give you, he claims that explicitly, but I want you to show me how that covers the prophets too.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
As I've said three times now!!! - Matthew 5:16-17 - He defends the law as inerant, but also says of the prophets "I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." which is equally affirming of the fact that he won't correct the prophets at all. And I agree with Lep when he says to say Jesus accepts the law as innerant but not the prophets would make a fascinating thesis. I'd buy a copy!!!
quote:This isn't quite right either. Jesus does contradict the law inasmuch as he refuses to enforce it. If Jesus, as God, demanded that the law be enforced, he could have stoned the woman himself - he's the only one there who was sinless after all.
The woman caiught in Adultery - again, Jesus does not contradict the law. He doesn't at all belittle it. Rather, he challenegs hypocritical application of the law - those who apply it to others and not themselves first. Its the people at fault not the scriptures.
quote:[bangs head gently on desk in despair] Sorry, L. It was of course FF.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:D,
Originally posted by dyfrig:
quote:There's nothing "mere" about a secondary source, L
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But again, thats not how Jesus treated scriptures, as mere secondary, error filled reports of the Jewish "church". So why should I act differently to Jesus?
Show me how Jesus uses and treats scripture.
I think you may think it is me who made this point, judging my the "L" in your post. It was not.
quote:JJ,
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
As to whether I am arguing from silence, I suppose that, in a way I am. But then, so are you. To me, it is natural, to assume that the Bible is authoritative and generally self consistant, but I have no reason to believe it is inerrant, and a deal of evidence that it is not. I find nothing in Jesus' silence on the matter to lead me to doubt that view. You, however come from a position where inerrancy is assumed, and find nothing in Jesus view of the scriptures that contradicts that. The difficult passages you can get round with some creative exegesis. Nothing wrong with that. I can exegete creatively with the best (see above)
) but rather to say this: If Jesus is to be viewed as so radically different to the God of the OT as you suggest, it is fair to expect him to explain this, or at least advert to it at some point in his ministry. But there is not even the slightest suggestion that Jesus views God's acts of judgement in the OT as inconsistent with himself. Quite the opposite in fact. quote:Or indeed taken the punishment in her place. But that is a different discussion.
I repeat: If Jesus hadn't changed law he would have stoned her himself.
quote:To which I'd add, that Jesus says "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". Not "let him who has never committed adultery cast the first stone". So it's not merely an accusation of hypocrisy but a searching critique of the concepts of law and judgement. Which I'd suggest doesn't exist in the Pentateuch, for example.
I'm not disagreeing that this particular story is about hypocrisy, but taking it at at face value, Jesus is also saying that whilst adultery is still wrong, stoning as a punishment for adultery is outdated, if for no other reason than the hypocrisy which would be implicit in that penal system. He has de facto suggested a change to the letter of the law whilst at the same time retaining and reinforcing the moral code on which it was based.
quote:But doesn't this invalidate your position? In a sense you are coming to scripture with the belief that the character of God would lead him to give us a set of inerrant scriptures. If study of the scriptures leads us to discover errors - if neither of the examples I gave satisfied, then how about the attribution to Jeremiah in Matt 27:9 of a prophecy actually found in Zechariah 11:13 - then surely, we can say that God's character does not lead him to give us a set of inerrant scriptures. Insisting that he does so tells us what you want God to do, rather than what he actually has done.
There are perfectly feasible answers to these questions, but I will admit wanting to find them relies on one being previously committed to the Bible being inerrant (in my case beacuse of the character of God).
quote:I'm assuming a reference to 2Tim3:16 (all Scripture is "God-breathed"). Perhaps it would be better covered by a thread in Kerygmania, but my views on this verse are maybe appropriate here.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
the written words (themselves interestingly described as living) breathed out by God.
quote:More than that. There was no wiggle room in Lev. 20:10. The adulterous couple had to be put to death. I agree with everyone else here that the primary target of Jesus teaching here was the heart-condition of the accusers, but it does rather suggest that he had more in mind than a simple reinterpretation of the Law.
This isn't quite right either. Jesus does contradict the law inasmuch as he refuses to enforce it.
quote:
If study of the scriptures leads us to discover errors then surely, we can say that God's character does not lead him to give us a set of inerrant scriptures. Insisting that he does so tells us what you want God to do, rather than what he actually has done.
Respect!! quote:I wondered if you had any specific examples in mind.
But there is not even the slightest suggestion that Jesus views God's acts of judgement in the OT as inconsistent with himself.
quote:I don't think it as explicit as the claim for the law, but implied. But
Originally posted by AB:
FFS Fish Fish, explain how not "not abolishing but fulfilling" means that they are without errors. Surely he can fulfill the message of the prophets without them being completely error free - there are hundreds of posts explaining so in this thread, but I want you to explain from this passage how Jesus is claiming inerrancy for the prophets. The Law I'll give you, he claims that explicitly, but I want you to show me how that covers the prophets too.
Go on, I'm all ears.
AB
quote:I agree (as usual!
Originally posted by Ponty'n'pop:
I repeat: If Jesus hadn't changed law he would have stoned her himself.
) with Lep - Jesus knows he is about to die in her place.quote:Man created by evolution? The Bible seems to be clear there was a 1st man - so I accept there was. But this is straying into another thread and not innerancy I think.
Originally posted by Huge-Grey-Bearded Face:
Could you give an example of a situation in which science and scripture seem, to you, to be at odds, then?
quote:I'm not sure what YECcies are? Re the creation story - I try and take it to be true in the sense of the genre it is written in - it seems poetic, but teaching truth about who did it all. That's my current assesment - but I'm open to change on this interpretation. But, again, thats another thread I guess, and not innerancy.
Originally posted by Huge-Grey-Bearded Face:
There are enough YECcies about that I don't have to look hard usually, but you don't appear to be one. Yet you apparently see a conflict between the conclusions of geology and the Bible, which as far as I can see can only mean that you take the creation story as literal truth and not mythological truth. Please explain what you meant by this.
quote:So, from these two verses we have Jesus strongly affirming both law and prophets and affirming the innerancy of the law. How can you even begin to beleive that Jesus taught half the Bible was innerant, and yet believing the rest to be errant but didn't bother to correct or teach this? I'm sorry, that makes Jesus an inconsistant and naive fool.
Originally posted by AB:
Fish Fish, glad that to have cleared up that matter. So we can't use Matt 5 to promote inerrancy of the whole Bible alone. Good stuff, that was the point I was trying to make!
quote:You've totally lost me again. The Bible says there was a first everything, as I read it, including man. Why could this not have been God creating him through evolution? Now, I have issues with this but they're not the Bible vs Science issues, more issues of reasoning. I don't think we're in the other Dead Horse yet, I'm still digging out why you're happy to consider Genesis to contain non-historical truth yet the prophets have to be bang-on historically inerrant.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:Man created by evolution? The Bible seems to be clear there was a 1st man - so I accept there was. But this is straying into another thread and not innerancy I think.
Originally posted by Huge-Grey-Bearded Face:
Could you give an example of a situation in which science and scripture seem, to you, to be at odds, then?
quote:Sorry, YEC = Young Earth Creationism, i.e. (one of) the creation account(s) in Genesis literally true, Earth et al made in 6 days, age of universe 6000 years. Or 10000, or 4000 depending on who you talk to.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Huge-Grey-Bearded Face:
I'm not sure what YECcies are? Re the creation story - I try and take it to be true in the sense of the genre it is written in - it seems poetic, but teaching truth about who did it all. That's my current assesment - but I'm open to change on this interpretation. But, again, thats another thread I guess, and not innerancy.
quote:Yes. As I said above, substitutionary atonement. But we've been there....
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
More than that. There was no wiggle room in Lev. 20:10. The adulterous couple had to be put to death. I agree with everyone else here that the primary target of Jesus teaching here was the heart-condition of the accusers, but it does rather suggest that he had more in mind than a simple reinterpretation of the Law.
quote:I think you may be doing what more liberal shipmates on the ship have often accused me of doing - assuming the Bible can be read without any interpretative framework. My question is whether we SHOULD read the Bible assuming, from the character of God and his process of inspiration, that what he reveals is inerrant.
If study of the scriptures leads us to discover errors then surely, we can say that God's character does not lead him to give us a set of inerrant scriptures. Insisting that he does so tells us what you want God to do, rather than what he actually has done.
quote:Nope. Don't buy that I'm afraid, many times in the minor prophets we have something not written in the first person, but called the word of the lord, or coda'd with "thus says the Lord." The fact that this is the case does not stop it being the word of God.
Alan's new name wrote:
I don't think "God-breathed" necessarily means breathed out by God (a phrase that comes very close IMO to being spoken by God directly ... something that the clear differences in styles from human authors would contradict).
quote:We must stop this. It is ruining my reputation.
JJ again
Lep: I think I agree with you on the proof-texting thing!! (Damn, that's twice in a week)
quote:Good point.Well without my standard conservative evangelical "find a biblical curse" concordance to hand, the one that springs to mind is the "woe to Capernaum" where Jesus says what happens to that place will be WORSE than what happens to Sodom and Gomorrah. Oh, and all the OT parallels in his threats to the churches in Revelation.
There's a little line that I've noticed but not picked up on in a couple of your posts.quote:I wondered if you had any specific examples in mind.
But there is not even the slightest suggestion that Jesus views God's acts of judgement in the OT as inconsistent with himself.
quote:Oh please don't worry. I contributed to the discussion too.
The lovely AB wrote:
Lep, sorry to piss you off - I was geting riled and carried on the argument because of it, so forgive me.
quote:I think this is part of our misunderstanding. From my perspective, I am not assuming it. I am acknowledging it.
If I assume there are errors in the text
quote:I agree with you that all of us approach the Bible with an interpretive framework whether we be catholic or protestant, liberal or conservative. However, I think the point is that the Bible speaks to us and we respond to it and that there is an element of dialogue. The Bible should challenge our presuppositions.
I think you may be doing what more liberal shipmates on the ship have often accused me of doing - assuming the Bible can be read without any interpretative framework. My question is whether we SHOULD read the Bible assuming, from the character of God and his process of inspiration, that what he reveals is inerrant.
Conservative Evangelical Heresy warning - the Bible doesn't actually say absolutely loads about itself, but it says plenty about the God who spoke it, which should certainly effect our hermeneutic. I don't think admitting there is an interpretative process undermines my point - this whole thread is about finding the right interpretative process.
quote:You picked a strange week to ignore the existence of the Orthodox.
Originally posted by Callanovsky:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I agree with you that all of us approach the Bible with an interpretive framework whether we be catholic or protestant,
quote:One of the problems here is that "the Law" might not have, in that context, meant only the written Torah. One of the dispoutes between the Pharisees and the Saducees was over the Oral Law that later became a source for Talmud.
Originally posted by AB:
We have Jesus teaching that the law is inerrant, yes? And we have this in a teaching block about the law and the prophets, yes? Yet he didn't extend the explicit inerrancy claim to the prophets, yes?
quote:‘Torah’ can, as you say, have a number of meanings (at least five). However, the reference to ‘not the least stroke of a pen will disappear from the torah’ suggests a written torah. The phrase 'the law and the prophets' also suggests the torah as OT scripture.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:One of the problems here is that "the Law" might not have, in that context, meant only the written Torah. One of the dispoutes between the Pharisees and the Saducees was over the Oral Law that later became a source for Talmud.
Originally posted by AB:
We have Jesus teaching that the law is inerrant, yes? And we have this in a teaching block about the law and the prophets, yes? Yet he didn't extend the explicit inerrancy claim to the prophets, yes?
quote:I'm not sure I understand your list of questions. Are you saying the answers provided in the Bible are incorrect? Or unexplained?
Originally posted by Onionhead:
Personally, on Biblical inerrancy some of the questions I find interesting are...
quote:I'm suggesting that the Biblical answers to these questions are, apparently, contradictory.
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:I'm not sure I understand your list of questions. Are you saying the answers provided in the Bible are incorrect? Or unexplained?
Originally posted by Onionhead:
Personally, on Biblical inerrancy some of the questions I find interesting are...
quote:I'm not getting at all, since Genesis 13 and 15 are referring to Moses knowing God as Lord, not Abraham.
Taking the first question, Exodus 6:3 says that God was not known by His name to Abraham, but Genesis 13:4 and 15:7 has Abraham knowing God's name.
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
I'm not getting at all, since Genesis 13 and 15 are referring to Moses knowing God as Lord, not Abraham.
quote:
There Abram called on the name of the LORD Genesis 13:4
quote:These both sound like they are referring to Abram/Abraham to me.
Abram believed the LORD , and he credited it to him as righteousness. He also said to him, "I am the LORD , who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it." Genesis 15: 6-7
quote:I've suddenly realised what this whole discussion has been reminding me of.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
To me, it is natural, to assume that the Bible is authoritative and generally self consistant, but I have no reason to believe it is inerrant, and a deal of evidence that it is not. I find nothing in Jesus' silence on the matter to lead me to doubt that view. You, however come from a position where inerrancy is assumed, and find nothing in Jesus view of the scriptures that contradicts that. The difficult passages you can get round with some creative exegesis. Nothing wrong with that. I can exegete creatively with the best (see above)
quote:Right, a number of things here.
Originally posted by Callanovsky:
I agree with you that all of us approach the Bible with an interpretive framework whether we be catholic or protestant, liberal or conservative. However, I think the point is that the Bible speaks to us and we respond to it and that there is an element of dialogue. The Bible should challenge our presuppositions.
In the same way, if we insist that it is the nature of God's character to provide an infallible text in the face of the evidence then we are treating scripture in much the same way as my liberal friend, albeit from the opposite end of the spectrum. Which isn't to say you can't regard scripture as authoritative. Neither Luther or Calvin were inerrantists, for example (Calvin spotted the example of Matthew's confusion between Zechariah and Jeremiah, let me confess) and I'm not convinced that Paul was to be honest (compare Galatians to Ezekiel or Leviticus).
I think that scripture is the Word of God in the same sense that the elements at Holy Communion are the body and blood of Christ. Scripture is, at the same time, a miscellaneous collection of religious texts which contain errors and truth, wonder and wickedness and also the Word of God in the same way that the elements are the body and blood of Christ and bread and wine. But insisting on an inerrant text is like the medieval belief in exsanguinating hosts. Quite simply it will not bear the interpretative weight which is put upon it.
quote:Hope the relevance of that is clear.
I wrote:
I really can understand the emotional appeal of it, but it does not actually address the can of worms it opens.
Why did God then let his people believe it was Him who said these things for centuries if it was not? Why didn't Jesus (or Paul) say "that part of Joshua that you thought was Scripture is mistaken, it wasn't of God", and in fact use God's acts of judgement in the OT as models of what will happen to those who reject Jesus?
Why does Paul use God's judgement of 23 000 of his own people in the desert as a warning to us if God is not responsible for such acts?
Why is God portrayed in Revelation as bringing destruction on the earth if that is not his nature?
Why is God deliberately misleading us if he is not really like that? And if he is, how can we know that his promise to rescue us if we trust Jesus is real?
Now, that whole issue probably needs a separate thread, I am not asking for definitve answers to all of those questions here, but simply to point out that this argument raises far more questions about God's character than it answers.
” ).
quote:Oh, indeed. But then we have a universe which bleeds into more than one paralell universe, in which the Time Lords have been (secretly) going back in time to change history. And almost everything the Time Lords ever say about their own history is a lie (after all they are only even pretending to look human - biologically they are farther from humans than Daleks are). The Doctor has been meddling with timelines history all over the place, and not always been honest with his human companions about what he's doing. The other Time Lords have been lying to the Doctor about what they want him to do - and Time Lord society has for much of at least one of its alternate histories been ruled by a secret clique anyway.Humans and Daleks descendants have been using time travel to alter history to fight wars. Faced with that - what would consistency even look-like? When there are Daleks in the past?
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
The point is, Doctor Who is wildly inconsistent. It has been written by literally hundreds of different writers over the course of four decades, most of whom cared very little about anything beyond the confines of the story they were writing. Thus each individual story hangs together, and some of them are sequels to other stories, but as far as the overall background goes there was never a coherent plan. No Star Trek style future history, no "series bible", no unifying factors at all except the central characters and -- as the series progressed -- a few recurrent alien species and planets.
Basically, the writers wrote what the hell they wanted: they started improvising in 1963 and are still winging it today. Huge, sweeping statements about future history, universe-defining physics or the major alien presences like the Daleks or the Time Lords, were made one year and then utterly ignored the next. There is simply no way the whole Who corpus, in its raw form, can be considered anything approaching a consistent whole.
quote:Well, that's certainly one of the interpretive frameworks available -- and one which, I admit, has no immediately obvious equivalent in biblical exegesis.
Originally posted by ken:
Oh, indeed. But then we have a universe which bleeds into more than one paralell universe, in which the Time Lords have been (secretly) going back in time to change history.
quote:I'm sorry, I'm not meaning to be rude, but have you actually read any of this thread? If so, you'll find that very little of it has to do with resolving "contradictions" but nearly all (for the last 4 pages at least) been about whether there are good theological reasons to "try" and resolve "contradictions." Nearly all of our discussion has been about whether we should try or not.
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
[The serious point I'm making, I think, is that the reader has to be willing to go along with the game, which is why inerrantists' explanations of biblical problems or contradictions seem to convince only inerrantists. The rest of us need to be given some more fundamental reason for why we should even be trying.
quote:Well, of course it depends on what you mean by clearly. I believe God doues communicate clearly, but not in the way in which I would communicate clearly (were I capable of it) with, say, you. Very often He doesn't explain what he means, he speaks often by allusion. Jesus explicitly states, for example, that the parables are meant to be obscure. Depth of meaning, rather than simplicity of meaning, seems to accompany most of the scriptural texts. Were it not so, we would not be having this discussion. Nevertheless, the meaning (apart perhaps for a few very obscure texts, such as Daniel or Revelation) does come through. Of course, in this little discourse, we haven't mentioned the work of the Holy Spirit, one of whose ministries is specifically stated to be the interpretation of scripture. So does God not want to communicate clearly. I would say "not always".
So, your position requires an interpretation of the character of God who either CANNOT or DOES NOT WANT to communicate clearly
quote:Don't agree, or at least, don't completely agree, see above.
...when you take the character of God "as it comes from the Scriptures" neither seem to be true.
quote:Not quite sure what you're driving at. Perhaps we just understand inspiration as meaning something different. But I do agree that both views do require a certain amount of interpretation.
Similarly, while inerrancy may require some exegetical hoop jumping on passages like the Matthew one you mention, non-inerrancy (as I think we have seen on this thread) requires some equally rigmarolous hoop jumping when it comes to the doctrine of inspiration.
quote:Absolutely agreed. This is a new week, does this still count against you?
The question is not, which interpretative framework gives us the simplest answer, and the simpest interpretative process. Rather, the question is, which interpretative framework does the nature of the Bible and its author demand that we use.
quote:True; niether, of course, does it mean it is true.
Simply pointing out that inerrancy is a complicated doctrine to apply, does not mean it is untrue.
quote:The problems with AHOTU are legion - I could go on and on and on.
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
But books like The Discontinuity Guide and A History of the Universe are able to start with assumptions like
quote:To be fair though, the analogy to Dr Who is appropriate to at least one branch of the discussion we've been having over the past few weeks. Just to take one quote at random (it's Fish Fish from 26th Feb, on p13), certainly not the only comment along these lines and maybe not the most recent
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I'm sorry, I'm not meaning to be rude, but have you actually read any of this thread? If so, you'll find that very little of it has to do with resolving "contradictions" but nearly all (for the last 4 pages at least) been about whether there are good theological reasons to "try" and resolve "contradictions." Nearly all of our discussion has been about whether we should try or not.
quote:Fish Fish has been using the solutions to "contradictions" and general consistancy of the texts as an argument. I think he's made the point more clearly than what I've just quoted, but I'm at work and don't have time to go through this thread finding a more appropriate post.
My defence on the grounds of solutions to tricky passages being available doesn't cerry much weight if you don't beleive innerancy. But its added weight if
1. We acknowledge the vast majority of the text (written by many people over many centuries) is hugely consistant - I think this gives added weight to the argument
quote:I agree -- the contradictions are not being addressed to any great degree. Which I find odd, as by definition a single contradiction, if verified, would demolish any inerrantist position. You and Fish Fish seem to take it as an article of faith that the substantial work of exegesis which is needed to resolve such contradictions as Judas's death, the misquotation of Ezekiel and so on is possible. Well, fair enough, but stating an article of faith isn't going to persuade anyone of its validity -- and the necessary work can, as I've rather suggested above with my rather silly parallel, be vast. Why embark on it at all? Currently my Christian faith doesn't require it.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
If so, you'll find that very little of it has to do with resolving "contradictions" but nearly all (for the last 4 pages at least) been about whether there are good theological reasons to "try" and resolve "contradictions."
quote:...and I don't think you or the other inerrantists on this thread have anywhere near demonstrated that we should.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
My question is whether we SHOULD read the Bible assuming, from the character of God and his process of inspiration, that what he reveals is inerrant.
quote:I beg your pardon for irritating you: I admit I was being facetious. I hope this post is more constructive.
I know you aren't an inerrantist, but it really is quite irritating to have days worth of nitty gritty discussion written off like that
quote:I was just wondering what you feel those practical effects are. Do you believe that there is a difference in the practical, as opposed to philosophical, realisation of the Christian faith in the lives of those who espouse inerrancy, compared with those who do not? It's been my experience that God distributes "saints" and jerks with remarkable fairness right across the theological spectrum (using the term saints in the popular, rather than biblical, meaning). Or have I just misinterpreted what you wrote.
How can you say you believe and operate with the authority of the Bible in view when you come to conlcusions that large chunks of it are mistaken? While your view is obviously much more nuanced than the "load of tosh" view, the practical effect LOOKS just the same (and I say looks carefully, because I am not wanting to impugn your motives).
quote:Hi everyone - been too busy for the last few days - but dipping in again now. I'll try and catch up with what's been posted soon.
Originally posted by Onionhead:
I suggested previously that I would give references for the questions I posed; here they are.
The death of Judas is described as being the result of him hanging himself in Mathew 27:5 and being the result of a fall in Acts 1:18.
References for whether Abraham knew the name of the Lord have already been given.
The other questions were:
- What is the reason for keeping the sabbath day? Because the Lord rested on the seventh day, according to Exodus 20:11. Because the Lord delivered the people from the land of Egypt by his outstretched arm according to Deuteronomy 5:15.
- Who killed Goliath? David according to I Samuel 17:50. Elhanan according to 2 Samuel 21:19.
- How much did David pay for the land on which he planned to build the temple? 50 shekels of silver (for which he got the land and some oxen) according to 2 Samuel 24:24 or 600 shekels of gold according to 1 Chronicles 21:25.
- Did Mary and Joseph take Jesus to Egypt shortly after his birth? Yes, according to Matthew 2:14. No according to Luke 2:39.
- When did Jesus cleanse the temple? Early in his ministry according to John 2:13-22. On Palm Sunday according to Matthew 21:12-17. On Monday, the day after Palm Sunday according to Mark 11:12-19.
- Was Jesus crucified on Passover day or the day of preparation for Passover? Passover day according to Luke 22:13 and the other synoptics. The day of preparation according to John 18:28 and John 19:31.
- Did one of the thieves believe in Jesus at the end? No according to Mark 15:32 and Matthew 27:44. Yes according to Luke 23:39-43.
- What was the last thing Jesus said from the cross? "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit" according to Luke 23:46 or "It is finished" according to John 19:30.
- Who discovered the empty tomb? Mary Magdelen and the other Mary, according to Matthew 28:1. Mary Magdelene, Mary the Mother of James, and Salome acording to Mark 16:1. Mary Magdelene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and another unnamed woman according to Luke 24:10. Mary Magdelene (and Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loved?) according to John 20:1.
quote:So give us these reasons (for they will be many, given the numerous examples of flat contradiction). Bear in mind also that if these "reasons" involve such mental-gymnastics as to require the acceptance of nonsense, it is more reasonable to believe that the Bible contains contradictions than that it does not.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
IMO if there is a reasonable explanation of why a contradiction is not in fact a contradictions, then its reasonable to accept that reason.
quote:How long must we wait?
Furthermore, even if there isn't a reason that we can see right now, it does not mean such a reason does not exist.
quote:Actually, they do. If Biblical inerrancy claims that there are no contradictions in the Bible, the presence of statements that cannot be reconclied without the aforesaid mental gymnastics is very strong prima facie proof that inerrancy is untenable.
So lists such as this do not disprove inerrancy
quote:Not at all. We believe that the Bible is a special book because it is our most direct witness to the life of Jesus, who we believe to be God incarnate.
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
I can take the view that Doctor Who is inerrant with as much consistency as Fish Fish has with his biblical inerrancy: the only reason to consider that his view is a reasonable one whereas mine is barking mad is that pesky human extra-biblical decision-making ability which Fish Fish calls "reason".
quote:FF has discussed this at length. A number of reasons, the main one being that the authority of the Bible IS undermnined by saying that bits of it may be mistaken . We had a long discussion comparing it to the US constitution in this sense, does something need to be inerrant to be authoritative? The answer is no, as long as everyone agrees to be bound by it even where they think it is wrong. (like the constitution) This is not, as I understand it, the non-inerrantist position, rather they say we do not need to be bound by it where it is mistaken. Thus its authority is undermined.
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar: Why embark on it at all? Currently my Christian faith doesn't require it.
quote:That's probably because
I suppose what's frustrating me about this discussion is that both sides appear to believe that their position is a default to be assumed, and both seem to be defending it against assault, rather than actively arguing for it.
quote:Ah yes, I had forgotten that principle that always leads for the church making excellent decisions - the majority is always right. Tell that to the minor prophets.
I don't see it as incumbent on me to prove my point, though, because (on the crudest level) there are far more people who believe the Bible is not inerrant than believe it is. I'm less clear as to why you would feel the same.
quote:I have addressed all of these points before, but as a quick recap
More seriously, I'm unconvinced by your argument from the character of God, because it fails to take into account that:
1. Even the most well-intentioned and eloquent speaker may be misinterpreted by their audience;
2. A God who allows us the freedom to sin will surely allow us the freedom to make mistakes in the transmission of a text;
3. If we believe in a God who communicates through parables, then it is perfectly viable to believe in a storyteller God who expresses truths through fiction, and who doesn't worry about the details provided a true message comes across.
quote:I don't have the strength to go back through this whole thread and find out what exactly we mean by "inerrancy". Though I suspect not all posters are agreeing on it.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
If Biblical inerrancy claims that there are no contradictions in the Bible, the presence of statements that cannot be reconclied without the aforesaid mental gymnastics is very strong prima facie proof that inerrancy is untenable.
quote:Good post JJ, this made me laugh a lot!
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Ah, FF, do I detect the slippery slope argument. If we accept that there may be some historical inaccuracy in, say, I Chronicles, then this means the Bible can have no authority whatsoever, and before you can say lickety-split, people are murdering each other all over the place, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
(with the post, not at it I hasten to add)quote:Er... I'm not sure that it is. Nor why I would necessarily care if it was. My faith isn't reliant on having an instruction book.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
FF has discussed this at length. A number of reasons, the main one being that the authority of the Bible IS undermnined by saying that bits of it may be mistaken.
quote:All right, then... You say (more or less) that to suggest that the Bible misrepresents God is a slur on God's character. I say that even the most well-intentioned and eloquent speaker may be misinterpreted and therefore misrepresented by even a well-intentioned audience. This is a crucial point which I haven't seen you engaged with (although I might have missed it, in which case apologies).
quote:I really don't see that this has anything to do with the question at hand.
Even the most well-intentioned and eloquent speaker may be misinterpreted by their audience;
quote:No, but I'm making it. The people who received God's inspiration (according to any inspirational model) and verbalised it, and those who then passed on, transcribed, copied out, translated, printed and annotated the results of that process, were all imperfect human beings, whom God allowed to be imperfect in terms of giving them free will to sin. How then can you be sure that they were perfect verbalisers, transcribers etc?
quote:The parallel with us and our sin is not one the Bible makes.
A God who allows us the freedom to sin will surely allow us the freedom to make mistakes in the transmission of a text;
quote:It's only a "misrepresentation" if the reader is assuming factual accuracy: if the reader takes my line, that the Bible is a collection of stories about God, then the details genuinely don't matter. It's a perfectly consistent position, and one which I would suggest most Christians historically have understood implicitly.
quote:Is it really viable? That process that you call "not worrying about the details" I would see as "deliberately allowing himself to be misrepresented throughout all of history".
If we believe in a God who communicates through parables, then it is perfectly viable to believe in a storyteller God who expresses truths through fiction, and who doesn't worry about the details provided a true message comes across.
quote:Oh, I know, yes. My only real point in making the parallel with Doctor Who is that Fish Fish's "argument from consistency" can't possibly hold water, as a sufficiently dedicated reader can find consistency in anything.
Originally posted by ken:
Not at all. We believe that the Bible is a special book because it is our most direct witness to the life of Jesus, who we believe to be God incarnate.
quote:Right, just catching up again!
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
quote:Oh, I know, yes. My only real point in making the parallel with Doctor Who is that Fish Fish's "argument from consistency" can't possibly hold water, as a sufficiently dedicated reader can find consistency in anything.
Originally posted by ken:
Not at all. We believe that the Bible is a special book because it is our most direct witness to the life of Jesus, who we believe to be God incarnate.
quote:
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
quote:Er... I'm not sure that it is. Nor why I would necessarily care if it was. My faith isn't reliant on having an instruction book.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
FF has discussed this at length. A number of reasons, the main one being that the authority of the Bible IS undermnined by saying that bits of it may be mistaken.
!!!
quote:Right. Well as I have said many many times, I would have no expectation that someone who does not accept the authority and/or inspiration of the Bible to believe in its inerrancy.
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
Er... I'm not sure that it is. Nor why I would necessarily care if it was. My faith isn't reliant on having an instruction book.
quote:I accept the authority of the Bible. I accept it's inspiration (inspiration not being the same as dictated by God or God directly controlling the writers in some way). I don't believe the Bible is inerrant. Am I unexpected, or do you also accept that even people who do accept the authority and/or inspiration of the Bible can also reject inerrancy?
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I have said many many times, I would have no expectation that someone who does not accept the authority and/or inspiration of the Bible to believe in its inerrancy.
quote:I accept the authority of the Bible. I accept it's inspiration (inspiration not being the same as dictated by God or God directly controlling the writers in some way). I don't believe the Bible is inerrant. Am I unexpected, or do you also accept that even people who do accept the authority and/or inspiration of the Bible can also reject inerrancy? [/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Alanski Creskovich:
quote:I posted a question in reply to this some time back. I'll expand on it a bit here. I'd be interested in your thinking on the matter.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
How can the Bible remain authoritative if we assume authority over it?
quote:You start off the word "authority" to mean "in charge" and then shift to using it to mean "truth".
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
How can the Bible remain authoritative if we assume authority over it? I am arguing that the Bible has authority over us - in the sense that it tells us what is true and what is false about God.
quote:Oh dear - headbanging is so 1980's!
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
FF, I too feel like I'm
quote:No, I get your point. I just think you're wrong!!!! The difference with other authorities, and the trouble with using them as examples (such as Stoo's example of correcting his boss's maths), is that these other authorities are neither innerant, nor need to be so! But when we are talking about a perfect God, that is in his nature not to lie, then his revelation of himself should not or can not contain errors.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Is the concept really so hard to grasp. We all have things in our life that are, to a greater or lesser extent, authoritative over us. That does not make them inerrant...
quote:Fair enough. Sorry that I used that term in the wrong way. What I mean is - the Bible contains the truth, and is authoritative, and so our understanding needs to conform to the Bible to correct our flawed understanding of ourselves, the world and God. The alternative (and what it seems to me non-innerantists so) is to impose our flawed understanding on the Bible, correct it or change it or ammend it or reject it (or bits of it at least), and thus our understanding is not challeneged by a supreme authority.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I really don't see how this position can be interpreted as saying, "I understand better than the Bible," as if the Bible were capable of understanding. It is not. It is a book (or rather a library).
quote:The way I currently understand Genesis 1&2 is that they are poetic, and teaching "Who" not "How" as I've explained before. What I need to make clear now is that this oppinion is, in a sense, provisional. I am "sitting under" the text, making it authoritative, because I will change my opinion if it becomes apparent that I've misread the text. I will happily chnage to be a 6 day creationalist if it becomes apparant that is what the text is teaching after all. So, my reasoning is subserviant to the text.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Let me put it another way. You have said, I think, that you are not a literalist. I conclude from this that you apply your critical faculties, your understanding, to the text. Prayerfully, you discern that, say, Genesis 1 and 2 are primarily mythic in genre, and do not reflect, nor were they ever meant to reflect, a scientific understanding of the mechanics of creation. Now you would rightly take me to task if I accused you, therefore, of putting your understanding before the authority of scripture. Yet it is precisely this process which you find so difficult to understand when advocated by non-inerrantists. In each case, we take the text seriously. In each case, we use a combination of our intellect and the inspiration of the spirit to discern what we believe God is saying to us through the text. In fact, there is a good case to be made that it is in insisting on inerrancy that we are really telling God what we think he ought to be like, or at least, how we think he ought to speak to us.
quote:We're not talking about God. We're talking about the Bible.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But when we are talking about a perfect God, that is in his nature not to lie...
quote:You cannot argue that my example doesn't count because it is "not inerrant nor needs to be so", when the whole point we are arguing about is this one.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
The difference with other authorities, and the trouble with using them as examples (such as Stoo's example of correcting his boss's maths), is that these other authorities are neither innerant, nor need to be so!
quote:Sorry to cause you a head ache! Sorry not to have made clear that I agree that something that is not perfect can have authority over you.
Originally posted by Stoo:
You are claiming that the Bible needs to be inerrant, otherwise it isn't authoritative. I pointed out an authority over me that clearly is not inerrant to show that something can have authority over me whilst still being in error, and you dismiss it purely because of the fact that it is not inerrant. What example could I use, then, Fish Fish? I cannot give you an example of an inerrant authority with errors in it.
Believe me, Fish Fish. It is not you who should be using the head-banging smilie.
quote:IMO the Bible claims to be God's word, his revalation of himself. What the Bible says, God says. I'm assuming that when I write, and so ISTM I'm not conflating the two.
Originally posted by Papiovavitch:
Fish Fish - the Bible isn't God. Stop conflating the two.
quote:Where does Jesus fit into ths scheme?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
IMO the Bible claims to be God's word, his revalation of himself.
quote:Now I'm not quite sure what you mean by perfect communication, but I am sure that He chooses not to do it. If by perfect communication, you mean written, clear, unambiguous, declarative statements, then there might be a case for biblical inerrancy, but I would be surprised if this is how you see the Bible, that it goes even halfway to describing the riches that are contained within it. But if it were the case, there would be no possibility of interpretive input - such input would detract from the perfect source material. How can you improve on perfection?. If, on the other hand, that communication, in as far as the bible is concerned, is nuanced, subtle, at times obscure, then the text demands interpretation, but does not require inerrancy. I don't see the logic of combining the two. You claim that you are under the authority of the Bible, ready to change your views according to how you believe God is interpreting the text to you. Well, what if, like me, you were to come to the conclusion that God was "telling" you that the text is not inerrant? This is a serious question, not merely a debating point. I came to non-inerrancy because that is the view which I believe the bible compels me to take.
The reason I think your illustration is mistaken and not a good analogy is that we are talking about a perfect God - without flaw. A God who knows perfection and who can communicate perfectly.
quote:Where?
Bible claims to be God's word, his revalation of himself.
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
quote:Where does Jesus fit into ths scheme?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
IMO the Bible claims to be God's word, his revalation of himself.
quote:Jesus is God's word in human form (John 1:1). He is God's revelation of himself in human form. The Bible is said to be God's word as well - Psalm 119 might be a good place to start...
Originally posted by psychodukos hudrotypiko-pokemon:
Fish Fishquote:Where?
Bible claims to be God's word, his revalation of himself.
quote:Does it all boil down to this? Even if God is perfect, communication is a process which involves more than God.
we are talking about a perfect God - without flaw. A God who knows perfection and who can communicate perfectly.
quote:Your theory is interesting - but not backed up by the evidence. So, for example, where does God say he cannot communicate perfectly?
Originally posted by Ponty'n'pop:
God cannot communicate perfectly whilst neither the facilitators of that communication nor the recipients are perfect.
quote:There's an important and subtle distinction to be made here. The sciptures (compiled and canonised by the worshipping community) make certain claims about certain things - the Psalmists sing of "Gods's Word", by which they mean Torah, the five Mosaic books. These are God's "Word" given to at Sinai. However, God's "Word" also refers to the words spoken through the prophets - note, spoken, not immediately written down. The NT then says that this "Word" of God, a pre-existing, eternal person, is embodied in Jesus Christ. And whilst we're at it, the bit in 2 Timothy refers, and can only refer, to the then extant Jewish scriptures (the canon of which was still in flux).
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
The Bible is said to be God's word as well - Psalm 119 might be a good place to start...
quote:Have you deliberately ignored the point which I made that communication is a process involving more than God? I'm not putting God in a box so much as acknowledging the imperfection of the transmittors and receivers.
Your theory is interesting - but not backed up by the evidence. So, for example, where does God say he cannot communicate perfectly?
You are putting God in a box. You're saying God cannot do something. God can do absolutely anything he wants! However, if I follow your logic, I could just as easily go on to say God himself cannot be perfect if he cannot communicate perfectly.
quote:The question is not whether God can or cannot communicate perfectly, presumanly P&P agrees that he could, if he so chose, by completly overriding human personality. It is a question of whether or not he chooses to. And clearly, the evidence is all there to suggest he does not. Because, even if I were to accept inerrancy, I could not describe the Bible as perfect communication, for all the reasons I have previously outlined. Presumably even you, FF, do not regard the Bible as perfect, in that sense. Whether or not the writer of a poetic, acrostic meditation on the Torah can be extrapolated as far as such a meaning, I will leave you to decide upon.
Your theory is interesting - but not backed up by the evidence. So, for example, where does God say he cannot communicate perfectly?
quote:Oh dear - about to go over old ground. I'll answer this one - but then probaly leave it since this is old ground.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
So the Bible, by which I presume you mean the 66 books of the Protestant version of it, never does claim itself to be the "Word of God". It is a deposit of and about the "Word", to be sure, but that is slightly different.
quote:No - the message can be perfect, but as imperfect people we can interpret it imperfectly.
Originally posted by Ponty'n'pop:
But it seems plain as plain to me that God is not communicating perfectly - otherwise we'd all receive the same message.
quote:No, cos our image is flawed because of sin.
Originally posted by Ponty'n'pop:
Tangental Heresy Warning! In the meantime, we might wonder about God's perfection. If we are truly made in his image, and we are imperfect, does that not imply that God is also imperfect??!
quote:Aha! So now it's not the communication which is perfect, but the message. This is a big, big difference.
I said:
But it seems plain as plain to me that God is not communicating perfectly - otherwise we'd all receive the same message.
To which FF replied:
No - the message can be perfect, but as imperfect people we can interpret it imperfectly.
quote:Your first two sentences are basically a contradiction of your view of the Bible, aren't they? For Christians, Jesus Christ is the Revealer - the Revelation of God. Karl Barth speaks of the threfold Word, the Word written, the Word preached, and the Word revealed. In the Reformed tradition, the Word revealed in Jesus Christ is attested to by Scripture and in faithful preaching (which is why preaching is effectively a sacrament in the Reformed tradition). The Bible isn't the Word of God in itself, but because of the witness it bears to Christ. Just like preaching. The Word of God in the primary sense is always Christ.
Jesus is God's word in human form (John 1:1). He is God's revelation of himself in human form. The Bible is said to be God's word as well - Psalm 119 might be a good place to start...
quote:He treats them all as scripture indeed, but he is, of course, speaking at a time when there's more actual scripture in existence than when the Psalmist or, say, Isaiah, was speaking. (I suspect your referring to his use of the "sign of Jonah", but that reference makes no claim (and cannot support a claim) that the story of Jonah is meant to be factual history.) The Jewish canon was still open at this time - Qoheleth, Song of Songs, Daniel were still on the edges of acceptability. In this canon we find the people of God placing contradictory and paradoxical pieces - Genesis 1 and 2, for example of the latter, or the clear factual inconsistency over who killed Goliath as an example of the former - so Jesus himself is referencing (and sometimes misquoting) documents already speak in variosu polyvocal and often contradictory ways about God. That tells us something about the Jews and Jesus' ability and willingness to use as scripture documents that any competent reader can see often raise fundamentally paradoxical points of view. It's therefore not necessary to prove an entirely inerrant scripture, because there was never an intention to create one. If that were the intention, then no church in its right mind would compile a scripture containing synopses of Jesus' life containing significant differences in detail and chronology - it didn't bother them to insist on "inerrancy" then, so it shouldn't bother us much now.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Jesus treats the whole OT as he does the Law, and thus as the word of God.
quote:Indeed, Luke (for example) says quite clearly how he came to write his Gospel (1:2) "Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you.."
FF: The Gospels record Jesus', and so are obviously also the word.
Dyfrig: There's no "obviously" about it. They become scripture indeed, but nowhere do the Christians claim that the written gospels were handed to them by God (as was the tradition with the Law).
quote:Aha, so Jesus is God's word because it says so in the Bible. I tend to think it works the other way round, the Bible is God's word because it witnesses to the Word in history.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Jesus is God's word in human form (John 1:1).
quote:Actually, the sense I get with some inerrantist schemes (I'm thinking particularly of descendants of the old Federal Calvinism, but others too) is that God writes a book and is then stuck with it, both with the Law, which frames the divine-human estrangement,and with both the terms of the Law as the necessary framework for the outplaying of God's engagement with human history in Christ. I know that there is an Islamic belief that the original of the Qur'an is in heaven with God, and I sometimes have a sense of something not unlike this with some Christian Biblical inerrantists, especially when the subject of textual criticism comes up.
I do think, Fish Fish, that your view comes very close to biblolatory, replacing God with the Bible.
quote:I have answered your question a number of times!!! Jesus affirms both law and prophets equally as something he has come to fulfil, but then proceeds to talk about the law. Just in case anyone (non-inerrantists!) should think he is re-writing the law, he declares it innerant. Now you think Jesus accepts an inerrant law, but thinks the rest errant. But he says he has come to fulfill the prophecy - not correct it! If there were errors he needed to correct, he'd say something. Rather he says he's come to fulfil it. I see absolutely no reason (nor have you given any evidence) to show Jesus thinks any of the Bible has errors in it.
Originally posted by AB:
FFS Fish Fish
#1 Don't use Matt 5 as a sola solution to your claim that Jesus used the OT as inerrant and perfect without first answering my genuine challenges to using that passage in that way, viz why Jesus chose to exempt the prophets from his "not one jot" statement.
quote:The term may be late, but Jesus uses the concept in every way but name.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
"Inerrancy" is a late notion - it's an attempt to provide authority for the Scriptures as a stand alone item once you've dismantled the authority of the Church to decide what is right or wrong.
quote:I think Lep has answered this.
Originally posted by AB:
Why would God be bound to communicate perfectly when it would be impossible for the receivers to receive it perfectly?
quote:No - cos the whole Bible points to Jesus!! (for example Luke 24:27)
Originally posted by psychodukos hudrotypiko-pokemon:
But you have left yourself with a problem, which you have highlighted by quoting John 1, and that is: don't you allow the Bible to eclipse Christ as the Word of God?
quote:Wow! Every single verse is about God's law, word, precepts etc. I can't see how it can't be about the Bible!!
Originally posted by psychodukos hudrotypiko-pokemon:
Also, I simply can't see Psalm 119 as talking about the Bible, and to be honest, I can't see any reason to think that it does.
quote:No one is talking about divine dictation. Everyone accepts the character of the writer comes across. It seems God can breath out his words, and do so in an accurate and authoritative way, but use human writers to do this. Jesus accepts this, or else he would correct the prophets and law writers...
Originally posted by Ponty'n'pop:
Indeed, Luke (for example) says quite clearly how he came to write his Gospel (1:2) "Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you.."
Human investigation, not divine dictation.
quote:Nope. I just take God's word as authoritative rather than pick an chose what makes sense or seems reasonable to me. For if one rejects inerrancy, that is what one ends up doing. As I said above - My point is that rejecting inerrancy wrecks the Bible as an authoritative revelation of a perfect God because you become the arbiter of truth and not God in his revelation. And, as I said before, that is to impose our flawed understanding on the Bible, correct it or change it or amend it or reject it (or bits of it at least), and thus our understanding is not challenged by a supreme authority.
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
I do think, Fish Fish, that your view comes very close to biblolatory, replacing God with the Bible.
quote:I do understand this - believe me I do. But, in the end all we are saying is that God is consistent - and the Bible records his consistency. The way non-inerantists argue, it seems that they think God can think one thing one day (say about a moral issue), and then change his mind and think the opposite the next day. But "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind..." (Numbers 23:19). Can you see how it can seem like this to us?!!
Originally posted by psychodukos hudrotypiko-pokemon:
I do think, FishFish, that one of the biggest problems many of us have is the very explicit way in which the inerrancy of Scripture is allowed to - as we see it - limit God almost to the point of paralysis. God is constrained to do everything 'by the Book', and the Book becomes a thing-in-itself, over against God.
quote:Where?
Fish Fish
[B][but then proceeds to talk about the law. Just in case anyone (non-inerrantists!) should think he is re-writing the law, he declares it innerant/B]
quote:Basically, Jesus doesn't have anything to correct, and affirms every jot and tittle to be fair and true and thus not at error. He doesn't take the opportunity to correct even a full stop. This is a repeat of a discussion a couple of pages back - so I'm sorry, I'll just leave it at that.
Originally posted by Papio*:
quote:Where?
Fish Fish
[B][but then proceeds to talk about the law. Just in case anyone (non-inerrantists!) should think he is re-writing the law, he declares it innerant/B]
The nearest I can get to this is when he says that not a jot or a tittle of the law shall pass away before He declares His mission complete, which He then did on the cross.
This doesn't have to mean that Jesus declared the law inerrant.
quote:Huh?!? Where?
The analogy the Bible draws is not between the Bible being inspired and us interpreting it, but rather the Bible being inspired and Jesus being incarnated - which was a flawless revelation.
quote:Now, that's a generalization! And the word 'can' is a bit of a giveaway, isn't it. Where non-inerrantists think that God 'can', doesn't that imply that inerrantists think that God 'can't'. And that 'God can't...' is a very big thing to say - however you go on to complete the sentence.
The way non-inerantists argue, it seems that they think God can think one thing one day (say about a moral issue), and then change his mind and think the opposite the next day.
quote:"Remember not the former things,
God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind..." (Numbers 23:19).
quote:You sum up my conundrum perfectly. How is it that inerrantists can say that the character of the writer comes across, but cannot acknowledge that an fundamental part of our human character is the ability (indeed, predisposition) to make mistakes?
No one is talking about divine dictation. Everyone accepts the character of the writer comes across. It seems God can breath out his words, and do so in an accurate and authoritative way, but use human writers to do this.
quote:But you have yet to answer my question of some time ago. What if it is the authority of the text that leads one to believe in non-inerrancy. Are you so certain that you are not imposing our flawed understanding of how God chooses to communicate with us upon the Bible.
I just take God's word as authoritative rather than pick an chose what makes sense or seems reasonable to me. For if one rejects inerrancy, that is what one ends up doing. As I said above - My point is that rejecting inerrancy wrecks the Bible as an authoritative revelation of a perfect God because you become the arbiter of truth and not God in his revelation. And, as I said before, that is to impose our flawed understanding on the Bible, correct it or change it or amend it or reject it (or bits of it at least), and thus our understanding is not challenged by a supreme authority.
quote:Well, I'm not sure you do, because no-one has denied that God is consistant, or that that consistency is shown in scripture. But it's a big step from that to say that the Bible is inerrant. It is God who is consistent, not, per se, the Bible. It is quite possible for an inconsistant text to bear witness to a consistent God. Not that I think the word consistent is particularly useful in this context. I believe the Bible is consistent, but I suspect I use the word in a less forensic way than you do. You have yet to offer any evidence that to treat the text as non-inerrant is to rob it of any of its power or authority, other than to repeat that it claims inerrancy, which I do not believe you have demonstrated. Matthew 5:7 to inerrancy is what Isaiah 53:3 is to PSA. It's a proof text, but it stands alone. I think one should be wary of hanging a whole theology on one verse of scripture, which can legitimately be interpreted in a number of different ways.
I do understand this - believe me I do. But, in the end all we are saying is that God is consistent - and the Bible records his consistency.
quote:Which is pretty much what I said/asked a couple of days ago.
Originally posted by Ponty'n'pop (addressed to Fish Fish):
Either the humanity of the preachers, prophets, writers, editors and translators is embedded in what we have received as our Bible, or it is not. You can't have it both ways.
<snip>
You acknowledged that the 'interpretation' of God's message may be imperfect, but you did not follow that logic through to the way in which that got onto the written page.
quote:
The thing is, every single one of those steps [translation, exposition etc] in what is, IMO, an essential interpretive process must either be inerrant if we were to follow your logic that gives rise to Biblical Inerrancy. Or else we accept that none of them are perfect, and prone to potential error, in which case why does the previous step (the Bible) deserve special treatment and be assumed inerrant?
quote:Me too:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which is pretty much what I said/asked a couple of days ago.
quote:I think Leprechaun's reply was that we didn't have enough in common for him to talk to me.
When we read the Bible, God very evidently allows us to interpret it in wildly different ways -- ways that, according to your inerrant beliefs, must be mistakes. If God was so keen on having a perfect text reach us, then why allow it to fall at the last hurdle, that final leap from eye to understanding? If he allows the reader the freedom to be imperfect in this way, then how can you be sure the recipient of the original inspiration et al were not?
quote:Yes, but God, in the Bible, is often quoting other people's words.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:IMO the Bible claims to be God's word, his revalation of himself. What the Bible says, God says.
Originally posted by Papiovavitch:
Fish Fish - the Bible isn't God. Stop conflating the two.
quote:GA, this is not what I said. You have obviously interpreted me wrong, unsurprisingly, as interpretation is obviously such a thorny issue for you.
I wrote
So the way we find out about God's living word (Jesus) is through the written words (themselves interestingly described as living) breathed out by God. The Bible itself never seems to draw a line to say that we should view one differently than the other, in terms of God speaking to us.
So I say - we need to trust God's written word
You say - we trust his living word, revealed in the written word.
I say (now) - the whole of the written word sees itself as a witness to the living word. Jesus himself insisted that the OT was about him, and he existed to fulfil it. In Hebrews where the writer is saying that God speaks to us primarily through Jesus, his justification is a whole lot of things that from the OT.
there seems to be an inextricable link between the living truth presented in Jesus and the propositional truth presented in the Scriptures. Both turn out to be living truth - because the scripture itself is all revelation of the living word Jesus.
If the Bible itself is so insistent that this link is so clear, that it is through the living word of Scripture that God speak to us of and through the living word of his son, who are we to say that we trust one and not the other? Who are we to draw a line between the written word (imperfect, at fault, untrustworthy because it is tainted by people) and the living word Jesus who,we will trust?
quote:Then frankly Karl, I think he probably takes the same attitude to you.
Karl wrote
If I'm wrong, and the first one's the real one, I'm not that bothered because frankly I have no desire to have anything to do with such a morally repugnant deity.
quote:It doesn't follow that they must be mistakes. God is quite capable of packaging different messages for different people into one text.
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
If you don't see this, then take that whole process of dissemination of the text one stage further. When we read the Bible, God very evidently allows us to interpret it in wildly different ways -- ways that, according to your inerrant beliefs, must be mistakes.
quote:Good. We are in agreement. If He turns out to be the real one, I have not sold out my sense of good and evil just to get on his good side.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:Then frankly Karl, I think he probably takes the same attitude to you.
Karl wrote
If I'm wrong, and the first one's the real one, I'm not that bothered because frankly I have no desire to have anything to do with such a morally repugnant deity.
quote:But are you not here trying to mold God in your image rather than the other way round?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But my bottom line is this - if I have a choice between a God who orders genocide, kills babies to punish their parents, orders the hanging of the sons for the sins of their fathers, et al., and alternatively one who didn't order these evil things, but chooses not to communicate inerrantly through the Bible, I know which one I'll choose.
If I'm wrong, and the first one's the real one, I'm not that bothered because frankly I have no desire to have anything to do with such a morally repugnant deity.
quote:Yes you can. We had it "both ways " in Jesus. Perfectly human, yet flawless revelation.
Originally posted by Ponty'n'pop:
Either the humanity of the preachers, prophets, writers, editors and translators is embedded in what we have received as our Bible, or it is not. You can't have it both ways.
quote:I don't recall anyone saying that their humanity doesn't come through. Merely that, as with Jesus, the living word, that this does not stop it being fully of God.
Originally posted by Stoo:
Fully human and fully divine is not a contradiction in terms.
To say that the humanity of the Biblical writers comes through in the Bible, whilst at the same time that humanity doesn't, is.
quote:Not necessarily. There is an incident in Numbers 15 where a man is put to death for collecting sticks on the Sabbath. In Mark 2, OTOH, Jesus breaks the Sabbath and tells the Pharisees that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. In Colossians St Paul tells the people of Colossae: "Allow no-one, therefore, to take you to task about what you eat and drink, or over the observance of festival, new moon or sabbath".
But are you not here trying to mold God in your image rather than the other way round?
quote:Thus you would ascribe to the Bible and/or to the people involved in getting it to us to, the same characteristics as Jesus?! You may feel comfortable in doing that, I am not.
quote:
Originally posted by Ponty'n'pop:
Either the humanity of the preachers, prophets, writers, editors and translators is embedded in what we have received as our Bible, or it is not. You can't have it both ways.
To which Lep replied:
Yes you can. We had it "both ways " in Jesus. Perfectly human, yet flawless revelation.
quote:It is very eloquent. But I'm not sure the eloquence adds any more credibility to the view, which I reject for reasons set out here and elsewhere.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I think my views on the sibject can best be expressed by referring you to the Chicago Statement, which sets out the stall far more eloquently than I:-
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
Yours in Christ
Matt
quote:Of course not all the characteristics of Jesus. But I think (see my reply to psyduck above) that there are some analogies drawn in the text itself as regards revelation.
Originally posted by Ponty'n'pop:
quote:Thus you would ascribe to the Bible and/or to the people involved in getting it to us to, the same characteristics as Jesus?! You may feel comfortable in doing that, I am not.
quote:
Originally posted by Ponty'n'pop:
Either the humanity of the preachers, prophets, writers, editors and translators is embedded in what we have received as our Bible, or it is not. You can't have it both ways.
To which Lep replied:
Yes you can. We had it "both ways " in Jesus. Perfectly human, yet flawless revelation.
quote:Except, as Alan and others have pointed out, 'faultless revelation' remains nonsensical if we cannot appreciate the revelation faultlessly. You and I are both bound by our humanity; I fail to see why it was not so for the thousands of Christians of other times and places who have brought us the Bible (including contemporary scholars who are working on modern translations etc as we discuss things here).
This does not mean I need to ascribe all the characteristics of Jesus to the Bible, merely that this is one route of explanation of how we were passed a faultless revelation through human insutruments.
quote:I agree, since the vast majority of humanity is morally superior to the first deity and Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hussein et al are certainly no worse. The first God has no moral worth and no moral right to judge us.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You know, I've been thinking about this "character of God" thing that Lep raised earlier - what does it say about God that He let the Bible have errors and didn't correct them.
But my bottom line is this - if I have a choice between a God who orders genocide, kills babies to punish their parents, orders the hanging of the sons for the sins of their fathers, et al., and alternatively one who didn't order these evil things, but chooses not to communicate inerrantly through the Bible, I know which one I'll choose.
If I'm wrong, and the first one's the real one, I'm not that bothered because frankly I have no desire to have anything to do with such a morally repugnant deity.
quote:Oh, papio, before you go, just wanted to point out that one of the people who signed that statement on inerrancy was Francis Schaeffer.
Originally posted by Papio*:
Anyway, I am done with this thread.
Papio.
quote:Gee, Karl, God thinks you're a morally repugnant deity! If this is so, do you open Church fetes? We've never had a morally repugnant deity open ours, and it might be quite a draw...
Then frankly Karl, I think he probably takes the same attitude to you.
quote:Your problem is what Jesus said about the Law!! (Matthew 5:17-18). If you really want to read the Bible "in the light of the revelation of God in Christ Jesus" then you should treat the Bible as he did. And since no one has shown anywhere where Jesus corrects the Bible he had, (rather than poor interpretations of the Bible), then I'll still treat every jot and tittle as accurate just as he did.
Originally posted by Callan.:
But the errantist position depends not on us making God in our own image (at least, being honest, no more than anyone else does). But rather attempting to make sense of a large and frequently contradictory collection of texts and reading them in the light of the revelation of God in Christ Jesus and using that, and the Tradition of the Church, as the standard by which we understand the scriptures.
quote:And this covers Jesus' attitude to Paul's epistles, Jude and Revelation too, does it? And every jot and tittle of their Greek?
And since no one has shown anywhere where Jesus corrects the Bible he had, (rather than poor interpretations of the Bible), then I'll still treat every jot and tittle as accurate just as he did.
quote:I believe God speaks to me through Scripture, and I don't believe that Scripture is inerrrant. Nor do I think that this makes it "difficult for him". I think the problem is that inerrantists believe that God speaks in, not through the Bible, and that the Bible is all he says. This itself is unscriptural: John 21:25 - "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."
through the pages of the Scriptures I believe od actually does speak to me, and I would regard this as difficult for Him to do if I did not take His words in scripture as being true.
quote:No, No, No, No, No, No, a hundred times NO!!!! No one is saying that. None of us has said that!!
Originally posted by The Psyduck:
...and that the Bible is all he says.
quote:Isaiah 43: 18, 19"Remember not the former things,
If it agress wtih what he said before, then its probably what he's saying now. If it goes against what he said before, then he definately isn't saying it now. Its all a matter of authority.
quote:Any regard to the context of this quote? Are you really implying that God was saying here - forget everything I have done in the past? Honestly, talk about ridiculous proof texting.
Originally posted by The Psyduck:
Isaiah 43: 18, 19"Remember not the former things,
nor consider the things of old.
Behold, I am doing a new thing;
now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?" [Obviously not!!!]
quote:God, through the prophet (Second Isaiah!) is clearly saying here "I am going to do something unprecedented. If you try to frame it within the understandings of the past, you'll miss it." Just as Eissfeldt said that you can indeed see Jesus Christ as fulfilling the Old Testament - but only if you see him as a very unexpected fulfilment. The clear theme of Peter's confession in Mark, as Norman Perrin has demonstrated, is that even the category of Messiah/Christ, which Peter applies so glibly to Jesus, doesn't fully sum him up - because Peter has a clear idea of what he thinks the Messiah should be, and Jesus isn't going to be that kind of Messiah. In fact the very category of 'Messiah' only fits up to a point. Christ is bigger than the preparation.
Any regard to the context of this quote? Are you really implying that God was saying here - forget everything I have done in the past? Honestly, talk about ridiculous proof texting.
quote:Again, I don't see anyone saying God cannot do a new thing. Does this new thing God does contradict what he's said or done before? No! So its a new action - but not a new direction of morality. And it may be unexpected by those who've read their Bibles - but unexpected does not mean contradictoryy or inconsistent.
Originally posted by The Psyduck:
Leprechaun:quote:God, through the prophet (Second Isaiah!) is clearly saying here "I am going to do something unprecedented. If you try to frame it within the understandings of the past, you'll miss it." Just as Eissfeldt said that you can indeed see Jesus Christ as fulfilling the Old Testament - but only if you see him as a very unexpected fulfilment. The clear theme of Peter's confession in Mark, as Norman Perrin has demonstrated, is that even the category of Messiah/Christ, which Peter applies so glibly to Jesus, doesn't fully sum him up - because Peter has a clear idea of what he thinks the Messiah should be, and Jesus isn't going to be that kind of Messiah. In fact the very category of 'Messiah' only fits up to a point. Christ is bigger than the preparation.
Any regard to the context of this quote? Are you really implying that God was saying here - forget everything I have done in the past? Honestly, talk about ridiculous proof texting.
Talk about ridiculous proof texting? Talk about desperate rebuttals, I'd say!
quote:Two things.
Your problem is what Jesus said about the Law!! (Matthew 5:17-18). If you really want to read the Bible "in the light of the revelation of God in Christ Jesus" then you should treat the Bible as he did. And since no one has shown anywhere where Jesus corrects the Bible he had, (rather than poor interpretations of the Bible), then I'll still treat every jot and tittle as accurate just as he did.
quote:Well given that the concern with inerrancy in the form it's taking on this thread is really only as old as the Enlightenment, I think God's saying "The Bible isn't inerrant." Though I'll grant you that that's completely in accord with Scripture...
Psyduck - how about you give us an example of something God has said recently which isn't covered in the Bible?
quote:Again, we've covered this one - in (very flawed) summary, Jesus is not contradicting the law but pushing the principle behind the law - holiness. Cos we've discussed it before, I shan't do so again now. Sorry.
Originally posted by Callan.:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:Two things.
Your problem is what Jesus said about the Law!! (Matthew 5:17-18). If you really want to read the Bible "in the light of the revelation of God in Christ Jesus" then you should treat the Bible as he did. And since no one has shown anywhere where Jesus corrects the Bible he had, (rather than poor interpretations of the Bible), then I'll still treat every jot and tittle as accurate just as he did.
It is entirely anachronistic to say that Jesus treated the Bible in any way, given that the OT canon had not been set and the NT canon not written. Saying that we should treat the Bible as Jesus did is a non-sequitur.
Can you explain how Jesus' comments in Matthew can be reconciled with his declaration in Mark 7 that all foods were clean, his treatment of the sabbath and his repudiation of the Mosaic Law on the issue of divorce?
quote:In that case, please remind me of the arguments/point me to the page numbers. I couldn't find it.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Stoo - We've done this already!
quote:
Originally posted by The Psyduck:
quote:Well given that the concern with inerrancy in the form it's taking on this thread is really only as old as the Enlightenment, I think God's saying "The Bible isn't inerrant." Though I'll grant you that that's completely in accord with Scripture...
Psyduck - how about you give us an example of something God has said recently which isn't covered in the Bible?
quote:Sorry, I don't know where either - I think ti was something on th Gospel of Thomas rather than Apocrapha by name. But i really should get back to work...
Originally posted by Stoo:
quote:In that case, please remind me of the arguments/point me to the page numbers. I couldn't find it.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Stoo - We've done this already!
quote:My point exactly. This was a reference to Christ. To expand the application to everything else in the world that God might do is going well beyond the bounds of the passage. You were trying to use it to say that FF couldn't be aware of the "new thing" God was doing precisely because he has accepted the authority of the revelation of Christ in the NT.
Originally posted by The Psyduck:
Just as Eissfeldt said that you can indeed see Jesus Christ as fulfilling the Old Testament - but only if you see him as a very unexpected fulfilment. The clear theme of Peter's confession in Mark, as Norman Perrin has demonstrated, is that even the category of Messiah/Christ, which Peter applies so glibly to Jesus, doesn't fully sum him up - because Peter has a clear idea of what he thinks the Messiah should be, and Jesus isn't going to be that kind of Messiah. In fact the very category of 'Messiah' only fits up to a point. Christ is bigger than the preparation.
quote:If God can do whatever he wants, this must include conveying eternal truth through text which is not absolutely perfect. On that score, I am wholly in agreement with you - let's not patronise God.
Just a general response to the idea of God not being able to accurately inspire the Bible through human authors.
Firstly, I find that rather patronising to God - he can do whatever he wants.
quote:But, the Gospel of Thomas isn't widely recognised as Scripture. The question is about those books recognised as Scripture by large parts of the Church ... 1&2 Esdras, Judith, Tobit etc ...
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I think ti was something on th Gospel of Thomas rather than Apocrapha by name
quote:In which case it's different.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I think ti was something on th Gospel of Thomas rather than Apocrapha by name.
quote:So why didn't God say: "Be Holy" as opposed to "Only eat Kosher food". I thought God hated ambiguity and confusion.
Again, we've covered this one - in (very flawed) summary, Jesus is not contradicting the law but pushing the principle behind the law - holiness. Cos we've discussed it before, I shan't do so again now. Sorry.
quote:The Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, dating from approximately the middle of the 2nd century BC, contains things like Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Baruch (all three of which were considered worth reading in Cranmer's year-long lectionary in the B.C.P.), and other post-exilic works. The first two play a big role in modifying and developing the Jewish "Wisdom"-tradition, and are highly to be recommended for getting a grasp on how St Paul takes these things a stage further. Some of these books also lay the groundwork for understanding a lot of "resurrection" and "life after death" language in the NT period. Up to Reformation times, they many of the books were read and relied upon as "scripture". From matters posted on the Ship (I think by Stephen Tomkins) the decisions not to print them in modern Bibles comes from a controversy in the early 1800s amongst members of the British Bible Society driven partly by cost and partly by a split over whether it was appropriate to do so or not. It is only comparatively recently, and only in one tiny corner of Christendom (mostly British and American Reformed Evangelicalism) that these books haven't been accorded at least some authority in the Church.
Originally posted by Stoo:
*I'm not entirely sure which books myself, but I'm sure someone here will tell us.
quote:Try this page from sacred-texts.com. Though I think there may be some variations between that list, and the Orthodox canon (the blurb on that page seems very Roman Catholic/Protestant oriented and I recall a slight variation in Orthodox lists of canonical books)
Originally posted by Stoo:
I'm not entirely sure which books myself, but I'm sure someone here will tell us.
quote:My final post for the aftenoon - Since neither Jesus nor the apostles quote the Apocrapha, that would suggest they did not hold it in the same regard as the stuff we now call the OT. (I know Jude mentions Enoch - but on which this is an interesting article
Originally posted by Stoo:
quote:In which case it's different.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I think ti was something on th Gospel of Thomas rather than Apocrapha by name.
You say that Jesus' words show he thought Scripture was inerrant. Just wondering which bits of the Apocrypha (as in Jesus' time, some of this* would have been known as Scripture) are inerrant too.
*I'm not entirely sure which books myself, but I'm sure someone here will tell us.
quote:Are all the books in the Old Testament quoted by books in the New? Any references to Esther in the New Testament? Or, even with a book as extensive as Job there is but one passing reference to the "endurance of Job" in James.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
neither Jesus nor the apostles quote the Apocrapha, that would suggest they did not hold it in the same regard as the stuff we now call the OT.
quote:Rubbish. It's a reference to the impending liberation of the exilic community in Babylon by the Persians.
This was a reference to Christ.
quote:I don't have to. All I have to do is to show that God does new and unexampled things, and that the Bible says so. QED.
To expand the application to everything else in the world that God might do is going well beyond the bounds of the passage.
quote:No I wasn't. I was saying that th eprophecy is spoken to people who at that time are about to see God act in a wy which is unexampled, and unconstrained by what has gone before. Unless FishFish is a lot older than I'd thought, and was in exile in Babylon in the sixth century BC, I wasn't talking about him at all.
You were trying to use it to say that FF couldn't be aware of the "new thing" God was doing precisely because he has accepted the authority of the revelation of Christ in the NT.
quote:Trouble is, inerrantist arguments are notoriously prone to proof-text argument. If all the authority of Scripture is equally present in each verse, then any verse is as good as any other for this kind of argument.
Anyone could choose one verse and push every other text in the Bible through that sieve. A proof text is still a proof text no matter how many learned theologians you quote to make your point.
quote:Hear we go again...
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Your problem is what Jesus said about the Law!! (Matthew 5:17-18). If you really want to read the Bible "in the light of the revelation of God in Christ Jesus" then you should treat the Bible as he did. And since no one has shown anywhere where Jesus corrects the Bible he had, (rather than poor interpretations of the Bible), then I'll still treat every jot and tittle as accurate just as he did.
quote:It's about both.
Originally posted by The Psyduck:
Leprechaun:quote:Rubbish. It's a reference to the impending liberation of the exilic community in Babylon by the Persians.
This was a reference to Christ.
quote:Ok, I'll try once more.
Originally posted by AB:
Hear we go again...
...So Fish Fish, please explain - and I'll keep this simple, let's place our Bibles aside and talk pure grammatical language - how saying 'I shall not be abolishing' is functionally equivalant to 'are without error?...
quote:If this is what Lep said, then for the 1st time I disagree with him. I see plenty of places where Jesus uses the scripture, affirming them to be true. He NEVER criticises the scriptures. Not one jot or tittle. I see absolutely no reason to show Jesus thinks any of the Bible has errors in it. So I believe I am far from arguing from silence. But I think you "errantists" definately are arguing from silence.
Originally posted by AB:
Elsewhere Lep kindly pointed out that both sides are arguing from silence on this issue. Jesus neither corrects, nor factually confirms the OT. So, if you need to use any other source than this passage than you are hereby banned from using it on its own as an example to maintain inerrancy. K?AB
quote:Sorry, Lep - (s)he's right!
Originally posted by Callan.:
Nice try.
But in this context "this book" means the Revelation of St John the Divine and not the Bible. Presumably St John had no idea that he was writing the final book of the New Testament and it seems likely that his wasn't the final book as far as dating is concerned. (2 Peter and the Johanine Epistles were probably later - in fact one school of thought maintains that Revelation was really quite early).
So God still has something to say.
quote:Irony detector required. I was attempting (it now appears feebly) to point out the foolishness of Psyduck's logic in using Isaiah to "prove" that the Bible is not God's complete revelation. I was trying to show the ridiculousness of trying to base this on one text. Because anyone can do that about anything.
Originally posted by Callan.:
Nice try.
But in this context "this book" means the Revelation of St John the Divine and not the Bible. Presumably St John had no idea that he was writing the final book of the New Testament and it seems likely that his wasn't the final book as far as dating is concerned. (2 Peter and the Johanine Epistles were probably later - in fact one school of thought maintains that Revelation was really quite early).
So God still has something to say.
quote:Your wish is my command!
Originally posted by Stoo:
Fish Fish, I'd love to hear what you say on Alan & my posts above.
quote:With the exception of Enoch ... that link you gave earlier being a case of special pleading it seemed to me. Especially as it's clear from the fact that Paul happily quoted from non-Jewish sources that quoting a passage doesn't imply acceptance of that book as Scripture. But then, if it's accepted that a book can be quoted by a NT writer without that implying that book is Scripture, what does that say about quotes from OT books?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I just think it worth noting that none of the apocryphal books are quoted in the NT.
quote:And not just the Church, but as Dyfrig pointed out, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom and Baruch at least came under the corpus that Jesus' contempories would have understood as Scripture, of which not one jot will pass.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, it still leaves open the original question. Do you consider the apocrypha to be inspired, inerrant Scripture or not? And, if not, why not given that the majority of the Church includes them within the canon of Scripture.
quote:So I'm right, then, that God's revelation is the Bible and not Jesus Christ, according to your position. Which is really what I wanted you to say all along.
Irony detector required. I was attempting (it now appears feebly) to point out the foolishness of Psyduck's logic in using Isaiah to "prove" that the Bible is not God's complete revelation.
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Jesus affirms both law and prophets equally as something he has come to fulfil, but then proceeds to talk about the law. Just in case anyone (non-inerrantists!) should think he is re-writing the law, he declares it innerant. I believe you agreed that Jesus was saying the law was innerant didn't you?
quote:Beeeeeeep. No, doesn't follow. If a prophecy or teaching can be communicated in a narrative sense (eg, without it being historically true) - as you will accept with Genesis 1-3 and the Parables (to name but two examples) than you must surely be able to accept that fulfilling something does not necessarily mean to affirm it historically. If the creation myth in Genesis is to be fulfilled by Jesus, does that affirm that is happened historically as recorded? No, of course not.
By coming to fulfil something, he must beleive what he is fulfilling is accurate. If he did not, he would either change or correct the errors.
quote:
Whenever he talks of the prophets, its positive. He NEVER says anything negative about the prophets. NEVER corrects them. ONLY says he is fulfilling them. So I strongly believe this is Jesus sffirming innerancy in this verse. He does so again in Luke 24:27 - an ideal opportunity to correct any errors he saw.
<snip>
But, as I say, whenever he talks of the prophets, he NEVER corrects them.
quote:
I see plenty of places where Jesus uses the scripture, affirming them to be true. He NEVER criticises the scriptures. Not one jot or tittle. I see absolutely no reason to show Jesus thinks any of the Bible has errors in it. So I believe I am far from arguing from silence. But I think you "errantists" definately are arguing from silence.
quote:Not seeing Jesus pointing out errors, does not mean that Jesus didn't think there were errors.
"But there are no such things as water-babies."
...no one has a right to say no water-babies exist till they have seen no water-babies existing; which is quite a different thing, mind, from not seeing water-babies...
quote:I would love to say I understand this little exchange. But I don't. Not one jot or tittle of it in fact.
Originally posted by The Psyduck:
quote:So I'm right, then, that God's revelation is the Bible and not Jesus Christ, according to your position. Which is really what I wanted you to say all along.
Irony detector required. I was attempting (it now appears feebly) to point out the foolishness of Psyduck's logic in using Isaiah to "prove" that the Bible is not God's complete revelation.
The logic of my invocation of (Deutero) Isaiah is the logic of chess. It resides in the move it forces you to make in response. I wanted you to choose between Jesus Christ and the Bible, and you appear to have chosen the Bible. The ultimate logic of your position, surely, is that Jesus Christ came, not merely 'to fulfil Scripture' but to make it possible for the (rest of the ) Bible, with the propositions in it which we must believe to be saved, to be written. It may well be that you stop well short of that position - but I suspect that to do so is illogical.
Sorry to sound so Vulcan so early in the morning... (Live long and prosper!)
quote:I suspect that this, indeed, was Jesus attitude nto the scriptures, and has been the Jewish attitude through the years. The question of forensic historical accuracy would have been meaningless to Him, let alone his contemporaries. Inerrancy is the foisting of enlightenment pseudo-scietific logic onto texts which predate the enlightenment by almost two millenia.
'In the Jewish approach to this and all scripture, we never ask, “Did it happen or didn’t it happen?” We ask, “ Why was it written that way?” The narratives become the structure and framework for the message of how we are to relate to ourselves, our fellows, and God. For Jews, the scripture’s purpose is not to be a chronological history whose purpose is to teach us what was said and done at any given time. It is a book of faith from which we draw the lessons on how God expects us to imitate Him in holiness, how we are to repair an imperfect world by visiting the sick, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, protecting the powerless, being responsible for one another because we are our brother’s keeper. These are all common lessons, of course, that Jews and Christians share. We call it tikkun olam, repair of the world. The particulars of the stories are less important than the lessons they provide for us.'
, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't really like to know the answer.
quote:Yes, of course it does! And yet it's more subtle than that - or why would Origen have produced the Hexapla, or Jerome have immersed himself in Hebrew? (Though there is that lovely little story about the conference of bishops at which one literato suggested that the word for the paralytic's bed in Mark 2 - krabatton - be changed to the more elegant klinidion. Whereupon one crusty old guy leaps to his feet and says that if krabatton was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for him...)
Now, if the the NT writers are quoting from the Septuagint, does that mean that it is that version that is accepted as the canonical one by the earliest Christians?
quote:Happy to agree with NT Wright on this - but that doesn't make them OT scripture, nor is he arguing for them to be scripture.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
That dreadful, bible-doubting liberal NT Wright strongly argues that works such as Ecclus, Wisdom and Maccabees offer essential insights into the ideas that were flying around 1st century Palestine and therefore help us understand the NT better.
quote:Yes, it is different - and doesn't have to be innerant logically.
Originally posted by AB:
Aye, that I do. But I do believe that a coventantal binding legal system is a completely different genre to rest of the OT. You too will have to admit that there is a requirement for inerrancy with a coventant that simply isn't there for say, a narrative portion of the Bible - yes?
quote:I'm not arguing everything is historically true and innerant - rather that everything is true and innerant in its genre. So, if its genre is history, then yes it is innerant history. If its poetry, then its not innerant history - but the truths it portrays in poetic form are innerant. Prophecy is a genre of writing - and the Bible prophecy is innerant in its genre etc etc. That's subtley, but importanlty different from they way you are portraying me.
Originally posted by AB:
Beeeeeeep. No, doesn't follow. If a prophecy or teaching can be communicated in a narrative sense (eg, without it being historically true) - as you will accept with Genesis 1-3 and the Parables (to name but two examples) than you must surely be able to accept that fulfilling something does not necessarily mean to affirm it historically. If the creation myth in Genesis is to be fulfilled by Jesus, does that affirm that is happened historically as recorded? No, of course not.
quote:If you take my position as explained above, then Jesus doesn't need to explain the snake if its a poetic illustration. But the truths of the poetic narative are still true - indeed its a requirement of the NT that there was a real Adam (Romans 5:14, 1 Cor 15:22 etc.) - but thats a tangent - sorry!.
Originally posted by AB:
Oh come on Fish Fish. You think that 1st century Jews would have needed to know if something was historical or not? Indeed the very notion of historical recording is a fairly modern invention and not one that his listeners would have been familiar with. Do you think Jesus would have needed to have pointed out, "erm, actually while I have your attention, there wasn't really a talking snake, that's just a story telling device". Why would he need to?
quote:Thats not what Jesus says. He says NOT ONE JOT OR TITTLE. Either he means that or he's lying. Are you accusing Jesus of lying?
Originally posted by AB:
Also, in the Matt 5 verse - do you really think it would have improved his rep with the teachers of the law (to whom the not one jot passage is aimed) who he is trying to appease by showing that he still holds up the law - to point out minor errors in the text.
quote:No, I'm sorry, but I will not agree with this at all! (Not one jot or tittle of it
Originally posted by AB:
Actually, no Fish Fish, you are arguing from silence. Re-read the block above - your whole argument is based around "Jesus NEVER critising scriptures" - this is an argument from silence. As i've pointed out before, there is no proof that Jesus never corrects because there aren't errors.
) Jesus Never criticises the scriptures - fact. But he constantly quotes from them and uses them and afirms them and treats them with total authority. If he thought there were errors, he would say so. If he thought there were errors, he was naive to say he was coming to fulfill prophecy (prophetic genre - innerant in its genre), and naive to say JOT AND TITTLE in order to give the impression of innernacy. The whole weith of Jesus' teaching is for Biblical authority and without error. There is silence for the alternative oppinion.quote:Many apologies Belle, your post was indeed excellent, and it raised I think, the key issues, about why we should bother having this discussion.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Belle, in what I believe was a perceptive and, unfortunately, overlooked post,
quote:JJ, I'm not, however, sure this is entirely fair. For a number of reasons
I suspect that this, indeed, was Jesus attitude nto the scriptures, and has been the Jewish attitude through the years. The question of forensic historical accuracy would have been meaningless to Him, let alone his contemporaries. Inerrancy is the foisting of enlightenment pseudo-scietific logic onto texts which predate the enlightenment by almost two millenia.
quote:Amen to that!
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But I think trying to argue from what the culture was is pretty unconvincing anyway - I want to see the answers in the text...
quote:Psy duck,
Originally posted by The Psyduck:
None of this fits with the inerrantists' account of Scriptural authority. (And I've a pretty good idea what'll be said about this. Go on - let's see if I'm wrong!)
quote:Oh, come on, FF - are you looking for verses in which Jesus conytradicts or sets aside preceding Scripture? How likely is that? Er... hang on...
And as there is absolute silence from your point of view, and lots of scriptrue to back up mine, I will stand firm thank you.
quote:And again:
[21]
"You have heard that it was said to the men of old, `You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' [22] But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, `You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.
quote:
"It was also said, `Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' [32] But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
quote:And so on.
[38]
"You have heard that it was said, `An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' [39] But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; [40] and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well;
[41] and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
[42] Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you.
quote:Not too big on the discipline of social history then?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:Amen to that!
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But I think trying to argue from what the culture was is pretty unconvincing anyway - I want to see the answers in the text...
quote:I've posted on this before - http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/UBB/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000052;p=13#000617
Originally posted by The Psyduck:
FishFish:quote:Oh, come on, FF - are you looking for verses in which Jesus conytradicts or sets aside preceding Scripture? How likely is that? Er... hang on...
And as there is absolute silence from your point of view, and lots of scriptrue to back up mine, I will stand firm thank you.
What about: Matthew 5! Yes, folks - Matthew 5!
...
I don't know of any way of interpreting the Antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount that doesn't involve seeing Jesus as deliberately setting aside the old Law. By contradicting its teachings.
quote:Is now a good time to say I don't agree with femail leadership of a church...?
Originally posted by Stoo:
Go on. Explain to me Paul's comments on women in the Church without using culture-based arguments.
quote:As FF has said, then you haven't read the rest of this thread. It may not be a way that you agree with, but it is certainly "a way".
Originally posted by The Psyduck:
I don't know of any way of interpreting the Antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount that doesn't involve seeing Jesus as deliberately setting aside the old Law. By contradicting its teachings.
quote:It's a good time to let me know about women prophesying in Church.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Is now a good time to say I don't agree with femail leadership of a church...?
quote:Err, yes you're right. It's classed as "Pseudepigrapha", so isn't in any canon of Scripture. Sorry for mistakenly refering to it as Apocrypha
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Just a small, pedantic point, but I don't think Enoch quoted by Jude is in the Apocrypha, is it?
quote:Sorry Stoo, before this turns into a big fight, you are quite right to pick me up on what I said. It sounded like I was just falling back on conservative evangelical rhetoric, which I really don't want to do. Let me nuance it slightly.
Originally posted by Stoo:
Not too big on the discipline of social history then?
quote:Easily done.
Psy duck,
It may just be me, (really, it may just be me, I don't honestly know) but I find I don't understand at least two thrids of what you are posting. Can you explain to me, in words of one syallable, why the approach of hearing God through the text is incompatible with an inerrantist view? I really really don't understand.
quote:Good, so you are happy with truth being able to be communicated in other means than just facts, that's a start.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I'm not arguing everything is historically true and innerant - rather that everything is true and innerant in its genre. So, if its genre is history, then yes it is innerant history.
quote:Similarly if the listeners would have been able to understand that a truth can be conveyed without a requirement of inerrancy - would Jesus have needed to have explained that there was an error?
If you take my position as explained above, then Jesus doesn't need to explain the snake if its a poetic illustration. But the truths of the poetic narative are still true
quote:Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrr
Thats not what Jesus says. He says NOT ONE JOT OR TITTLE. Either he means that or he's lying. Are you accusing Jesus of lying?
quote:Beeeeeeep, that's the same argument as before. Please explain how that isn't an argument from silence? Jesus NEVER criticises... haven't I given legitimate reasons why he might not need to point out issues?
No, I'm sorry, but I will not agree with this at all! (Not one jot or tittle of it
quote:And he can't do that without believing them inerrant?
But he constantly quotes from them and uses them and afirms them and treats them with total authority.
quote:Sigh, so you chose to ignore my entire post and just repeat your own assertions instead. Don't you think you owe the discussion some more respect than that?
If he thought there were errors, he would say so. If he thought there were errors, he was naive to say he was coming to fulfill prophecy (prophetic genre - innerant in its genre), and naive to say JOT AND TITTLE in order to give the impression of innernacy. The whole weith of Jesus' teaching is for Biblical authority and without error.
quote:Hmm. The end dropped off. It should read:
Where there is a conflict between what the Bible seems to be saying and
quote:I quite agree, but that's not quite what I'm saying. I'm arguing that if Jesus' contempories believed x to be y, when Jesus talked about x, then their assumptions would be that x was y unless he qualified it.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Therefore an argument based on "Jesus would have believed this because everyone believed it then" while an argument I have sympathy with, I don't find conclusive.
quote:You're right. Actually I thought I'd said " convincing way..." which is what I meant. But equally, there is an ignoring of the fact that for most people the easiest way of reading the Antitheses is that Jesus is being critical of the Law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The Psyduck:
I don't know of any way of interpreting the Antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount that doesn't involve seeing Jesus as deliberately setting aside the old Law. By contradicting its teachings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As FF has said, then you haven't read the rest of this thread. It may not be a way that you agree with, but it is certainly "a way".
quote:Incidentally this is a good reason fro people not to whine too much about things having been covered already on this thread. That's not the way argument works. The same points, made at different junctures in an argument, can lead off - or be dealt with - in quite different ways.
No, I'm sorry, but I will not agree with this at all! (Not one jot or tittle of it ) Jesus Never criticises the scriptures - fact.
) on the side of saying that forensic truth had no meaning whatsoever, or in saying that nothing in human attitudes has fundamentally changed over the years. I do think, however, that the Jewish tradition of storytelling (that is that the lessons of the stories are more important than the details they provide) is amply attested, not least by Jesus himself, and I'd be surprised if many Jews of any ages would find much that was objectionable in the piece quoted by Belle. It seems to me to be in the mainstream of Jewish scholarly reflection, rather than a by-product of textual criticism. , I won't be contributing to the discussion for a while.quote:In a sense Stoo, this is what I have been trying to say all along in a different context. While I can't pretend to know much about the Apocrypha, this argument is exactly what I am trying to say about the character of God as revealed in Joshua et al. If they belived God to be the God revealed in Genesis/Joshua, I would have expected him to make it clear that the God he was talking about was not this God.
Originally posted by Stoo:
quote:I quite agree, but that's not quite what I'm saying. I'm arguing that if Jesus' contempories believed x to be y, when Jesus talked about x, then their assumptions would be that x was y unless he qualified it.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Therefore an argument based on "Jesus would have believed this because everyone believed it then" while an argument I have sympathy with, I don't find conclusive.
quote:You just can't say "they simply didn't HAVE a historical genre". Genesis 12 - Nehamiah are presented as history. Presented as "this is what happened, guy's". Furthermore, since in Matthew 5 Jesus uses the term "Law" along side "prophets", he seems to be using it in its largest possible scope (ie Law and Prophets = the OT) - so he's saying the Law, i.e. the history, is innerant. (Interestingly he's thus affirming that those so called genocide passages are fine by him...)
Originally posted by AB:
But, you see Fish Fish, short of being patronising to the Biblical writers - they simply didn't HAVE a historical genre. It didn't exist. The way we read and understand a historical account is significantly different to the way it was communicated in the 'ancient world'. We have covered this on the thread already and I'll be happy to hunt out page references for you.
quote:I have read your posts. I've listened. I respect your oppinion. I think you are wrong. And so I've responded.
Originally posted by AB:
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrr
rrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh. The Law, FF, The Law, he only explicitly claims it of the Law!
Have you read nothing that I have written about this? FFS, please show some respect for my reasoning on this - if I'm mistaken and Jesus is claiming inerrancy of the Bible for the whole thing in this passage, you must explain either how the fulfilling means affirming historically (which you haven't) or why Jesus exempted the Prophets from his one jot blarb (which you haven't).
quote:I don't see that he can, No. For the same reason I stand by innerancy. If there are flaws, then the whole foundation of the book as God's word crumbles, and there's little point quoting it, for you might be quoting false teaching or lies.
And he can't do that without believing them inerrant?
quote:Sorry - I'm trying to interact with your points. But I think you're wrong! I'm trying to answer you. But I can't change my position. I am convinced you're wrong!!! What else can I say?
Sigh, so you chose to ignore my entire post and just repeat your own assertions instead. Don't you think you owe the discussion some more respect than that?
AB
quote:The genre "History" was invented by Heroditus. He is universally acknowledged as the first historian.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
You just can't say "they simply didn't HAVE a historical genre". Genesis 12 - Nehamiah are presented as history. Presented as "this is what happened, guy's".
quote:I'm not sure who you are correcting here! But anyway, Heroditus may be acknowledged as the first historian. But not by me. Every one of the Jewish history books predates him. And I see nothing to change my belief that they were presented and accepted as true records of what had happened in the past.
Originally posted by Stoo:
quote:The genre "History" was invented by Heroditus. He is universally acknowledged as the first historian.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
You just can't say "they simply didn't HAVE a historical genre". Genesis 12 - Nehamiah are presented as history. Presented as "this is what happened, guy's".
He never wrote "this happened, guys". He wrote "This is what I think should have happened. This is what this person should have said/done at this particular time to fulfil their moral obligations, to have made an excellent speech, and to make a good story." He freely acknowledges that.
That is what ancient people understood as History. Admittedly, it is a Greek view, but it is reasonable to assume the Jews had this viewpoint too. At the very least, it is foolish to dismiss it as a viewpoint they would not have had.
quote:I'm not asking you to change your belief. Just to acknowledge that the genre of History isn't as set in stone as you're pretending. By all means still believe that they are historically accurate, but don't claim that because they are "history" they must be. It's clearly not the case.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I see nothing to change my belief that they were presented and accepted as true records of what had happened in the past.
quote:I think I understand, and I think I agree. By saying Jewish texts were in the history genre, I mean the Jewish history genre - and so within that genre and that way of writing they are historically accurate and innerant (as Jesus affirms in Mat 5:17...
Originally posted by Stoo:
quote:I'm not asking you to change your belief. Just to acknowledge that the genre of History isn't as set in stone as you're pretending. By all means still believe that they are historically accurate, but don't claim that because they are "history" they must be. It's clearly not the case.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I see nothing to change my belief that they were presented and accepted as true records of what had happened in the past.
)quote:May you be cursed to spend eternity discussing inerrancy in Dead Horses.
Originally posted by AB:
Eeek, soz dyfrig, my frustration got the better of me - and being a web designer should have known the trouble all of those letters would cause. My apologies, all.
AB
quote:Ok, that's fine.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
the Jewish history genre
quote:I'm sorry, this is not my area of expertise, so I can't begin to argue this. I could research it, but I'm sorry not to have the time to. So I'll bow out of this part of the discussion I'm afraid! Sorry!
Originally posted by Stoo:
quote:Ok, that's fine.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
the Jewish history genre
Let's get literary then (my subject), rather than theological.
What defines the Jewish history genre? How do we know that the history in the Jewish history genre is somewhat akin to modern history, rather than the history of the ancients? What can we verify it against?
Prove to me that I should see Jewish history as intricately accurate, rather than just broadly accurate. You can do this by appealing to comparitive accounts in their neighbours if you like, or archaeology. Please, however, try not to provide evidence from Christian sites, as they tend to be rather biassed.
quote:Nonsense. They not only had a historical genre, they had at least two. Chronicles is clearly a different genre from Samuel/Kings.
Originally posted by AB:
they simply didn't HAVE a historical genre. It didn't exist. The way we read and understand a historical account is significantly different to the way it was communicated in the 'ancient world'.
quote:In clear defiance of Fish Fish's desire not to discuss this again, I just wondered if this doesn't illustrate the point of both sides very well. When Jesus appears to be restating the law - he says very clearly that he's not doing so. Fish Fish here seems to use the argument I would use - that Jesus is not contradicting the law but illustrating that the principle behind the law overrides the letter of the law. Now, surely our position on this is so close as to be very little different - coming at it from both sides of the argument. In fact, I am becoming convinced that Fish Fish actually has no claim to call him/herself an inerrantist!
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your problem is what Jesus said about the Law!! (Matthew 5:17-18). If you really want to read the Bible "in the light of the revelation of God in Christ Jesus" then you should treat the Bible as he did. And since no one has shown anywhere where Jesus corrects the Bible he had, (rather than poor interpretations of the Bible), then I'll still treat every jot and tittle as accurate just as he did.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Callan:
Two things.
It is entirely anachronistic to say that Jesus treated the Bible in any way, given that the OT canon had not been set and the NT canon not written. Saying that we should treat the Bible as Jesus did is a non-sequitur.
Can you explain how Jesus' comments in Matthew can be reconciled with his declaration in Mark 7 that all foods were clean, his treatment of the sabbath and his repudiation of the Mosaic Law on the issue of divorce?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Again, we've covered this one - in (very flawed) summary, Jesus is not contradicting the law but pushing the principle behind the law - holiness. Cos we've discussed it before, I shan't do so again now. Sorry.
quote:No they don't. Herodotos is roughly contemporary with the events described in Esther, Ezra & Nehemiah & so even on the most conservative OT datings precedes those books and also the final version of Chronicles.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Stoo:
[qb] Heroditus may be acknowledged as the first historian. But not by me. Every one of the Jewish history books predates him.
quote:The genre "Greek History" may have been. But the genre(s) "Jewish History" is different.
Originally posted by Stoo:
The genre "History" was invented by Heroditus. He is universally acknowledged as the first historian.
quote:He did sometimes write "this happened". And he is often careful to acknowledge his sources.
He never wrote "this happened, guys". He wrote "This is what I think should have happened. This is what this person should have said/done at this particular time to fulfil their moral obligations, to have made an excellent speech, and to make a good story." He freely acknowledges that.
quote:Ah yes Ken, I realise. That was the point I was going for, though granted I didn't explain it well enough!
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Nonsense. They not only had a historical genre, they had at least two. Chronicles is clearly a different genre from Samuel/Kings.
Originally posted by AB:
they simply didn't HAVE a historical genre. It didn't exist. The way we read and understand a historical account is significantly different to the way it was communicated in the 'ancient world'.
It isn't exactly the same kind of writing that we call "history" (not that that is a single simple thing) but it is a historical genre.
quote:AB, I'm interested to know what you think of this slight progression of my argument - how, if Jesus treats the Law as innerant, he would treat false prophecy?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
How can Jesus fulfill something if he thinks it is in error? If something in the prophets are in error, then they have prophesied something false. They are false prophets. So Jesus would be fulfilling a false prophet.
If Jesus takes the law to be inerant (as you accept), then he believes false prophets to be a massive problem and they are to be stoned (Deuteronmy 13 and 18)! So at very least we'd expect Jesus to correct these false prophets. He doesn't - he says he's come to fulfill them. That is affirming them to be true and without error. I know I'm restating myself - but I can't see what else to do!
quote:However this ‘prophesy’ does not appear anywhere in the OT. So it seems the NT is incorrect on this point, or Jesus fulfilled a non-inerrant prophesy and the argument about prophesy having to be inerrant falls.
and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."
quote:Sorry for not responding, Dyfrig - I can't always access the Boards from the office, and today was one of those days.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Could our friendly host please edit the "aaarrgg...."
quote:Why isn't factual innacuracy false prophecy? If a prophet is from God, thier prophecy will be accurate. If not, it won't. Your "of course not" seems rather confident to me!
Originally posted by AB:
False prophets, those who claim to speak from God but don't are obviously in for a rough time, the Bible tells us so in enough places. But is their offence the same as factual inaccuracy in a written record of the prophets - especially when factual accuracy is not necessarily required (as per our argument)? No, of course not.
AB
quote:Well, out of my right mind then. I was beginning to suspect this thread had driven me to it.
Originally posted by The Psyduck:
No-one in their right minds denies that it's a collection of documents which contain the religious history of a people, and a huge amount of the fruits of their wrestling with their God, and also the foundational documents of a World Religion founded (whatever its subsequent record) on the proposition that God is Love, and that the lifestyle of Jesus of Nazareth is normative.
quote:Well, thank goodness you've sorted that out for us then.
Those days are gone. Truth isn't like that, Never was. Wasn't in the Bible. It's time to trust God and move on.
quote:Moving on...
I am right. Everyone who disagrees with me is stupid for asking the wrong question..
quote:You mean that you deny that this is so? I'm not saying that this is all the Bible is. I'm saying that there are certain things that everyone believes about the Bible, whether they are Christians or atheists, or anyone else. I'm not saying that this is all the Bible is - just that I can't see that anyone, even someone who claimed that the Bible was inerrantly inspired, could possibly deny that it's also these things. Are you really saying that, however else you see them, the Book of Job and the Book of Proverbs, to say nothing of the Psalms, are not "the fruits of [Israel's] wrestling with their God" (even if you hold that David wrote Psalms)?
No-one in their right minds denies that it's a collection of documents which contain the religious history of a people, and a huge amount of the fruits of their wrestling with their God, and also the foundational documents of a World Religion founded (whatever its subsequent record) on the proposition that God is Love, and that the lifestyle of Jesus of Nazareth is normative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, out of my right mind then. I was beginning to suspect this thread had driven me to it.
quote:I think that implicit in your position is the assumption that only an inerrancy-stance takes the Bible seriously enough. I was making the point that the vast majority of people, even atheists and agnostics (and I mean no offence to atheists and agnostics in saying that!) treat the
Nobody's saying that the Bible is 'a pack of lies' (which would be as meaningless, I think, as to say that it's inerrant) and nobody's suggesting that God has just taken any old book as a basis for his interaction with us, as though the Yellow Pages or a Jilly Cooper would have done just as well. The Bible is what it is.
quote:I didn't say that. But there is a post on this thread which says something remarkably similar.
To sum up your argument:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am right. Everyone who disagrees with me is stupid for asking the wrong question..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:Don't get me wrong. I don't want to trade insults or get personal. I certainly don't think you are stupid (that's an insinuation that's unwarranted from my post, and to be honest I think you should retract it.) And, by the way, the accusation that I'm saying that I'm right is way off the mark. I'm not saying that I have the unque truth so you can't possibly have it. My position is that your position is untenable, because the only reason that we could possibly have in this debate for believing that the Bible is inerrant would be that the Bible itself says that it's inerrant, and I don't believe that you can demonstrate that the Bible does present itself as inerrant. The whole thrust of my post was to demonstrate that in all the most crucial ways, the Bible 'thinks' in a whole range of ways that simply contradict the assertion that it presents itself as inerrant.
Sorry - I'm trying to interact with your points. But I think you're wrong! I'm trying to answer you. But I can't change my position. I am convinced you're wrong!!! What else can I say?
quote:If you want to take this personally, that's fine. But that's not how I meant it, and I think that you'll see that if you re-read what I actually wrote.
Those days are gone. Truth isn't like that, Never was.
quote:Psyduck. I may have taken you wrongly. Perhaps I did read your post how you said I read it. I think what i want to say is that there are many important things I believe about the Bible, and in my mind, the ones you picked while true are not the most important. As it happens, inerrant is one of the most important to me, and your "anyone who has a brain can see that it never claims to be inerrant" attitude I did find offensive. I may not have convinced you, but I thought (hoped) I had demonstrated on this thread that you don't have to commit theological suicide to believe it. If I haven't, well, more fool me.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Are you really saying that, however else you see them, the Book of Job and the Book of Proverbs, to say nothing of the Psalms, are not "the fruits of [Israel's] wrestling with their God" (even if you hold that David wrote Psalms)?
quote:Yes, with you so far.
Even if you hold that the Bible is inerrantly inspired, don't you also see the New Testament as also a collection of the foundational documents of a World Religion founded (whatever its subsequent record) on the proposition that God is Love
quote:No, no and a thousand times no. That is the last way I would sum up the message of Christianity. Sorry.
and that the lifestyle of Jesus of Nazareth is normative?
quote:Sir, I respectfully disagree. I believe that all sorts of people "take the Bible seriously" as you put it. I think that what I have been arguing on this thread is that only a view that sees at the very least as authoritative, and in my view, inerrant, takes it seriously AS THE WORD OF GOD. If any view of the Bible allows me to disapply some of what ( I believe) God has said, to myself, IMO, it does not take it seriously enough. I have presented that as my case all along, as respectfully and thoughtfully as I could, and I have stated on numerous occasions that that is why this issue matters to me.
I think that implicit in your position is the assumption that only an inerrancy-stance takes the Bible seriously enough. I was making the point that the vast majority of people, even atheists and agnostics (and I mean no offence to atheists and agnostics in saying that!) treat the
Bible very seriously on a large number of levels. For you to suggest, as I feel you have, that without the last level, which you add, that of an inerrant authority, the Bible just isn't being taken seriously, is unsustainable.
quote:As you said below, I did not write this. If you have a problem with it, I suggest you take it up with the author.
Sorry - I'm trying to interact with your points. But I think you're wrong! I'm trying to answer you. But I can't change my position. I am convinced you're wrong!!! What else can I say?
quote:Well I am not going to. Your post implied that all of this is a dead discussion for those who understand truth properly. This insinuates that I either can't or haven't bothered considering this issue. Neither are true.
Don't get me wrong. I don't want to trade insults or get personal. I certainly don't think you are stupid (that's an insinuation that's unwarranted from my post, and to be honest I think you should retract it.)
quote:The "thrust of your post" was that there are a number of issues if only inerrantists had considered them properly we would come round to your way of thinking. You act like I've never read a book on textual criticism or prophetic fulfilment. I HAVE! And I don't see how your comments about prophecy have anything to do with inerrancy - they just seem like an excuse to show off your huge breadth of theological reading.
The whole thrust of my post was to demonstrate that in all the most crucial ways, the Bible 'thinks' in a whole range of ways that simply contradict the assertion that it presents itself as inerrant.
quote:No, I'd absolutely agree. That's not how I presented them. I was offering a 'hierarchy' of levels of belief.
I think what i want to say is that there are many important things I believe about the Bible, and in my mind, the ones you picked while true are not the most important.
quote:Me too. But I do maintain that for all Christians, the lifestyle of Jesus of Nazareth is normative - and a norm we all fall short of. I don't see how you can have discipleship that isn't modeled on Jesus' lifestyle. But I certainly wouldn't see this as "summing up the message of Christianity". (There are Christians who would, I'll grant you that.) It is, though, something that virtually everyone, I think, would agree about in some meaningul sense. And that's why I included it with the 'level 1 beliefs' above.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and that the lifestyle of Jesus of Nazareth is normative?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, no and a thousand times no. That is the last way I would sum up the message of Christianity. Sorry.
quote:But then you say:
[I said] For you to suggest, as I feel you have, that without the last level, which you add, that of an inerrant authority, the Bible just isn't being taken seriously, is unsustainable.
[You said]Sir, I respectfully disagree. I believe that all sorts of people "take the Bible seriously" as you put it.
quote:You see, I think this is you saying what I said you said:
I think that what I have been arguing on this thread is that only a view that sees at the very least as authoritative, and in my view, inerrant , takes it seriously AS THE WORD OF GOD. (emphasis mine)
quote:Because I am intensely serious about taking the Bible as the Word of God, and I don't take it as such in the way that you do. Which is really the point at issue.
that without the last level, which you add, that of an inerrant authority, the Bible just isn't being taken seriously
quote:Actually, I see how you could take what I said that way. It isn't what I meant, though, and I invite you to re-read it in the light of the following.
Your post implied that all of this is a dead discussion for those who understand truth properly. This insinuates that I either can't or haven't bothered considering this issue. Neither are true.
quote:I'm saying that this is a discussion that we can't have at all if one side insists that there is only one way to understand truth.
that all of this is a dead discussion for those who understand truth properly.
quote:I’m (humbly!) not clear where I did this…
just stating parts of your opinion as fact that any fool could see if they really thought about it
quote:Well, of course that's my position. If I didn't believe that my position was superior to yours, I wouldn't hold it! (I’m not that postmodern!!!) I'd capitulate. And I presume that you feel the same about your position. I didn't mean it personally. But I do think that inerrantism is a perspective mired in an approach to reality and truth that’s only existed for some three hundred years, and is now passing away.
The "thrust of your post" was that there are a number of issues if only inerrantists had considered them properly we would come round to your way of thinking.
quote:Hi Lep,
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
And I don't see how your comments about prophecy have anything to do with inerrancy - they just seem like an excuse to show off your huge breadth of theological reading.
quote:Right. Lots to talk about here. Might have to go to bed before I've finished. Now I am usually quite liking BB Warfield, but I'm afraid I disagree with him here. I've said this before, but the issue for me is the trustworthiness of God. God's words are true, therefore I can trust those promises for my life, and more importantly eternity, and I can validly persuade others to do the same. And I think we can see even from our discussion on this thread that whether you believe inerrancy or not has the potential to change your view of God quite considerably.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
As a matter of fact, if I’m not misrepresenting him (the argument’s in David Kelsey’s Uses of Scripture in Recent Theology B B Warfield, a principal theorist of inerrancy and verbal inspiration, holds that these doctrines actually add nothing to the substance of the Christian faith, and that the only reason (he says!) we’re obliged to believe them is that (he says!) that’s what the Bible itself teaches.
) quote:Agreed that this is, indeed the point.
[I said] For you to suggest, as I feel you have, that without the last level, which you add, that of an inerrant authority, the Bible just isn't being taken seriously, is unsustainable.
<snip>
Because I am intensely serious about taking the Bible as the Word of God, and I don't take it as such in the way that you do. Which is really the point at issue.
quote:I sort of believe this. (eloquent, am i not?) Texts can obviously have more than one level of meaning, be saying more than one thing at the same time, but you SEEM to be saying, if I understand you correctly that the meaning of the text varies for us, now today. That I don't agree with, because if that is the case, it ceases to be in any way revelatory.
- it seems to me - have a view that truth is one thing, and that it's related to language in only one way. Therefore a text can have one completely accurate mode of relationship to the truth, independent of interpretation.
quote:I don't acept the "if", but I see what you mean. I think I do indeed believe this, that there is one truthful, real relationship between the text and the truth it is presenting, because I said above, it ceases to be revelation, if not revealing truth (or truths)
And the Bible is guaranteed to have this one truthful mode of relationship – and if the Bible is errant, the guarantee is worthless.
quote:Sorry, isn't this what I am saying? It seems to be it is the "errantists" who say "these are contradictory therefore one is not true." I have been arguing for accepting things as true because God says them, even when the appear to be contradictory.
I say that truth is contradictory, that there's no good reason to simplify truth to a non-contradictory lowest common denominator, and that if you try to do that, you miss a great deal of what the Bible is actually saying.
quote:Again, this is exactly what I have been arguing for against those who say "The Bible must be tainted by our human-ness and therefore partly not true". It seems contradictory that God can speak through the words of people. But he does. Again, I think what you are saying actually acts as more of an argument for inerrancy than against...does it not?
That's not to say that there isn't truth. As Christians we have truth aplenty - all the truth we need. But a lot of it is contradictory. God is three and God is one. Jesus is the very man, the Second Adam; "My Lord and My God!" And there are things that are not true. God is four and two, Jesus is half man and half God.
quote:It was to this particular gem I was referring:
just stating parts of your opinion as fact that any fool could see if they really thought about it
I’m (humbly!) not clear where I did this…
quote:
Truth isn't like that, Never was. Wasn't in the Bible. It's time to trust God and move on.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
quote:Your whole approach Psyduck rests on the assumption that postmodern non Christian thinkers have something useful to add to our Christian debate about truth. I happen to disagree with that. To me, simply because a particular approach has been held by most people, and now isn't, is no argument to say whether it is right or wrong. So our society has largely moved to a postmodern approach to truth. So what? I find it particularly difficult to stomach (and I don't know if this is you) when people who are keen to tell me that church "tradition" doesn't teach inerrancy are keen to throw the last c 300 years of Reformed "tradition" od scripture interpretation out the window because they find the johnny come lately postmodernism a bit more palatable.
But I do think that inerrantism is a perspective mired in an approach to reality and truth that’s only existed for some three hundred years, and is now passing away.
quote:To be fair, all positions on this board, by their nature do this, else there would be no debate. My irk is with the assumption that I have never read or thought about any of these things before. Which I have. At length. That's what gets my goat.
And I do also think that you underestimate the degree to which your positon presents itself as superior to other, less adequate, Christian positions. Which is fair enough. But it’s important, then, not to be irked by people who assert the contrary!
quote:Let me get you absolutely straight on this. You say that you are an inerrantist because it is only if the Bible is inerrant that you can trust God? That sounds awfully like saying that an inerrancy position can't trust God without guarantees, specifically the guarantee that the Bible is inerrant. Now I know that accepting the Bible is inerrant is itself an act of faith. But what you seem to me to be calling for is faith in the Bible, in the first instance, not faith in God. You seem to me to be saying that you can't believe in God until you have first believed in the Bible. And I have often heard inerrantists say similar things.
Now I am usually quite liking BB Warfield, but I'm afraid I disagree with him here. I've said this before, but the issue for me is the trustworthiness of God
quote:If you want, but my postmodernism only goes so far. I'm a Christian first, and if you wanted a pigeon-hole, you'd probably put me somewhere between neo-orthodox and 'radical orthodox'(if the latter isn't just Anglican™). Postmodern thought - and much more importantly the post-modern social and cultural environment - gives me the space to accept without pressure or tension what the Church has always taught (including Paul on grace, which is why I'm a Presbyterian!)
Am I being overly cynical to describe your (and I mean just your Psy) view as postmodern?
quote:I'd say that that's the mainstream Christian position, not particularly postmodern. I'd also say that it's God's position. I'm not laid-back about this. (And of course I accept that we differ here.)
It seems to boil down to, "the Bible works for me without being inerrant".
quote:Useful for God to speak through. That the Bible is a tool sc. in our hands for us to get to know God and his plans is an astounding formulation, to my mind. That we have tools for the manipulation of God... But I think that that's what inerrancy really is saying. God never says anything that's different to what he says in the Bible. What he says in the Bible means one inerrant thing. Therefore in the Bible you've got God. I think that's what's implied in saying that the Bible is the revelation of God. Now, say all of those things about Jesus Christ, and I'd agree. Because God is never object, always subject, in his revelation. And as Karl Barth says, Jesus Christ reveals God as Mystery. The idea that the Bible is a 'tool in our hands' is absolutely alien to me. The Bible is a meeting-place, where our narcissistic subjectivity is laid low before God in his glory, his grace and his love and forgiveness. And I think that that's what Scripture says about itself. "Meet God here." Not "This is an Infallible Book."
But as I've said before, works for what? NOT as a tool to get to know God, and his plans reliably because it doesn't. So useful for what? To help you in your life? To make you feel better about yourself...what? (sorry, caricaturing, but it helps make my point!
quote:I'm saying that the text, as encounter with God, says what God wants it to today. I think that that's a basic condition of the Bible as the locus of revelation (place where revelation happens.) "When Scripture is read and preached, the congregation wait, not for the wrds of the Minister, but for the word of Christ, who is the Word of God."
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- it seems to me - have a view that truth is one thing, and that it's related to language in only one way. Therefore a text can have one completely accurate mode of relationship to the truth, independent of interpretation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I sort of believe this. (eloquent, am i not?) Texts can obviously have more than one level of meaning, be saying more than one thing at the same time, but you SEEM to be saying, if I understand you correctly that the meaning of the text varies for us, now today. That I don't agree with, because if that is the case, it ceases to be in any way revelatory.
quote:What I note is "appear to be contradictory". It seems to me that you're saying that the contradictions aren't, can't be, there. Because there can only be one inerrant truth in the Bible. I'm saying that truth emerges out of the contradictions of the Bible when God speaks it in Christ. Notions of inerrancy actually blind us to the way the Bible works. That, by the way, was my point about prophecy.
It seems to be it is the "errantists" who say "these are contradictory therefore one is not true." I have been arguing for accepting things as true because God says them, even when the appear to be contradictory.
quote:Absolutely.
It seems contradictory that God can speak through the words of people. But he does.
quote:No. How human speech becomes the speech of God is a mystery, not th esubject of formal guarantees provided by a doctrine of inerrancy.
Again, I think what you are saying actually acts as more of an argument for inerrancy than against...does it not?
quote:I'd never dream of putting it like that. You're thinking of Enlightenment liberalsm, which shares its basic approach to truth with inerrantist approaches. Both of these dissolve together in the 'postmodern condition'.
Again, this is exactly what I have been arguing for against those who say "The Bible must be tainted by our human-ness and therefore partly not true".
quote:I really think you should read, say, Schweitzer's "Quest for the Historical Jesus" before you strat being too effusive in your praise of the Enlightenement and all that flowed from it! To reiterate, for me, postmodernity makes it possible to return to the authentic modes of Christian understanding by listening to the Bible for what it's actually saying, for its many voices, and for its many-stranded truthful speaking about God. It doesn't embody the truth, miraculously or magically. It tells the truth. I think that that's what's at the heart of Christian understandings of inspiration, authority, canonicity. Not "Is this document a slice of Biblical truth/" "Is this a bit of the inerrant Bible?" but "Does this tell a truth that we have to hear, are constrained to trust?"
Your whole approach Psyduck rests on the assumption that postmodern non Christian thinkers have something useful to add to our Christian debate about truth. I happen to disagree with that. To me, simply because a particular approach has been held by most people, and now isn't, is no argument to say whether it is right or wrong. So our society has largely moved to a postmodern approach to truth. So what? I find it particularly difficult to stomach (and I don't know if this is you) when people who are keen to tell me that church "tradition" doesn't teach inerrancy are keen to throw the last c 300 years of Reformed "tradition" od scripture interpretation out the window because they find the johnny come lately postmodernism a bit more palatable.
It may be that the enlightment people had it right.
quote:I can't for the life of me see where I've said this. All I've said is that I'm as convinced that your view is, uultimately, Christianly untenable as you are convinced mine is. I don't want to get your goat. Your goat is safe. But I do think that you have committed yourself to a view that ultimately (and actually considerably sooner than ultimately) doesn't make sense. That's by no means a comment on your intelligence or the scope of your reading. And I presume you feel exactly the same about me and my position. Otherwise why are we having this 'conversation'?
My irk is with the assumption that I have never read or thought about any of these things before. Which I have. At length. That's what gets my goat.
quote:But this springs from my view of the Bible. It is a nonsense to say "I think Mr X is trustworthy, but the things he says aren't true". If the things someone says are not true and cannot be relied on, then they are not trustworthy.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
But what you seem to me to be calling for is faith in the Bible, in the first instance, not faith in God.
quote:Absolutely. But I think you overlook one important strand of what faith is in the Bible - a response to a promise, a trust in a word. Thus faith IS a response to Christ who reveals God, but it is no mistake that Christ himself is described as a word, that all of God's promises are "yes" in him. So I don't deny that faith is a response to the living truth, Christ. But he is presented to us in the form of propositional truth (which is itself described as living).
The counter-argument is simple. Faith is faith in God. In all the Christian tradition, and in the Bible itself, faith is presented as trust in God not on the basis of authority but of a personal venturing on the truth of a relationship with God.
New Testament faith is a response to Christ, and a response to Christ as the one who reveals God.
quote:Yes. But how is this manipulating God? It is merely banking on his character...
That we have tools for the manipulation of God... But I think that that's what inerrancy really is saying. God never says anything that's different to what he says in the Bible. What he says in the Bible means one inerrant thing.
quote:No. I don't think I have ever said this. I've noted you said before that you think this is the logical outcome of the ineraantist position. I don't think it is. Rather, my position is that God has reliably told us all we need to know about himself, and how to live in relationship with him in the Bible. I have no doubt there is far more knowledge out there, in fact some parts of the Bible make it clear that there is, like John 20 for example.
Therefore in the Bible you've got God.
quote:I qouted all of this bit because there were a number of things I wanted to raise. Its my view that the whole of Scripture is a witness to and revelation of Christ. Therefore, to say, Christ reveals God but the Bible does not, to me is a nonsense. How does God reveal Christ to us? Through the written truth of the Bible (mainly, although I don't deny he does so in other ways too)I agree with you on the "meet God here" thing. But I just don't agree that we can meet God effectively if some of the revelation of things God has said and done are not true, or wrongly attributed to Him. And again, I think that's been clear from the discussion on this thread - we do have different views of God precisely because of what we make of this doctrine.
Now, say all of those things about Jesus Christ, and I'd agree. Because God is never object, always subject, in his revelation. And as Karl Barth says, Jesus Christ reveals God as Mystery. The idea that the Bible is a 'tool in our hands' is absolutely alien to me. The Bible is a meeting-place, where our narcissistic subjectivity is laid low before God in his glory, his grace and his love and forgiveness. And I think that that's what Scripture says about itself. "Meet God here." Not "This is an Infallible Book."
quote:No, inerrancy provides part of a way through the "seeming contradictions" to establish the truth. None of what you said about prophecy is in any way contradictory to an inerrantist position, unless it is some sort of straw man you are setting up that says "inerrantists believe that prophecy can only be fulfilled once" I don't believe that. I don't know a single inerrantist that does. But it does say that all prophecy in the Bible will be fulfilled. But I don't think that is a point of disagreement.
Notions of inerrancy actually blind us to the way the Bible works. That, by the way, was my point about prophecy.
With my pseudo modernist views, I think it is me who has more of an axe to grind! quote:Matt, loved this.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
For all critics - liberal as well as evangelical - approach the Bible from a position of faith - either faith that the Bible is inerrant and that one's internal competence must therefore be subordinate to it, or faith in one's own internal competence and that that competence is of sufficient magnitude that it is fit to have the Bible subordinate to it. Both are equally faith positions.
quote:This makes Josephine's earlier point rather neatly, that the Orthodox, and I presume those who take a similarly high view of Tradition, are neither of the above.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
For all critics - liberal as well as evangelical - approach the Bible from a position of faith - either faith that the Bible is inerrant and that one's internal competence must therefore be subordinate to it, or faith in one's own internal competence and that that competence is of sufficient magnitude that it is fit to have the Bible subordinate to it. Both are equally faith positions.
. I personally disagree with that POV, but mea culpa for not mentioning it. However that faith position has its own problems. The question then arises: if the Church can interpret Scripture, then what is the Church? The answer to this again depends on one's 'starting-point' faith position.quote:...please, please tell me that you're not arguing that if the Bible assesses tribal extirpation - or any wicked, brutal action - differently to the way that we naturally would, then the Bible's assessment must be superior to ours. I shudder to think what you make of Psalm 137, if that is so.
How the Bible assesses actions must IMO be superior to how we assess these. The Israelites apparent theft of jewellery from the Egyptians is not condemned but is classified by Scripture as 'borrowing'. Likewise the genocides recorded in Gen 9:25-27 and Ex 17:14-16 need to be seen in the context of of God's righteous patience having endured the immorality of Ham looking upon his father's nakedness (Gen 9:22; there is more than a hint of perversion here...) and the preying on the sick, elderly, defenceless and weak that characterised the MOs of these tribes.
quote:I agree.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The question then arises: if the Church can interpret Scripture, then what is the Church? The answer to this again depends on one's 'starting-point' faith position.
quote:As to the first, I think I answered that already.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Tell you what. You tell me what you make of these - let's call them "extirpatory", since "genocidal" could be accused of being a loaded term - passages, and I'll tell you what I make of them.
And I really would be interested in your take on Ps. 137.
quote:I agree with you largely as long as you are not saying that the church is inerrant or infallible in the way in interprets Scripture. I'm also not as 'conciliar' as you; I don't regard Carthage for example as 'forming' or 'creating' the canon anymore than I regard the first four ecumenical councils as 'forming' or 'creating' the nature of Jesus.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:I agree.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The question then arises: if the Church can interpret Scripture, then what is the Church? The answer to this again depends on one's 'starting-point' faith position.
Thanks to everybody keeping this thread going because you're clarifying my own position a great deal.
It occurs to me that some people may see my proposing that the Church has authority as saying that fallible humans have authority over the word of God. Not so - I'll try to explain.
My belief is that the Church, in the context I used it, is the whole communion of people who are attempting and have attempted to follow Christ. If I do *not* believe that the Church has the ability (through the Holy Spirit) to interpret Scripture, then I also have difficulty believing anything ever decided at an ecumenical council (however you define one of those).
This would lead me to doubt such things as the canonicity of the Bible, for one. This doesn't have a bearing on inerrancy really, except to say that if the Church as a whole doesn't view inerrancy as an essential, then why do certain individuals and denominations?
It seems to me that this boils down to the following two positions:
1. The Holy Spirit continues to lead the Church
2. The Holy Spirit went home after the canon was fixed.
Now before I get called to Hell for misrepresenting evangelicalism, let me flesh that out a bit. The objection I see from most people (not all) against the not-necessarily-inerrant view is that individuals as a whole have no right to expect their reason to exceed that of the ultimate author of the Bible. Quite right. But, if you believe the Holy Spirit is not active in interpreting the Bible, and inspiring the people of God to new insights now, in what way is the Spirit active in the Church at all? There's a difference between making up your own doctrine (liberalism-for-dummies), and taking seriously the views of the Church as a whole including submitting any interpretations which may have come through the guidance of the Spirit, to the review and possible condemnation of the rest of the Church (through the guidance etc etc).
If the Holy Spirit *is* active in the Church in this way, then surely the Church has the authority to say whether biblical inerrancy is a requirement of the faith? It wasn't in the Nicene Creed last time I said it. <BasilFawlty>Don't mention the filioque</BasilFawlty>
quote:Could you unpack this for me please? I take it that you're not agreeing with my theological placement of the psalm, but that you read the psalm as in some sense an indictment of and response to (Babylonian?) sinfulness. After that, I'm stuck.
Matt Black:
As to the imprecatory psalms (not just 137 but many others), I think again these need to be viewed in the context of hatred against sin.
quote:Of course not. I take a high view of the Church's authority to do so, since I think the authority comes from the Holy Spirit, but I don't think it's inerrant.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I agree with you largely as long as you are not saying that the church is inerrant or infallible in the way in interprets Scripture.
quote:In the same way, I would think, as it recognises, trusts in and obeys a perfect Saviour. By the grace of God.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
How does a non-inerrant Church create, compile and use an inerrant scripture?
quote:On the contrary Dyfrig, IMO the word of God created the church. The church simply recognised its' parent.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Doesn't work. The Church does not make Jesus - Jesus makes the Church. The Church then make the scriptures.
quote:As I have said many times, there is no reason to even discuss inerrancy if you don't believe the Bible to be the word of God. Of course then there is no reason to see it as inerrant. As I do believe that (and I'm not "confused" about that belief but quite clear actually) that is the source of all of my convictions about its' quality.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
You're confusing "Word of God" and "Bible" again, I'm afraid.
quote:It doesn't so create. I refer m'learned friend to my comment re Carthage.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
How does a non-inerrant Church create, compile and use an inerrant scripture?
quote:But only, as you yourself said, if you take the "faith" (or rather "belief") assumption "Bible=Word of God" as true. I do not accept that position My point is that such an assumption is not a tenable "faith" position, in the same that I don't believe "Jesus is just another god in the Hindu pantheon" is not a tenable faith position.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But to do otherwise is to subordinate the Word of God to the decrees of man - again, as per the entire inerrancy debate
quote:Only if only the Bible is the Word of God. But in the primary sense, Jesus Christ is the Word of God, and the Bible is only the Word of God inasmuch as it bears testimony to him. I'm back with the charge that I brought many posts ago, that several people have brought in different ways before and since, most recently Dyfrig - that you are making the Bible co-equal with Christ as the Word of God, and therefore co-equal with God.
But to do otherwise is to subordinate the Word of God to the decrees of man - again, as per the entire inerrancy debate
quote:What? Mary's not a member of the Trinity?
That's making the Bible a member of the Trinity, a bit like some people want Mary to be.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:In the trivial sense, alluded to by Dyfrig, of course God created the Canon, inasmuch as he created everything. Equally, presumably, he created this post. Yet we don't (thankfully!) regard my deathless prose as authoritative for Christians in the way we do the Canon. Why not? The only logical answer is that the Church has recognised the Scriptures as authoritative.
Re your second - if, as I do, you regard God as having created the Scriptures, it follows that He, not a group of men meeting in North Africa in 397, created the Canon.
quote:I understand that a collection of Callan's posts has been put together for General Synod to consider adding to the Canon next year. Rowan's all for it, apparently, though Graham Dow thinks it's terrible, as Callan does wear black.
Originally posted by Callan.:
Equally, presumably, he created this post. Yet we don't (thankfully!) regard my deathless prose as authoritative for Christians in the way we do the Canon
quote:Now, I don't see it like that. I believe that the Word constantly calls the community into existence, and that the community is under the authority of the Word, because the Word is in the first instance Christ, and secondarily the Word written and preached. I don't believe that the community has authority over Scripture. (What the Church does in according canonicity is to recognize and bow down.)
What happens, both with the Old and New Testament is that God calls a community who then, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, write a book, or series of books. So the community is prior to the book and has the final authority, inasmuch as it, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit has decided the content of the book.
. What I don't accept is the higher-critical 'creation by a community of faith and therefore subject to that community' theory.quote:Indulge me for a moment - try and explain to my why you don't accept this without quoting the scriptures. Tell me why I should accept your aith position.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What I don't accept is the higher-critical 'creation by a community of faith and therefore subject to that community' theory.
quote:Even if that community of faith is indwelt by that same Holy Spirit? I'm just asking, not attempting to convince.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
How do I regard the canon as being created? I guess I'd take my cue from 2 Peter 1:21 - men 'borne along by the Spirit of God'. I'll leave it to you to decide whether that constitutes inspiration or dictation...
quote:Just popping in to say...
Originally posted by Callan.:
What happens, both with the Old and New Testament is that God calls a community who then, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, write a book, or series of books. So the community is prior to the book and has the final authority, inasmuch as it, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit has decided the content of the book.
quote:No, not at all, really. All I'm saying is that I'm as Protestant as the next man (oh, sorry, John Paul - didn't see you there...) - or at least as neo-orthodox - and my position doesn't necessitate an infallible Bible.
But psy, that still posits some sort of, I dunno, Platonic Form Scripture which exists before the Church, and that simply doesn't work. Now, the question of that Church's obedience to its own Cnaon is an important one, but I think resolving it that way goes back to where Matt is - some fixed scripture being given direct from God. It may help with the authority of the scriptures to conceive of this, but the actual process doesn't bear this out - no community, no scripture.
quote:I think he's basically right.
Hmmm...the Psyduck and I maybe aren't that far apart re community being subject to the Word, we maybe disagree re the meaning of 'the Word'.
quote:But I'm indwelt by the HS and so are you. Are we inerrant?
Originally posted by GreyFace:
[QUOTE]Even if that community of faith is indwelt by that same Holy Spirit? I'm just asking, not attempting to convince.
quote:Not taken personally
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Matt - forgive me (and I know this is my problem, so please don't take it too personally) but I feel slightly annoyed at your response. As St Peter also said, give reasons for what you believe (1 Peter 3 or thereabouts). I know you believe - I am asking you to tell me why you believe it. I want to understand.
. I hope I've set out my reasoning clearly enough in my penultimate post and also my first on this page.quote:It's in dying that we're born to eternal life, as wee Frankie fae Assisi tells us...
Call me picky, but I'll take Brunner's version on the grounds that I've got slightly more chance of surviving an exploding bomb than a supernova
quote:Do you really, honestly, hand-on-heart want to stand by that statement? And take responsibility for it?
Interesting - cos if the church is the final arbiter of scripture, then for 2000 years the church has decided the so called "genocide" passages are a true revelation of God's character!
quote:Were the writers of the Holy Scriptures inerrant then? Are you claiming some special case for them?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But I'm indwelt by the HS and so are you. Are we inerrant?
quote:I am just pointing out the irony, that if we abandon inerancy because of the tricky passages (called in many posts "genocide"), then we have a new problem to wrestle with - 2-3000 years of the church accepting these passages in the canon. It would be very much "johnny comes lately" to try and get rid of them now. Many erantists are arguing that the church is the arbiter of truth, and yet the church has accepted these passages as truth. So, getting rid of inerancy does not get rid of the "problem".
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
quote:Do you really, honestly, hand-on-heart want to stand by that statement? And take responsibility for it?
Interesting - cos if the church is the final arbiter of scripture, then for 2000 years the church has decided the so called "genocide" passages are a true revelation of God's character!
quote:If the writing of the books by human beings is inerrant, why isn't the teaching of the Church inerrant?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The writing was inerrant.
quote:Then surely at the very least, its selection (or, if you like, the recognition of their canonicity - I don't see the difference) must have been, too. Otherwise the Bible may contain books that are not inerrant and there may be lots of other inerrant Holy Scriptures around that they wrongly rejected.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The writing was inerrant.
quote:How can this be since the Church/es (delete as appropriate) has/have never agreed for example on the inclusion of the Apocrypha? Back to faith position...
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:Then surely at the very least, its selection (or, if you like, the recognition of their canonicity - I don't see the difference) must have been, too. Otherwise the Bible may contain books that are not inerrant and there may be lots of other inerrant Holy Scriptures around that they wrongly rejected.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The writing was inerrant.
quote:Nope. Nobody's saying that. What is being asked - by me, anyway - is this: if it possible for human beings (the prophets of Israel, the apostles, the evangelists) to produce an "inerrant" scripture, why aren't other things the Church created - the forms of the sacraments, its hierarchies, its "tradition" - not inerrant? If a book of the Church can be inerrant, why not an icon or a dogma or liturgy?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Some here are saying that they think the Church (however one defines that) is inerrant,
quote:My italics. I must have missed that part of the thread.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I guess it comes down to a faith position, as I've said earlier. Some here are saying that they think the Church (however one defines that) is inerrant, others like me that Scripture is inerrant. Each to his own...
quote:By what criteria are you making that judgment?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
They can. I just don't believe that they are .
quote:I don't understand what the Apocrypha has to do with it, so leaving that aside...
Originally posted by Matt Black:
How can this be since the Church/es (delete as appropriate) has/have never agreed for example on the inclusion of the Apocrypha?
quote:With the best will in the world, no you're not. You're arguing that these genocidal episodes of the Old Testament are a revelation of the character of God on a par with Jesus Christ.
I am just pointing out the irony, that if we abandon inerancy because of the tricky passages (called in many posts "genocide"), then we have a new problem to wrestle with - 2-3000 years of the church accepting these passages in the canon. It would be very much "johnny comes lately" to try and get rid of them now.
quote:I'm not...
Many erantists are arguing that the church is the arbiter of truth,
quote:Er... no! The Church has accepted these passages as being in the Scriptures. Which is a very different thing.
... and yet the church has accepted these passages as truth.
quote:Well it depends on what you see as the problem. I happen to see God-sanctioned genocide as a considerable problem.
So, getting rid of inerancy does not get rid of the "problem".
quote:Oh, really? And at what cost? At the cost of allowing the Bible to eclipse Christ. Which is the still-unanswered charge against inerrancy.
If, however, you take the Bible as inerant, and these passages as accounts of judgment on wicked sinful people, and thus a Biblical revelation from God, then a lot of the problem is resolved.
quote:I already said. By faith.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
quote:By what criteria are you making that judgment?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
They can. I just don't believe that they are .
quote:I don't. The relevance of the mention of the Apocrypha was to illustrate precisely that - that I cannot trust the Church to correctly pick and choose Scripture since she has never agreed on what Scripture is -does it include the Apocrypha or not?
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:I don't understand what the Apocrypha has to do with it, so leaving that aside...
Originally posted by Matt Black:
How can this be since the Church/es (delete as appropriate) has/have never agreed for example on the inclusion of the Apocrypha?
Why do you trust the Church to have chosen/recognised the correct scriptures?
quote:Actually - you don't. And the interesting thing is that the ground of a Christian moral critique of Joshua 1-11 is God as revealed in Jesus Christ.
But I digress.
quote:So, then, how can you possibly claim the Bible is inerrant? You've ruled out, as far as I can see, every means of confirming the canonicity of its contents (of the undisputed 66 if you like) other than your own reason.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:I don't.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Why do you trust the Church to have chosen/recognised the correct scriptures?
quote:You have "faith" that the church is fallible? That seems an odd usage of the word.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:I already said. By faith.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
By what criteria are you making that judgment?
quote:The reason I use parenthasis around "Genocide" is becuase I don't belive it to be genoiced in the way you mean - the Bible describes it as judgement from God - (a fortaste of the mass genocide at the final judgement!)
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Fish fish - the issue is not God acting in ways "we don't like", and I rather think (like putting "genocide" in inverted commas, when that's exactly what it is) that you are being disingenuous expressing it that way.
The problem is rather God acting in ways that are unspeakably evil - doing the sort of thing Al Qaeda or the IRA do - killing, indiscriminately, whole swathes of people at once.
quote:Just a final thought about the indiscriminate nature of the judgment of a whole nation - a similar thing is described against God's own people Israel (for they have forsaken him totally) in Amos. Amos 9 talks of the total destruction, but also of God's ability to sieve out those undeserving of judgment -
I guess we'd all agree that God is loving and patient. The assumption is that, because he is loving and patient, he is thus incapable of the actions against nations such as the Amalekites.
But what does it mean for God to be patient? If God's patience never runs out, and if he is never provoked into action by sinful nations, then is God patient at all? If God never loses his patience with a sinful nation, then its not patience - its indifference. Indifference at their sin, their total and constant rebellion against him, their child sacrifice etc.
ISTM that God is not indifferent to these people's sins - "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." as Peter puts it.
But eventually, if after warning and prophets etc, God choses to act against a people who are so abhorant to him, why should that suprise or offend us? For in the end God will judge all people, and perhaps cast people into hell (as Jesus frequenlty affirms). If this is the case, then why is it wrong for God to sometimes bring that judgement forward to judge people on earth.
The OT is full of "natural" disasters being used by God to judge nations, including his own people. Why is it so much worse for him to use his people to be his agents of judgement instead of fire, the weather, locusts etc?
And since Jesus talks of God judging, casting people into hell etc - and since in the end these "genocide" passages are claiming to be about God's judgment - is the OT at all inconsistent with Jesus message of a patient and loving God who also is a judge?
quote:Amos 9:9-10
"For I will give the command, and I will shake the house of Israel among all the nations as grain is shaken in a sieve, and not a pebble will reach the ground. All the sinners among my people will die by the sword, all those who say, 'Disaster will not overtake or meet us.'
quote:psyduck - hope the above comes some way towards answering your points as well...
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
]With the best will in the world, no you're not. You're arguing that these genocidal episodes of the Old Testament are a revelation of the character of God on a par with Jesus Christ.
quote:A sort of qualified "yes" I think! But I don't see that the passages eclipse Christ - they point to Jesus as the solution - and so promote his glory even more.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Well, I have to take it that the answer is "Yes..."
quote:I don't *claim* this. I believe it. Athanasius was correctly guided as an individual to discern the NT Canon decades before Carthage. There is no reason to not suppose that others had not been similarly guided from the time of Revelation onwards. Otherwise the anathema pronounced in Revelation against those not accepting its inspiration is a nonsense if we are saying that not until 300 years later was it fully accepted by the church.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:So, then, how can you possibly claim the Bible is inerrant? You've ruled out, as far as I can see, every means of confirming the canonicity of its contents (of the undisputed 66 if you like) other than your own reason.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:I don't.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Why do you trust the Church to have chosen/recognised the correct scriptures?
Could you, without the Church, have picked these 66 from the 100s? 1000s? of documents that were candidates?
You *really* have me confused now.
quote:It is clear from Scripture that the churches even in the 'pristine' NT were in error - one only has to look at Paul's rebukes to the Galatians and Corinthians or Jesus' rebuke to the Asian churches in Revelation to see this. So I cannot see how the churches can be anything other than fallible
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
quote:You have "faith" that the church is fallible? That seems an odd usage of the word.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:I already said. By faith.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
By what criteria are you making that judgment?
quote:"God loves you, unless you don't love him back in which case he'll kill you all brutally and torture you for eternity!"
So if there were any innocent victims of Gods judgment, he will know, and has all eternity to make it up to them!
I hope this clarifies my position on these passages, and why I wish to preserve them in the Bible, for they reveal the wrath of God on sin - which makes me even more grateful for his grace shown to me in taking that wrath on himself on the cross.
quote:Well, since Jesus said "But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him." So, yes, it is Christlike.
Originally posted by AB:
Fish Fish,
quote:"God loves you, unless you don't love him back in which case he'll kill you all brutally and torture you for eternity!"
So if there were any innocent victims of Gods judgment, he will know, and has all eternity to make it up to them!
I hope this clarifies my position on these passages, and why I wish to preserve them in the Bible, for they reveal the wrath of God on sin - which makes me even more grateful for his grace shown to me in taking that wrath on himself on the cross.
(but if he gets it wrong, he can make it up to you)
Christlike love?
AB
quote:God DOES NOT want us to suffer eternal punishment. Of course not. But
Originally posted by GreyFace:
"Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" eh, FishFish?
I'm not going into PSA on this thread but I can see how you have no problem with genocide if you believe that the Father wants us all to suffer eternal torment.
quote:God is Fear, eh?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Well, since Jesus said "But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him." So, yes, it is Christlike.
quote:So you have faith that Athanasius's selection was inerrant, based on... nothing in particular.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Athanasius was correctly guided as an individual to discern the NT Canon decades before Carthage.
quote:Sorry - not necessarily statistically true! - but he certainly teaches about hell a lot.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
[[*]Jesus teaches about Hell more often than heaven
quote:Perfectly fair.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:So you have faith that Athanasius's selection was inerrant, based on... nothing in particular.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Athanasius was correctly guided as an individual to discern the NT Canon decades before Carthage.
But you don't trust the Church. All I can see is that you have faith in the inerrancy of the Bible and everything else is argued backwards from this position, avoiding the possibility of any rival authority. I don't mean that in an insulting fashion - would you say that was fair?
I hope I've been consistent in saying that for me this is a position of faith - a deliberate decision to believe this.quote:2 Timothy 4:3-4
Originally posted by AB:
I'm sorry but I would rather be wrong and serve a false God who is Love and live to serve others out of Love and thus suffer an eternity of torture, as a martyr to Love, than worship such a monster for the sake of my soul.
AB
quote:I believe that wholeheartedly. PSA is not required to believe that.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
So of course God doesn't want us to perish. But he warns that we will perish if we reject him. Can anyone honestly argue that is not what the Bible teaches?
quote:Sorry, much as I want to answer that, that is PSA, and another issue. The issue here is that God does say he will, and whether we're going to accept that as part of an innerant scripture, or rip out the nasty bits we don't like.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:I believe that wholeheartedly. PSA is not required to believe that.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
So of course God doesn't want us to perish. But he warns that we will perish if we reject him. Can anyone honestly argue that is not what the Bible teaches?
If God does not *want* to torture some of us for eternity, why would he?
quote:I'm trying to avoid the temptation to drag you into Hell for a proper "discussion" over this.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
How on earth do you cope with every time Jesus talks about judgment? Just wipe it out of the Bible? Well, lets just pick and choose the nice fluffy bits we like, and rip out the bits we don't like, and stick our heads into the sand to deny that God says he will judge, and think that will make us safe.
No thanks!
quote:I have much to explain about my theology here, but it would take us too far off topic. So suffice to say, my theology does not remove Jesus as judge, nor heaven, nor hell, nor God's displeasure at sin. At it's heart is Love though, as I believe God, Jesus and the Bible teaches, I just read the Bible differently in light of that.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Doesn't your attitude show up exactly what Lep has been saying. If you reject innerancy, you can end up rejecting whole chunks of teaching - in your case the Bible's teaching and Jesus' teaching that God is a judge. How on earth do you cope with every time Jesus talks about judgment? Just wipe it out of the Bible? Well, lets just pick and choose the nice fluffy bits we like, and rip out the bits we don't like, and stick our heads into the sand to deny that God says he will judge, and think that will make us safe.
No thanks!
quote:Whilst I sympathise, I think that's a bit ad hominem. <Soliloquy> Oh no, the inerrantist evangelicals are disunited!
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:2 Timothy 4:3-4
Originally posted by AB:
I'm sorry but I would rather be wrong and serve a false God who is Love and live to serve others out of Love and thus suffer an eternity of torture, as a martyr to Love, than worship such a monster for the sake of my soul.
AB
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."
Nothing new there, then <Soliloquy off>quote:Well, I think that's what happened. The development of the Church and the Bible can be roughly summed up thus (all dates approximate):
What I don't accept is the higher-critical 'creation by a community of faith and therefore subject to that community' theory.
quote:I think there is a difference between, say, the book of Joshua is not inerrant and the book of Joshua should not be part of the Canon. [smug mode] Catholics do not make unilateral decisions as to what is or is not in Holy Scripture. We leave that to sola scriptura types. [/smug mode] We are not, however, obliged to insist that it is inerrant.
Interesting - cos if the church is the final arbiter of scripture, then for 2000 years the church has decided the so called "genocide" passages are a true revelation of God's character! So even if we do all become errantists, we must still accept that God acts in ways we do not like.
quote:Having just turned down the generous invite for a hellish argument, I now offer my appologies for all offended by my caracature of non-PSA theology above. I was simplistic, and I'm sorry.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:I'm trying to avoid the temptation to drag you into Hell for a proper "discussion" over this.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
How on earth do you cope with every time Jesus talks about judgment? Just wipe it out of the Bible? Well, lets just pick and choose the nice fluffy bits we like, and rip out the bits we don't like, and stick our heads into the sand to deny that God says he will judge, and think that will make us safe.
No thanks!
Oh sod it, I give in.
quote:Er yes. Much as I agree with the underlying argument of FF's sentiments, I would like it noted that this isn't exactly what I said or how I said it. And when I did stray into that territory I was rightly told off and apologised. Sorry to back down on you FF old man, but I'm not sure I want to get into this.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Doesn't your attitude show up exactly what Lep has been saying. If you reject innerancy, you can end up rejecting whole chunks of teaching - in your case the Bible's teaching and Jesus' teaching that God is a judge. How on earth do you cope with every time Jesus talks about judgment? Just wipe it out of the Bible? Well, lets just pick and choose the nice fluffy bits we like, and rip out the bits we don't like, and stick our heads into the sand to deny that God says he will judge, and think that will make us safe.
No thanks!
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Thanks for the apology FF.
Maybe I was a bit hasty calling you down there without giving you a chance to retract here first, and I apologise for the nasty unfluffy name-calling in Hell.
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Hugs and kisses all round
quote:That they failed in this regard, then. How does "faith" come into that belief?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So I cannot see how the churches can be anything other than fallible
quote:The answer to your conundrum is that the scriptures are not inerrant.
Ah, but you see, I have a problem with the community 'determining' the Scriptures (whether you call that '"fixing the canon" or some other metaphor) in the manner suggested by Callan: if as I do one believes Scripture is inerrant then the faith community must also be inerrant (at least at the point that it is writing Scripture or fixing the canon) and, as I have said above, Scripture says the communities were far from inerrant.
quote:The primary starting point for me is my faith in the inerrancy of the scriptures. Based on that, the scriptures themselves attest to the fallibility of the NT churches. So that's the faith bit. Yes, you can add in the historical fact that the churches have not been able to agree on the canon in its entirety, but the primary starting point for me is my faith in the scriptures - the evidence from church history merely backs that up
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
quote:That they failed in this regard, then. How does "faith" come into that belief?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So I cannot see how the churches can be anything other than fallible
quote:It's only a conundrum if you think the church determined the canon - my quoted post was based on that assumption.
Originally posted by Callan.:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:The answer to your conundrum is that the scriptures are not inerrant.
Ah, but you see, I have a problem with the community 'determining' the Scriptures (whether you call that '"fixing the canon" or some other metaphor) in the manner suggested by Callan: if as I do one believes Scripture is inerrant then the faith community must also be inerrant (at least at the point that it is writing Scripture or fixing the canon) and, as I have said above, Scripture says the communities were far from inerrant.
I think that Christ gave the Church authority (the bit about binding and loosing) and told us that the gates of hell would not prevail against her. That doesn't mean (IMV) that the Church gets everything right. I think infallibility is reserved for God alone. It does mean that I am under her authority and I trust her to come up trumps on the stuff that's important for my salvation.
OTOH how do you think that the Scriptures got here if they weren't written by the Church (in the persons of Paul, John, Luke et. al.) and how do you think the canon was set if it was not set by the Church?
quote:I don't believe anyone or anything but God can be relied upon for inerrancy. In that I include the Bible and the Church.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I know some have argued the church is the discerner of truth - but as has been pointed out above, the church strays too often to be a good arbiter of truth!
So, how do errantists answer the accusation that they are the authority over the scriptures and thus God's revelation of himself, rather than submissive to them.
quote:I certainly don't believe that the HS "went home" in the 4th century; the HS is still active today! What I don't accept is that that has ever given the churches infallibility outwith the creation of scripture.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
[QUOTE]
As I said before, I think this comes down to whether you believe the Holy Spirit went home after Carthage (or for Matt, when Athanasius died) or whether he continues to work through the Church. I suppose another option is that he works through some people and the Church is a corrupt unreliable body, but remember whose Body Scripture claims it to be.
quote:Sorry to jump back to a point a page back (but it was only posted yesterday). This exchange was initiated by Lep quoting "you have been born again..through the living and enduring word of God" with the implication that "word of God" = Bible. Now, the confusion arises because, IMO, the Bible is the word of God ... but that certainly doesn't mean every time the Bible talks about the word (of God) that it's refering to itself. Some times it clearly doesn't (eg: John 1, where the Word is clearly Christ).
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:As I have said many times, there is no reason to even discuss inerrancy if you don't believe the Bible to be the word of God.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
You're confusing "Word of God" and "Bible" again, I'm afraid.
quote:My issue is with your characterization of your opponents. The Bible, taken literally, says lots of things which you don't believe; but these you have means for explaining away (genre, etc. etc.). But yours (in your eyes) is the good explaining away. People who explain away other bits, on the other hand, you characterize as "rip[ing] out the nasty bits [they] don't like." Bit of a no-go, isn't it? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If they're "ripping out" when they explain around the final judgment bits, then you must be "ripping out" when you explain around the 6-day creation. Or conversely, if you're not ripping out, neither are they.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
The issue here is that God does say he will, and whether we're going to accept that as part of an innerant scripture, or rip out the nasty bits we don't like.
quote:and:
OTOH how do you think that the Scriptures got here if they weren't written by the Church (in the persons of Paul, John, Luke et. al.) and how do you think the canon was set if it was not set by the Church?
quote:I wonder does this help? My own view is that the candidate-documents 'gestated' in the Church - which really means the Churches. In the case of the Gospels, we have to reckon, surely, on them crystallizing out of a generation or so of oral tradition, which really does mean the primitive preaching and teaching of the Church - which was at the same time both (a) the transmission of the impact of Jesus of Nazareth as God's revelation and (b) the Church's reflection on what that meant (guided, if you wish - and I'd certainly want to say so! - by the Holy Spirit).
Well, I think that's what happened. The development of the Church and the Bible can be roughly summed up thus (all dates approximate):
BC 1800: Abraham extant
BC 1200: Moses extant
BC 900: Origins of Pentateuch (conservative theory)
BC 500: Origins of Pentateuch (radical theory)
BC 250: Septuagint
BC 164: Book of Daniel written
AD 33: Pentecost
AD 51: First NT book (1 Thess.) written
AD 100: Rabbinic Judaism establishes Canon of OT
AD 110: Last NT book (2 Peter?) written
AD 397: Council of Carthage - NT Canon fixed
AD 1517: Start of Reformation. Beginning of process of rejection of Apocrypha by Reformed Tradition.
So the community is prior to the scriptures, wrote the scriptures and decided which bits were canonical and which were not.
quote:I must admit I've never heard such a sermon. But I've only been attending church regularly for about 30 years, so maybe I just wasn't there on those days.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
I've never felt the chill, in an Anglican or Catholic setting, during an Apocrypha reading (or even - quel horreur!! - a sermon on an Apocryphal text)
quote:To make the delineation of the canon a matter of Biblical authority, wouldn't you need to have a Biblical quote to 'validate' every book of the canon? (and what about those instances in which the NT misascribes a quote to the wrong OT document? (What does that say about either?) And what about Hebrews' famous formula "Someone has said somewhere?"
suffice it to say here that I find that the various books of the Bible, separated as they are in space and time, bear remarkable witness to this;
quote:...and goes on to say εγω δε λεγω - "But I say to you..." (A point that nobody has satisfactorily answered yet, by the way...)
Jesus Himself quotes Scripture eg; "it is written..."
quote:Thanks for this GreyFace.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I believe Jesus Christ is that perfect revelation and that's a faith position.
)), then does your faith position have a solid foundation?!quote:I don't accept that Genesis 1-3 is presented as history actually. I think it has a more poetic genre. However, if it becomes apparent that it is in fact presented as history, then I'll change my view to a 6 day creationalist. This answers this next point:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
On the other side of things I have no problem with the Church as a whole happily declaring that the creation myths in Genesis are not necessarily literally true in every detail, even though they are presented as historical fact. And they are.
quote:No, this is not what I'm doing. I am not ripping out bits I don't like, or dismissing anything at all. I am taking the genre seriously - and believing what the Bible teaches me to believe. As I said above, Genesis, in its genre, doesn't seem to be teaching a literal 6 day creation - so I don't believe in a 6 day creation cos thats not what its teaching. If it did teach that, then I'd believe it. So, the Bible is my authority.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
My issue is with your characterization of your opponents. The Bible, taken literally, says lots of things which you don't believe; but these you have means for explaining away (genre, etc. etc.). But yours (in your eyes) is the good explaining away. People who explain away other bits, on the other hand, you characterize as "rip[ing] out the nasty bits [they] don't like." Bit of a no-go, isn't it? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If they're "ripping out" when they explain around the final judgment bits, then you must be "ripping out" when you explain around the 6-day creation. Or conversely, if you're not ripping out, neither are they.
quote:I have tried to...
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Jesus Himself quotes Scripture eg; "it is written..." ...and goes on to say εγω δε λεγω - "But I say to you..." (A point that nobody has satisfactorily answered yet, by the way...)
quote:Try John's Gospel. "He who has seen me has seen the Father."
Just wondering, this idea has been banded around in various forms. But where does it come from?!
quote:You've segued neatly over from 'ultimate' to 'perfect' - and yes, I know that 'perfect' was Grey Face's word, but some time ago, and several times since, I raised the point about ultimacy and still haven't had an answer.
Of course I totally accept that Jesus is a perfect revelation from God. And the ultimate revelation. But is there any scriptural reason to say that he is the perfect revelation in contrast to everything else. In other words, where are we told he is the perfect revelation, and everything else was imperfect? If we're not told that, (and I would argue Jesus held otherwise (Mathew 5:17-18 )), then does your faith position have a solid foundation?!
. Like Psyduck, I cannot see why scripture, though important to the witness and continuation of God's people, is necessarily inerrant, and I can't see why, if an errant Church can canonise an inerrant body of scripture, that it cannot also canonise an inerrant form of service and ministry. However, we aren't going to resolve that here, so I shall leave it at that.
quote:But, as has been said before, those of us who do not accept an inerrantist position ("errantists" if you like, though that isn't a word I'd choose to use to describe my position) do struggle with difficult passages. They may contain "errors", but they were still included in Scripture by people guided by the Spirit (though possibly imperfectly) as foundational texts for Judeo-Christian belief. Even if I dismiss something I don't like as an error, I can't dismiss the fact that that is included in Scripture for a purpose. It is still part of the God-breathed writings that are useful for teaching etc.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But this is in contrast to the errantists - who do not have to struggle with difficult passages, or passages they disagree with - you can simply dismiss what you don't agree with.
quote:Since you insist on keep using it, I must persist in my criticism of it.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
(and I would argue Jesus held otherwise (Mathew 5:17-18
quote:Ok, we've used the word "genre" several times now.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I don't accept that Genesis 1-3 is presented as history actually. I think it has a more poetic genre.
quote:Sorry what was the "point about ultimacy" - I misssed it.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
but some time ago, and several times since, I raised the point about ultimacy and still haven't had an answer.
quote:I think this si answered by the understanding of Scriptures that both Jesus and the apostles held, that it ALL points to him, it all reveals him. So I think while I would want to say that Jesus is revealed most directly in the bits that are about his earthly ministry, he is (and God, and The Spirit) revelaed just as effectively through the rest of the Scriptures.
The real accusation against inerrancy is that it starts off making the Bible co-ultimate with Jesus Christ as a revelation of God, and (inevitably) winds up making the Bible more ultimate than Christ. Why 'inevitably'? Because the Bible contains the apostolic testimony to Jesus. But that's not all it contains. And if you make the whole Bible inerrant, you make everything else in it just as important as Jesus Christ, and that means that God is revealed just as truly and ultimately in the Biblical narrative of the massacre of a thirteenth-century tribe (with all the 'infallible' gloating that accompanies it) as he is in the one who says "He who has seen me has seen the Father".
quote:I'd missed this.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But this is in contrast to the errantists - who do not have to struggle with difficult passages, or passages they disagree with - you can simply dismiss what you don't agree with. How do you counter the accusation that you pick what you like and dismiss what you don't like?
Do you believe me when I say that I intend to tackle that scripture head on, rather than ignore it because it doesn't fit in with what I've been banging on about for months?
quote:I don't know if FF has slightly overstated himself with talk of "ripping" things out. But I think where my approach as a preacher would be different to yours Dyfrig, is that I would not allow myself the interpretative option of saying one of these passages or themes is
Originally posted by dyfrig:
So I start preparing for taking the service on the 28th March - and bugger me if the reading from Isaiah for that Sunday doesn't go and have God telling the Israelites, "Forget the things that have been done in the past."
quote:
Sorry what was the "point about ultimacy" - I misssed it.
quote:
The real accusation against inerrancy is that it starts off making the Bible co-ultimate with Jesus Christ as a revelation of God, and (inevitably) winds up making the Bible more ultimate than Christ.
quote:No, my position is that the Bible is full of gloriously contradictory ways of speaking about God - as is the Christian tradition. My position is that to pin down the way meaning works in the Bible to "This means this, it doesn't mean that , and there's no contradiction in the Bible means that we have to place the same emphasis on everything the Bible says about God.
Your view Psyduck, ISTM, and please correct me if I am wrong, that there is an inherent contradiciton between the God of the OT and Jesus.
quote:Yup, I do indeed believe that about emphasis.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
... means that we have to place the same emphasis on everything the Bible says about God.
quote:Help? Er.. not sure. I too believe that the OT is preparation for the "full" (not final I don't think, some of our charismatic bretheren might have an issue there) revelation of God in Christ. Inerrancy does not deny this, merely that the preparatory revelation is not contradictory to the full revelation.
The whole Christian tradition is that the Old Testament is a preparation for the full and final revelation of God in Jesus Christ. I say that inerrancy essentially denies that, by denying the preparatory status of God's revelation in the history and to the community of Israel. I say that inerrancy can't make Christian sense of Jesus Christ*.
Does that help?
quote:You mean, on what is it grounded? As I said it's a faith position, based on the evidence of the witness of the Church over the millenia including that recorded in the Bible. Just because I'm not an inerrantist doesn't mean I think the Bible is a load of crap, if that's what you were leading up to.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:Just wondering, this idea has been banded around in various forms. But where does it come from?!
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I believe Jesus Christ is that perfect revelation and that's a faith position.
quote:Yes, the fact that the Bible is not perfect
Of course I totally accept that Jesus is a perfect revelation from God. And the ultimate revelation. But is there any scriptural reason to say that he is the perfect revelation in contrast to everything else.
quote:On what grounds? Your own decision?
I don't accept that Genesis 1-3 is presented as history actually.
quote:If *I* think... I hereby charge you, Fish Fish, with the heresy blah de blah... skip to the good bits... that you did wilfully claim authority over the Bible in choosing to interpret Holy Scripture on your own without consultation with your brothers and sisters in Christ, who also have the Holy Spirit and with whom you disagree... etc
However, if it becomes apparent that it is in fact presented as history, then I'll change my view to a 6 day creationalist.
quote:This has been repeatedly answered for you. I'll summarise some of them since you haven't grasped it yet.
But this is in contrast to the errantists - who do not have to struggle with difficult passages, or passages they disagree with - you can simply dismiss what you don't agree with. How do you counter the accusation that you pick what you like and dismiss what you don't like? And how, then, do you claim the Bible has authority? It's a simple question that never seems to get answered![/QB]
quote:No, as I understand it, inerrantist positions are obliged to hold that the massacre of a whole people, and a she-bear coming out of the forest and killing 42 boys for calling a prophet 'Baldy' are just as revelatory of the character of God as is Jesus Christ. You yourself seem to say this with your accepting of the 'equal emphasis'.
Inerrancy does not deny this, merely that the preparatory revelation is not contradictory to the full revelation.
quote:This is a terribly dangerous thing to say. If you say so, I'll accept that there may be some lovely and deeply Christian charismatic guys who may think that they are looking for a revelation beyond Jesus Christ, but that would put them in company with some really deeply unsalubrious guys, like the German Christians, who held that there were new revelations in their time beyond what we have in Jesus Christ, specifically in their case through the medium of Germanism.
(not final I don't think, some of our charismatic bretheren might have an issue there)
quote:Or reasonable conlcusion on the assumption both texts the word of God, plants created before people, but did not commence growing until people created, plants taking some time to germinate. There is also a valid question here of the meaning of the phrases "plant of the field" or "shrub of the field" in Genesis 2 - it could be that this refers to particular plants for human consumption that required human cultivation.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Gen 1:11 - on the third day God orders the earth to bring forth vegetation and other plants. He doesn't create humans until the sixth day. Reasonable conclusion from this: there was vegetations on the earth before human beings.
Gen 2:4b-7a, however, states that God made man from the dust of the earth when "no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up". In fact, the presence of the vegetation seems to be dependent on there being human beings to till the soil. Reasonable conclusion: no vegetation on the earth before human beings created.
quote:
In fact, the presence of the vegetation seems to be dependent on there being human beings to till the soil. Reasonable conclusion: no vegetation on the earth before human beings created.
Er - you're not really a gardener, are you? (Incredulous apologies if wrong...)
quote:And you again are assuming that these revelations are self evidently contradictory, an assumption I do not accept.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Leprechaun:
No, as I understand it, inerrantist positions are obliged to hold that the massacre of a whole people, and a she-bear coming out of the forest and killing 42 boys for calling a prophet 'Baldy' are just as revelatory of the character of God as is Jesus Christ. You yourself seem to say this with your accepting of the 'equal emphasis'.
quote:How is this a "problem for me"? It is not. I have no problem with this! I have before made what, to me, seems like the obvious link the Bible makes between the truth presented in Christ and the propositional truth of the text. It is not a problem for me that these are both God expressing hismelf unreservedly. Why it is for you, seems only to be because you come with a predisposed view of what God expressing himself would look like.
But that's your problem isn't it. You believe that revelation = revelations, propositions about God. You believe that revelation = true statements about God. That just isn't how the Bible sees revelation. The New Testament understands revelation as God expressing himself fully, and without reserve...
quote:Erm. It was Dyfrig who posted this. Not me. Thanks.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Leprechaun:quote:
In fact, the presence of the vegetation seems to be dependent on there being human beings to till the soil. Reasonable conclusion: no vegetation on the earth before human beings created.
quote:Yup. A Biblical view!
Why it is for you, seems only to be because you come with a predisposed view of what God expressing himself would look like.
quote:You don't accept that the story of Elisha, the 42 boys and the she-bear is - let's say 'difficult to square' - with the understanding of God we have in Jesus Christ?
And you again are assuming that these revelations are self evidently contradictory, an assumption I do not accept.
quote:Couldn't agree with you more on this point, apart from inerrancypossibly the product of modernity; I would view it as more pre-modern. However, whilst I don't believe it's essential to salvation, I have nevertheless personally (at the risk of sounding dreadfully post-modern and relativist) found my relationship with God vastly improved and Him more revealed (I can put it no other way) in His Word since I adopted this stance/ belief/ faith position/ whatever you want to call it
Quoth dyfrig:
I can't see inerrancy as being anything other than a pair of spectacles worn by some in the same way "liberation theology" or "demythologising" are worn by others.
There's no real way to back it up in the texts themselves without taking it asn a priori position (thus making the argument circular) and frankly I think it's as much a product of modern critical method as any other "-ism".
quote:Give me strength. How you can possibly claim that you view is more "Biblical" than mine is utterly beyond me when in the same post you are doubting God's revelation of himself in the Bible. It was also possibly one of the most patronising replies I have ever had on the ship. Can you imagine if all I did was assert that my view as an inerrantist was more Biblical? There'd be (rightly) Hell to pay. Grow up.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Yup. A Biblical view!
quote:Difficult. Maybe. Impossible. No.
You don't accept that the story of Elisha, the 42 boys and the she-bear is - let's say 'difficult to square' - with the understanding of God we have in Jesus Christ?
What do we learn about God in this passage?
quote:is an imputation I utterly reject. I apologise to Dyfrig, too, whose correction in Welsh a few posts ago was gentle enough to make me feel really bad about my clumsiness on the rapid response front. Which is all it was.
It makes me feel like you have some sort of personal crusade going on here, and to be honest, if that is the case, I'm not interested in the discussion.
quote:How dare you say that I am doubting God's revelation of himself in the Bible. God reveals himself in the Bible inasmuch as the Bible testifies to Christ. I attend to what the Bible actually says, and I can foind nothing in the Bible which compels me to the inerrantist position. I take the Bible seriously - which is what yet again you are denying - inasmuch as I take seriously what the Bible says about Jesus Christ.
Give me strength. How you can possibly claim that you view is more "Biblical" than mine is utterly beyond me when in the same post you are doubting God's revelation of himself in the Bible.
quote:Isn't it strange how conveniently literalism and inerrancy part company when it's convenient. What I learn from this passage is that when a group of small boys insult a man of God, he turns round and curses them, and in fulfilment of his curse a she-bear comes out of the forest and kills forty-two of them.
I think, without detailed study that what we learn about God is that his revealing of his word to us is something to be mocked at our own peril.
quote:Let's try this:
I think if you accept Elisha as a type of Christ...
quote:
He went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!"
And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.
quote:
But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."
quote:And this
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
quote:Let's try this:
I think if you accept Elisha as a type of Christ...
quote:
He went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!"
And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.quote:
But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."
quote:Although I imagine that you will conveniently assume this bit is errant, and thus fit the text with your pre-imagined view of God.
So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways.I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.
quote:What's that all about? Isn't that what you're doing? And if not - aren't we wasting our time on this thread? Are you really saying that you are asserting that the Bible possesses a certain quality, a certain metaphysically guaranteed relatonship to truth? And aren't you saying that you understand the Bible better - if not that you only understand the Bible properly - becuase you hold inerrantist views? Or havce you suddenly changed your ground to "inerrantist views are an optional extra"?
Can you imagine if all I did was assert that my view as an inerrantist was more Biblical? There'd be (rightly) Hell to pay. Grow up.
quote:I didn't say it was the Biblical view. I said it was a Biblical view. I deliberately left open the possibility that yours was a Biblical view too. But since you ask, I don't think it is. That's what this whole thread is really about, and why you start taking it personally with me I have no idea. I don't believe that inerrantist views are Biblical. I don't think the Bible works like that. I don't set out to 'patronize' you, and I don't think I do. I don't think your arguments - your arguments - amount to very much, and the implications of some of them horrify me. I think your stance is terribly dangerous. But I don't know the first thing about you, and I haven't imputed anything to you beyond what you say about your position in your posts. Stop trying to personalize things. And stop trying to tell me that I am.
[You said:] Why it is for you, seems only to be because you come with a predisposed view of what God expressing himself would look like.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[I said:] Yup. A Biblical view!
quote:Wrong on two counts. Firstly, the category of 'errant' means nothing to me, as it's as meaningless as 'inerrant'. It's no more 'errant' than it is 'purple'. Secondly, my pre-imagined view of God is actually the sense I can make from wrestling with God's revelation of himself in Jesus Christ as it speaks to me through Scripture.
Although I imagine that you will conveniently assume this bit is errant, and thus fit the text with your pre-imagined view of God.
quote:Whatever.
So all of that is a piece of mealy-mouthed guff intended to distract.
quote:That feeling is certainly mutual.
I think your stance is terribly dangerous.
quote:
These are books which are the product both of a community's intense engagement with God, and of God's intense engagement with a community. They are authentic, real, true. They crystallize the Gospel which called the Church into existence - the Word is over the Community - and they are Canonical - the Community validates the bearers of the Word.
quote:I thought your long post deserved some sort of response, on the other hand I don't want to turn a thread about inerrancy into a thread about catholic and protestant interpretations of scripture. Suffice it to say that, I don't think that Scripture created the Church - Christ called and comissioned the Apostles and sent the Holy Spirit upon them at Pentecost. Scripture arises out of that. On the other hand I can find nothing substantive in the first comment I've quoted that I would take serious issue with, so I think we are not a million miles apart.
Yes the Church created Scripture - just as Scripture created the Church.
quote:I don't believe that "bits of the Bible are more revelatory than others". I believe that Jesus Christ is the revelation of God, and that the Bible is revelatory - is the Word of God - when it speaks of Christ. I don't want to throw any bits of the Bible away.
And I am afraid there are just too many things about your view that I find impossible to accept, not least the strange responsibility you take upon yourself to decide which bits of the Bible are more revelatory than others,
quote:I'm a very critical accepter of postmodernism. A lot of it is heartless, immoral and stinks. But it's where we are - and one of the liberating things about it is that it seems to me to set us genuinely free to be authentic Christians, and to see the world other than through the optimistic, scientistic, bureaucratic Big Stories of modernity. It unmasks lots of things. That's all I'm saying. That - and that I'm a Christian first (and last).
and your seemingly uncritical acceptance of postmodernism.
quote:No, but your reading of it
I don't understand your point about literality - I am quite sure of the literality of 2 Kings, and never cast doubt on it.
quote:is as decently sanitized and shorn of the awfulness of what the story actually says, as anyone could wish. I don't find anything to quibble with in your interpretation - except that it doesn't address the fact that according to 2K2 42 little boys have to die to vindicate the word of God. Now I'm sorry, but that's not a literal reading, because it doesn't deal (don't get me wrong, I find it reassuring that it doesn't)with what the story is actually about. And if I were going to preach on that passage (God forbid that I ever use a lectionary that sets it!!) I would be preaching on it in the context - the Biblical context - of Genesis 22, and the God (found everywhere in the Psalms and Prophets) who desires a broken heart and a contrite spirit, not sacrifice. I would be saying about it "Look what people believe about God!"
I think, without detailed study that what we learn about God is that his revealing of his word to us is something to be mocked at our own peril.
quote:Well, I did as soon as I noticed the second time. The first time I must be honest, since I was engaging rather critically with the post my big concern was that I let FishFish off the hook (no pun intended when I wrote this - saw it moments later!) - but you're right you are due an apology for that too. I apologise.
Ok Ok Ok, you weren't trying to personalise. But you did twice misquote me and not apologise - and the first time you apologised to Fish Fish for using his quote as if it was mine, but not to me for mispresenting me. I was somewhat confused, and annoyed.
quote:So you're saying that the Bible is your authority, but you decide what genre each bit of text is, and therefore how to interpret it. You decide whether it's history or not. You set yourself up as an authority over the Bible, over the Church, over God Himself by deciding what genre each bit of the Bible is, and you then presume to judge those who see it differently from yourself.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
No, this is not what I'm doing. I am not ripping out bits I don't like, or dismissing anything at all. I am taking the genre seriously - and believing what the Bible teaches me to believe. As I said above, Genesis, in its genre, doesn't seem to be teaching a literal 6 day creation - so I don't believe in a 6 day creation cos thats not what its teaching. If it did teach that, then I'd believe it. So, the Bible is my authority.
quote:Agreed. Which was really my point. I wasn't offering a thoroughgoing counter-narrative, just trying to show that a thoroughgoing Catholic account and a thoroughgoing Protestant account aren't necessarily too far apart, and that, given that, even if the former might be seen to give the community some sort of primacy over the Word, the second doesn't - and still doesn't require to be couched in inerrantist terms. Inerancy doesn't guarantee the primacy of the Word, and anti-inerrancy (surely a more accurate term than "errancy") doesn't in any way preclude it.
On the other hand I can find nothing substantive in the first comment I've quoted that I would take serious issue with, so I think we are not a million miles apart.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Josephine, to be fair to Fish Fish though he does claim inerrancy for Scripture he has never claimed the same for his interpretation of Scripture.
Now it can be asked what value there is in an inerrant text if an inerrant interpretation is impossible.
quote:Yes! That is a necessary implication of the inerrantist view.
Though, it has just occured to me that maybe those holding an inerrant view of Scripture are maybe forced to hold an inerrant interpretation of those passages used to support this view.
quote:Feel the love...
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
OK, Pax.
quote:Right, you're going to have to explain this to me then. It seems to me that you choose some bits of the Bible to form an interpretative framework for other bits. Of course we all do this. But you do seem to choose some as having more strength than others - some so weak so as not even to be granted the status of true, never mind God-breathed. Is this because you assume that some of the Bible reveals Christ more than others? Because I think the whole thing reveals Christ...
I don't believe that "bits of the Bible are more revelatory than others". I believe that Jesus Christ is the revelation of God, and that the Bible is revelatory - is the Word of God - when it speaks of Christ. I don't want to throw any bits of the Bible away.
quote:Please understand me on this. I believe this story happened, and again I would need to do a bit more study in 2 Kings, but I believe it is supposed to teach us something about God. And were I preaching it I would not sanitise it. In fact, I think the very horror of the story makes the point that I believe the passage to be teaching - that no matter how innocent one seems, if one rejects and mocks God's instrument for passing on his word (as Elisha is revelaed to be in the previous story) one will face the most horrific of consequences.
No, but your reading of it [is as decently sanitized and shorn of the awfulness of what the story actually says, as anyone could wish. I don't find anything to quibble with in your interpretation - except that it doesn't address the fact that according to 2K2 42 little boys have to die to vindicate the word of God. Now I'm sorry, but that's not a literal reading, because it doesn't deal (don't get me wrong, I find it reassuring that it doesn't)with what the story is actually about.
quote:The oracle has spoken! In this case I happen to agree, but I think there are serious questions of interpretation before we look at the passage and say this must be the case - not least those raised by 2 Kings 2.
The Revelation passage is intensely metaphorical, of course, and there's nothing wrong about putting 'adultery', 'bed' and 'children' in inverted commas.
quote:Yes, exactly!
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Is this because you assume that some of the Bible reveals Christ more than others?
quote:No, its totally fair to the context of Jesus affirming "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." To say, as perhaps liberals might, that Jesus is abandoning the law, is to ignore everything Jesus says, and especially the immediate context that Jesus sets his words in.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
But FF, saying "Jesus does not correct them - he simply applies them more deeply" is as much an interpretation by you of these passages as anything offered from a more "liberal" perspective.
quote:Yes. Becuase the Bible is God's revelation of his truth - and so more believable than scientific theories. So if that's indeed what it teaches, then I'll accept it.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
I note you say to Grey Face that, if it ever emerged that Gen 1-3 was meant to have been a historical record, you wuold become a 6-day creationist. Would you really change your mind on the basis of the opinion of the critics of biblical literature in the face of quite a substantial geological and physical body of evidence?
quote:Useful for teaching what?! Error?!
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Even if I dismiss something I don't like as an error, I can't dismiss the fact that that is included in Scripture for a purpose. It is still part of the God-breathed writings that are useful for teaching etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Stoo:
How do you, Fish Fish, decide what genre each biblical book is? Once you've done that, how does that affect your reading of the book?
What do you look for in the text to find its genre?
quote:I'm no expert at all - and take the advice of the experts. But, isn't that me being authoritative over the text? No. The concluson about genre, and indeed anything, are in a sense preliminary, and totally open to change or ammendment by deeper understanding of the scriptures. The scriptures are always the final and deciding authority. And thus,(as Lep rightly said on my behalf) my interpretation is NOT innerant - and always open for rewriting as I understand the scriptures better.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I'd like to know whose authority you would accept for the decision that it could be presented as history. Biblical scholars? People of your own denomination? Or yourself alone? Are you a renowned expert on biblical scholarship?
quote:I definately wasn't leading to that!
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Just because I'm not an inerrantist doesn't mean I think the Bible is a load of crap, if that's what you were leading up to.
quote:No, it would be a total characature to suggest it was that blatant! But in the end, when everything is stripped away, that seems to me to be what "errantists" do - either themselves, or the "errantist" experts. In the end, human wisdom determines what is correct and what incorrect, what is revealed and what is error. And here is where my real problem lies - who are we to tell God what is in error about him or his revelation? We assume authority to do this - and thus do not sit under the authority of the text (in the way I describe for myself above). The problem with this way of thinking is that the church or individual can decide anything contradictory to their (limited) understanding of God. They can say something is in error rather than be forced to expand their understanding of God. We may, in this process, edit out wonderful "contradictions" about God - such as the trinity (1 and yet 3 - an apparent contradiction, which is not a contradiction at all).
Originally posted by GreyFace:
1. Errantists do not simply pick and choose. I'll let somebody else drag you back into Hell if you keep going with that one.
Probaly not
quote:Sorry - I slipped into simplistic mode again. Sorry. A thousand sorry's.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
And, it seems to me on this thread, sometimes the grounds for claiming "CONTRADICTION!" are a perceived contradiction between OT passages and a limited reading of the gospels, which edits out anything Jesus said on judgment!
quote:So, when you use reason and scholarship and the advice of the experts, acknowledging that you might possibly be wrong about some detail or another in your interpretation, you're not being authoritative over the text. But when people who disagree with your conclusions use reason and scholarship and the advice of the experts, acknowledging that they might possibly be wrong about some detail or another in their interpretation, they are setting themselves up as authorities over the text.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I'm no expert at all - and take the advice of the experts. But, isn't that me being authoritative over the text? No. The concluson about genre, and indeed anything, are in a sense preliminary, and totally open to change or ammendment by deeper understanding of the scriptures. The scriptures are always the final and deciding authority.
quote:Josephine, surely this is to do with the nature of conclusions reached - it is less respectful of a person's authority to start from a point that says I am more likely to be right than them about this. Thus it is less respectful of the bible's authority to start from a point that says we are likely to know more than the Biblical authors (and IMO God!) The parameters that you set do reveal your underlying mindset!
Originally posted by josephine:
But when people who disagree with your conclusions use reason and scholarship and the advice of the experts, acknowledging that they might possibly be wrong about some detail or another in their interpretation, they are setting themselves up as authorities over the text.
quote:Yes Callan. Touche. You are quite right in one sense as 2 Peter makes clear.
Originally posted by Callan.:
Leprechaun - would you be prepared to concede that there is a fairly important sense in that ALL of us on this thread know more than the authors of Genesis to Malachi?
quote:Excuse me? Are you saying that, because I come to different conclusions about the meaning of certain passages of Holy Scripture than you do, that I am therefore less respectful of the Bible than you are, and that I think I know more than God?
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:Josephine, surely this is to do with the nature of conclusions reached - it is less respectful of a person's authority to start from a point that says I am more likely to be right than them about this. Thus it is less respectful of the bible's authority to start from a point that says we are likely to know more than the Biblical authors (and IMO God!) The parameters that you set do reveal your underlying mindset!
Originally posted by josephine:
But when people who disagree with your conclusions use reason and scholarship and the advice of the experts, acknowledging that they might possibly be wrong about some detail or another in their interpretation, they are setting themselves up as authorities over the text.
quote:What do you mean by "know?" Clearly we know a lot, lot more about the subatomic fine structure of matter than St. Matthew. We know that sperm does not contain complete mini-humans. We know that there isn't water above the sky, etc. etc.
Thus it is less respectful of the bible's authority to start from a point that says we are likely to know more than the Biblical authors (and IMO God!)
quote:But... but...
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I'm no expert at all - and take the advice of the experts. But, isn't that me being authoritative over the text? No. The concluson about genre, and indeed anything, are in a sense preliminary, and totally open to change or ammendment by deeper understanding of the scriptures. The scriptures are always the final and deciding authority.
quote:Well that's not what you CALL it, no. And your opponents don't call what they do by those names either. And yet you are both doing the same thing, just using different words.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
No, this is not what I'm doing. I am not ripping out bits I don't like, or dismissing anything at all.
quote:Who here has suggested this is the proper way to interpret scripture? This is a straw man.
But this is in contrast to the errantists - who do not have to struggle with difficult passages, or passages they disagree with - you can simply dismiss what you don't agree with.
quote:Same way you do -- we interpret it. It's just that we are willing to admit we interpret it and you are not.
How do you counter the accusation that you pick what you like and dismiss what you don't like? And how, then, do you claim the Bible has authority? It's a simple question that never seems to get answered!
quote:No no no. I understand that we are all trying to please God as best we can, and I was not meaning in any way to impugn your motives. Rather I am saying that in any case interpretation is not done without a framework, and our fraweork shows our underlying attitude to the text. Its not just as simple as "I come to this conclusion," "you come to that one" if we are all claiming to want to be under the Bible's authority. We need to ask, which method of interpretation best reflects the authoritative nature of the text?
Originally posted by josephine:
Excuse me? Are you saying that, because I come to different conclusions about the meaning of certain passages of Holy Scripture than you do, that I am therefore less respectful of the Bible than you are, and that I think I know more than God?
I do hope that's not what you're saying.
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
So, when you use reason and scholarship and the advice of the experts, acknowledging that you might possibly be wrong about some detail or another in your interpretation, you're not being authoritative over the text. But when people who disagree with your conclusions use reason and scholarship and the advice of the experts, acknowledging that they might possibly be wrong about some detail or another in their interpretation, they are setting themselves up as authorities over the text.
quote:No, I'm more than happy to admit I interpret the Bible. I too use archaeology and geology and logic and all the other tools. The difference is where the authority lies. I interpret, but always seek the final word and authority to lie in the scriptures. If the Bible says something contradictory to my logic or my learning, and if I'm certain that is what its saying, then that's the authority I will believe.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Same way you do -- we interpret it. It's just that we are willing to admit we interpret it and you are not.
How do you counter the accusation that you pick what you like and dismiss what you don't like? And how, then, do you claim the Bible has authority? It's a simple question that never seems to get answered!
quote:I suppose I am saying (and you are right to pick me up on my sloppy use of language here) that they knew more about what they wrote than we do, rather than less. This was particularly in reference to the argument made that we can now look back on particular passages in the OT where God is said to have spoken or done something, but we now know he didn't really, apparently.
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Leprechaun
Muscling in on a very tedious thread .... I know, I know ... it's not tedious to others and I don't have to click!
quote:What do you mean by "know?" Clearly we know a lot, lot more about the subatomic fine structure of matter than St. Matthew. We know that sperm does not contain complete mini-humans. We know that there isn't water above the sky, etc. etc.
Thus it is less respectful of the bible's authority to start from a point that says we are likely to know more than the Biblical authors (and IMO God!)
quote:Useful for teaching the truth about God, not to forget the training in righteousness etc.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:Useful for teaching what?! Error?!
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Even if I dismiss something I don't like as an error, I can't dismiss the fact that that is included in Scripture for a purpose. It is still part of the God-breathed writings that are useful for teaching etc.
quote:Then you are indeed claiming that your sources are more authoritative than theirs.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But what some people are doing here is to interpret using other tools and information - and these have an authority over the Bible.
I hold the authority of the Church catholic (thanks for the phrase MT) to interpret said Bible over that of you or any other so-called authority and let's face it, the Church catholic is not going to throw the Bible out of the window either. Remember what the Church is.
quote:Grey Face. A lot of what you said makes sense to me. But IMO this is a very poor argument indeed. Inerrancy does not safeguard against this, but it is just as likely to safeguard against it as non-inerrancy, as at least it also protects the Christian interpretation of these events given by Jesus and the NT. Non-inerrancy, and the selective nature of it (and I'm not saying inerrancy does not involve selection, merely that this selection is more controlled) actually introduces more potential for wacky interpretations than inerrancy. And I'm glad (and I'm not being sarcstic here) that you trust the church catholic to sift these interpretations. I, have to say on its past record, I do not.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
theirs.
The latter beliefs above can lead people to commit atrocities in the name of God - let's just say, as a thought experiment Fish Fish, and to turn a previous inerrantist argument on its head, that you ended up with serious psychiatric problems, hearing voices claiming to be God and telling you to go out and start the serial killing of "idol worshippers" such as Roman Catholics. So you consult Christianity, and with your literalist interpretation of Joshua conclude that God has indeed told people to do this, in the past, and off you go with your axe. If on the other hand you look at the Bible in the light of the Gospels, I believe (and I'm not saying I'm certainly correct - I'm not inerrant) that you would be forced to conclude that the voices you are hearing cannot be God.
quote:Gosh. I will contact Reform and tell them your application is in the post.
You've clarified one thing for me though - I theoretically hold the authority of the Bible over that of the Church, which makes me an evangelical I suppose
quote:I disagree, and think this is a bit of a straw man on both sides, to be honest.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Non-inerrancy, and the selective nature of it (and I'm not saying inerrancy does not involve selection, merely that this selection is more controlled) actually introduces more potential for wacky interpretations than inerrancy.
quote:I agree but I'd been wanting to kick the Ripper argument into touch for a while. Really what I think I'm arguing is that inerrancy is a meaningless concept. We're just arguing over degrees of literalism. I'm not saying that I think the Bible at any point is lying, rather that the truths it's conveying are not (necessarily) historical facts.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Grey Face. A lot of what you said makes sense to me. But IMO this is a very poor argument indeed. Inerrancy does not safeguard against this, but it is just as likely to safeguard against it as non-inerrancy, as at least it also protects the Christian interpretation of these events given by Jesus and the NT.
quote:The thing is, that means that you think you are better at interpreting than the Church as a whole. Which may well be the case, I can't deny, but it seems unlikely to me. And I realise what a circular argument that is.I doubt that you discount any theological arguments just because they originated within the Church. Do you? I hold me hand up to the charge myself to a certain extent anyway, but it's more the exception than the rule. For one thing I think that women can be priests, but I have my own branch of the Church catholic to back me up
Non-inerrancy, and the selective nature of it (and I'm not saying inerrancy does not involve selection, merely that this selection is more controlled) actually introduces more potential for wacky interpretations than inerrancy. And I'm glad (and I'm not being sarcstic here) that you trust the church catholic to sift these interpretations. I, have to say on its past record, I do not.
quote:
Gosh. I will contact Reform and tell them your application is in the post.
quote:No, Fish Fish. You need to come clean here. Your problem is not when someone disagrees with the text -- it's when they disagree with YOUR INTERPRETATION of the text.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I'm more than happy to admit I interpret the Bible. I too use archaeology and geology and logic and all the other tools. <snip>
But what some people are doing here is to interpret using other tools and information - and these have an authority over the Bible. So,<snip> if an authority outside the Bible (geologist, philosopher, physicist, etc - or even the church itself) disagrees with the text, then that authority seems to be give authority over the text. And its that that I have a problem with.
quote:You're right, of course -- interpretation requires a framework. My framework is "antiquity, universality, consensus." It is based on the assumption that I am flawed, sinful, ignorant, self-seeking, and fully able and willing to justify any reading of any text that I'd like to make. It is further based on the assumption that, over the last 2000 or so years, there have been many, many people who were far wiser and less sinful than me, people who have sought God above all else, and who have been granted, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, to know him fully. Therefore, it seems wise to me to defer to their interpretations of the Holy Scriptures rather than to rely on my own.
Originally posted by Leprechaun
Rather I am saying that in any case interpretation is not done without a framework, and our fraweork shows our underlying attitude to the text. Its not just as simple as "I come to this conclusion," "you come to that one" if we are all claiming to want to be under the Bible's authority. We need to ask, which method of interpretation best reflects the authoritative nature of the text?
quote:Yep. Getting this now. I suppose that this does boil down to the issue of authority. I have to say the last thing I do when interpreting the Bible is to throw the opinions of past saints out the window. But what I've been saying is that even where the whole of church history is telling me the Bible has got something wrong, I don't accept it because for me the Bible claims ultimate authority, over the church. I think this sort of squares the circle for me for how inerrancy and authority are linked.
Originally posted by josephine:
You're right, of course -- interpretation requires a framework. My framework is "antiquity, universality, consensus." It is based on the assumption that I am flawed, sinful, ignorant, self-seeking, and fully able and willing to justify any reading of any text that I'd like to make. It is further based on the assumption that, over the last 2000 or so years, there have been many, many people who were far wiser and less sinful than me, people who have sought God above all else, and who have been granted, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, to know him fully. Therefore, it seems wise to me to defer to their interpretations of the Holy Scriptures rather than to rely on my own.
Perhaps this framework is less respectful of the authority of the Bible. I don't see that. Rather, it is less respectful of my own ability to interpret the Bible accurately.
quote:At the risk of channelling the Spirit Of The Orthodox Plot (TM) your quote could equally demonstrate the need to interpret scripture in the light of that broad consensus we call 'the teaching of the Church'.
But interpretations of Scripture have varied widely over those 2000 years both in time and space, so I would challenge your assertion of 'consensus'. That variation is especally true today; consider the following quote by Ron Sider:-
quote:Which suggests that the triad of 'universality, antiquity and consensus' is probably more ignored than it should be. Of the groups that Sider cites most of them have tended to strike out on their own - the social gospel and liberation theology have tended to insist that the gospel can only be interpreted in the light of modern social democratic politics/ Marxism. The Charismatic movement, notoriously, gives the impression that nothing worthwhile happened in the Church between the closing of the canon and the 1970s and Medieval Catholicism unilaterally altered the Nicene Creed and abandoned consensus for Papal Diktat. Of course, at their best these movements represent rather more legitimate and important developments in theology than perhaps my rather cursory summary indicates, but you can hardly say that consensus doesn't work and then point to those groups which have tended not to value it as proof of your thesis.
Tragically, each group sometimes ignores or even rejects the concerns of others.
quote:I'm not saying my interpretation is necessarily better than yours. Nor am I saying mine is right. Indeed, I am saying mine is open to re-evaluation. What I am saying is that, if I make the scripture the deciding authority, and if you don't, then my interpretation is likely to be the one more faithful to the text.
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:No, Fish Fish. You need to come clean here. Your problem is not when someone disagrees with the text -- it's when they disagree with YOUR INTERPRETATION of the text.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I'm more than happy to admit I interpret the Bible. I too use archaeology and geology and logic and all the other tools. <snip>
But what some people are doing here is to interpret using other tools and information - and these have an authority over the Bible. So,<snip> if an authority outside the Bible (geologist, philosopher, physicist, etc - or even the church itself) disagrees with the text, then that authority seems to be give authority over the text. And its that that I have a problem with.
Can you tell me why your intepretation of any particular text should take precedence over mine? The only reason you ever seem to give boils down to "My interpretation is right and yours is wrong, because I got it right and you got it wrong."
quote:Actually we know that there is water above the sky, just not very concentrated...
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
We know that there isn't water above the sky,
quote:That's fine. But I'm not nearly as interested in being faithful to the text as I am in being faithful to God.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I'm not saying my interpretation is necessarily better than yours. Nor am I saying mine is right. Indeed, I am saying mine is open to re-evaluation. What I am saying is that, if I make the scripture the deciding authority, and if you don't, then my interpretation is likely to be the one more faithful to the text.
quote:
ISTM that you may be saying that all interpretations of a text are equal. (Forgive me if this isn't what you are saying!).
quote:You're right, Fish Fish, I want an external authority to interpret the Bible -- the Holy Spirit. You want to make God submissive to the Bible. Sorry. He's Lord even over the Book.
Because inerrantists want the Bible to speak with its own authority rather than permit an external authority to interpret and change what the Bible is itself saying. The interpreter becomes the authority over the text, rather that the interpreter being submissive to the text.
quote:I am tempted to tell you what CSLewis said when folks tried to get him to answer the same question: It's really obnoxious of me to say anything at all about a sin I'm not tempted to. If you want me to talk about sins, I'm better off talking about the ones that trip me up, not the ones that God, in his mercy, has seen fit to protect me from all temptation towards.
Just a questions about this "universality, antiquity and consensus" interpretation. Just interested - and not wanting to push this into another dead horse - what's your view of homosexual sex?
quote:Having read the first three chapters of Genesis in Hebrew, I can assure you it's not poetry and has all the markers ("and it came to pass", use of the narrative tense, etc.) of history.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I don't accept that Genesis 1-3 is presented as history actually. I think it has a more poetic genre. However, if it becomes apparent that it is in fact presented as history, then I'll change my view to a 6 day creationalist.
quote:This is both a red herring and a straw man. Virtually every non-inerrantist who has been interacting with you on this thread fully believes that the Bible is authoritative; none of us have suggested that our own feeble wisdom(s?) trump scripture. You're barking up the wrong tree here. What we have suggested, however, is that the Bible can be authoritative without being inerrant, because the ultimate authority is not a book, but the Lord of whom it tells.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
So why is an "inerrantist" interpretation of the text superior to an "errantist" interpretation? Because inerrantists want the Bible to speak with its own authority rather than permit an external authority to interpret and change what the Bible is itself saying. The interpreter becomes the authority over the text, rather that the interpreter being submissive to the text. And, since this is God's word, I want to be completely submissive to God's revealed wisdom rather than impose on it my own feeble wisdom.
quote:I was about to answer "because they were there". But then I re read your post and understood what you meant.
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Leprechaun
I what sense did the New Testament authors know better of which they speak?
quote:No, I don't think that's what is being said or meant. Let me offer an analogy: I hereby make the following statement, "I am a real estate lawyer". Now, this statement is not in anyway 'above' or 'superior to' me. But your response to it could be very telling about what you think of me. If you think for example, "No, he's not a lawyer", that tells me one of two things: either you think me mistaken (or even deluded!)or you think I'm a liar. You may even think "Actually, I don't think Matt really made that statement; perhaps there's someone else at his keyboard right now"; that again casts doubt on the veracity and accuracy of the statement and the status of its author. Or you can think "I believe that Matt made that statement and it's true because he's a trustworthy srt of guy (even though he's a lawyer
Originally posted by Mousethief:
[QUOTE]This is both a red herring and a straw man. Virtually every non-inerrantist who has been interacting with you on this thread fully believes that the Bible is authoritative; none of us have suggested that our own feeble wisdom(s?) trump scripture. You're barking up the wrong tree here. What we have suggested, however, is that the Bible can be authoritative without being inerrant, because the ultimate authority is not a book, but the Lord of whom it tells.
While it seems to you that we are setting ourselves up above Holy Writ, it also seems to us (me anyway) that you are setting the Bible up above God. Only God is perfect, only God is inerrant. The Bible, being a product of both God and man, is not perfect.
Your attitude, to be honest, and I'm sure you don't mean it this way but there it is: your attitude seems to border on idolatry.
)". quote:However trustworthy you are (if you're a lawyer I have to have my doubts), that doesn't mean that any statement that PURPORTS to be from you really is. This example confuses, rather than clarifies, the issues.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
No, I don't think that's what is being said or meant. Let me offer an analogy: I hereby make the following statement, "I am a real estate lawyer". Now, this statement is not in anyway 'above' or 'superior to' me. But your response to it could be very telling about what you think of me. If you think for example, "No, he's not a lawyer", that tells me one of two things: either you think me mistaken (or even deluded!)or you think I'm a liar. You may even think "Actually, I don't think Matt really made that statement; perhaps there's someone else at his keyboard right now"; that again casts doubt on the veracity and accuracy of the statement and the status of its author. Or you can think "I believe that Matt made that statement and it's true because he's a trustworthy srt of guy (even though he's a lawyer
quote:(inspired that is)
In a way I do not think the church is.
quote:Apologies for getting you mixed up with someone else!!
Originally posted by josephine:
Have you read anything I've said??????
quote:Agreed - but since he was the one inspiring the book, it would seem rather strange if he went against what he'd inspired before wouldn't it? I don’t want to set one against the other. Rather, the written word is the test of the Spirit's guidance to us today.
Originally posted by josephine:
You're right, Fish Fish, I want an external authority to interpret the Bible -- the Holy Spirit. You want to make God submissive to the Bible. Sorry. He's Lord even over the Book.
quote:Thanks for clarifying that.
Originally posted by josephine:
That said, using the principals of antiquity, universality, and consensus, you will find that homosexual sex isn't much of an issue. The issue is sex outside marriage, which is a sin. Whether it's heterosexual sex or homosexual sex is pretty irrelevant.
quote:Sorry, I can't read Hebrew. Perhaps "poetry" is the wrong term - I'm no expert on genre. But it seems to me, and from what I've read, that the style of the first few chapters of Genesis is very different from the rest of Genesis - the rhythmic structure of Ch1, the seemingly pictorial language of Ch3 etc.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Having read the first three chapters of Genesis in Hebrew, I can assure you it's not poetry and has all the markers ("and it came to pass", use of the narrative tense, etc.) of history.
quote:I honestly don't see how the book can be authoritative over us if we have the authority over the Bible to decide what is in error. I just simply cannot see this.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
...What we have suggested, however, is that the Bible can be authoritative without being inerrant, because the ultimate authority is not a book, but the Lord of whom it tells.
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Your attitude, to be honest, and I'm sure you don't mean it this way but there it is: your attitude seems to border on idolatry.
quote:No - cos the Bible points to Jesus. The whole Bible is about Jesus. So its Jesus I worship and follow. I don't worship the Bible. I do, however, take the Bible as an authoritative telling of who Jesus and God is. So I believe in the God of our Lord Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible, and not a Jesus of my own authoritative editing.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
You are - and I keep coming back to this, but I never get a straight answer to this - making the Bible co-ultimate with Christ.
quote:Agreed completely. That's also what I've been trying to get across
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Agreed - but since he was the one inspiring the book, it would seem rather strange if he went against what he'd inspired before wouldn't it? I don’t want to set one against the other. Rather, the written word is the test of the Spirit's guidance to us today.
I honestly don't see how the book can be authoritative over us if we have the authority over the Bible to decide what is in error. I just simply cannot see this.
If something seems in error to me, such as any apparent contradiction, then I assume authority over the text. If I in any sense say "This is in error, so we don't have to accept it." then I am authoritative over the text, and the text loses its authority over me.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mousethief:
Your attitude, to be honest, and I'm sure you don't mean it this way but there it is: your attitude seems to border on idolatry.quote:No - cos the Bible points to Jesus. The whole Bible is about Jesus. So its Jesus I worship and follow. I don't worship the Bible. I do, however, take the Bible as an authoritative telling of who Jesus and God is. So I believe in the God of our Lord Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible, and not a Jesus of my own authoritative editing.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
You are - and I keep coming back to this, but I never get a straight answer to this - making the Bible co-ultimate with Christ.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
[Agreed completely. That's also what I've been trying to get across
Yours in Christ
Matt
quote:Let's back up a bit here, Fish Fish.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:Agreed - but since he was the one inspiring the book, it would seem rather strange if he went against what he'd inspired before wouldn't it? I don’t want to set one against the other. Rather, the written word is the test of the Spirit's guidance to us today.
Originally posted by josephine:
You're right, Fish Fish, I want an external authority to interpret the Bible -- the Holy Spirit. You want to make God submissive to the Bible. Sorry. He's Lord even over the Book.
quote:I'm not sure of the point you're making here. Isn't this again to do with genre? "4 corners" is an accepted illustration and not literally 4 corners. Likewise, in the ancient genalogical genre, it was acceptable to miss out generations.
Originally posted by josephine:
Now, look at, say, the genealogies: if it were to be demonstrated beyond a doubt that a generation or so got left out of the genealogies, why would that be any different than the square earth?
quote:So who decides what's an acceptable explanation?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
my point all along is there are acceptable explanations of "contradictions" in the Bible.
quote:Well I guess there we go back to what Lep has being saying - Inerrancy does not remove these problems - but gives boundaries to narrow the field.
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:So who decides what's an acceptable explanation?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
my point all along is there are acceptable explanations of "contradictions" in the Bible.
quote:Answer the question, Fish Fish. Who gets to decide what's an acceptable definition? Who decides which boundaries to use to narrow the field?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:Well I guess there we go back to what Lep has being saying - Inerrancy does not remove these problems - but gives boundaries to narrow the field.
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:So who decides what's an acceptable explanation?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
my point all along is there are acceptable explanations of "contradictions" in the Bible.
quote:Yeah, that would seem to me to be the case. I guess in the sense that the Trinity looks like a contradiction but isn't...
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Wouldn't it be equally fair just to say that inerrancy asserts that there are no contradictions? Or that what look like them aren't them at all?
quote:Well, again I guess - I'm happy with the universality, antiquity and consensus principle - played out within the boundaries of scripture though. So, for example, I'd be unhappy with any ancient, universal consensus which made Mary more than the Bible teaches - the Bible still remains the primary and deciding authority.
Originally posted by josephine:
Answer the question, Fish Fish. Who gets to decide what's an acceptable definition? Who decides which boundaries to use to narrow the field?
quote:Well, again I guess - I'm happy with the universality, antiquity and consensus principle - played out within the boundaries of scripture though. So, for example, I'd be unhappy with any ancient, universal consensus which made Mary more than the Bible teaches - the Bible still remains the primary and deciding authority. [/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Originally posted by josephine:
Answer the question, Fish Fish. Who gets to decide what's an acceptable definition? Who decides which boundaries to use to narrow the field?
quote:Me.
Originally posted by josephine:
If you and I both see something in the Bible that appears to be a contradiction, and we each, in good faith, with prayer, with reference to the rest of Scripture and to the best information we can find about genre, history, etc., come up with an explanation for that contradiction -- if our explanations differ, who gets to decide which one of us is right?
quote:No it isn't. Interpretation is "how do you know what the text means?" Inerrancy is simply one approach to answering that question. It is one approach to setting boundaries on the limits of possible meanings a text can have.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But interpretation is a different issue from inerrancy, and so another thread I guess.
quote:Of course any fair-minded critic would take this approach until he was forced by the weight of the evidence to abandon it.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Wouldn't it be equally fair just to say that inerrancy asserts that there are no contradictions? Or that what look like them aren't them at all?
quote:This was originally a response to this
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Wouldn't it be equally fair just to say that inerrancy asserts that there are no contradictions? Or that what look like them aren't them at all?
Of course any fair-minded critic would take this approach until he was forced by the weight of the evidence to abandon it.
quote:...which was a response to this :
Well I guess there we go back to what Lep has being saying - Inerrancy does not remove these problems - but gives boundaries to narrow the field.
quote:In other words:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
my point all along is there are acceptable explanations of "contradictions" in the Bible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So who decides what's an acceptable explanation?
quote:In other words, the inerrantists, it seems to me, are trying to have their cake and eat it. 'Narrowing the field' means - what, precisely? It doesn't provide a technique for resolving contradictions into non-contradictions. I can only understand 'narrowing the field' here in the following way (obviously I'm open to enlightenment):
Well I guess there we go back to what Lep has being saying - Inerrancy does not remove these problems - but gives boundaries to narrow the field.
quote:Clearly if this is accurate, and not a misrepresentation, we need to look very carefully at the a priori grounds for holding these positions.
Wouldn't it be equally fair just to say that inerrancy asserts that there are no contradictions? Or that what look like them aren't them at all?
quote:...that was a polite way of saying "Show me (because I can't see it) how Josephine isn't correct in the following":
Clearly if this is accurate, and not a misrepresentation, we need to look very carefully at the a priori grounds for holding these positions.
quote:(I'd meant to include this in the body of the previous post. Heck, I've got flu...
And I would submit to you that inerrancy is a totally useless approach -- or worse than useless. If you belief that the Scriptures are inerrant, but have no reliable way to determine what the inerrant words actually mean, then this approach offers you exactly nothing. No hedge against error. Nothing but the illusion that you are "submissive" to the Holy Scriptures, along with the temptation to treat others with scorn and derision.
)
quote:Just want to respond to this by asking my question yet again, for I never get a decent answer!
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I am interested to understand why inerrantists feel that the Bible position is fatally weakened outside of their understanding. I don't think that the Bible's authority needs shoring up by unhistorical incoherent means.
quote:I don't think Psyduck is fair that the issues are being avoided. For me the issues of inerrancy, trustworthiness, authority and interpretation are intrinsically linked together, so my answer to a question about one is often the other.
Originally posted by josephine:
If you belief that the Scriptures are inerrant, but have no reliable way to determine what the inerrant words actually mean, then this approach offers you exactly nothing. No hedge against error. Nothing but the illusion that you are "submissive" to the Holy Scriptures, along with the temptation to treat others with scorn and derision.
quote:Father G. This analogy is too loose! My parents had authority over me when I was younger because even when I thought they were wrong, I still had to do what they said. This is not the approach taken by non-inerrantists to the Bible. If it was there would be no discussion. Rather the approach is
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Fish Fish
A loose analogy ...
When we were young our parents had authority over us. Sometimes we thought them wrong, sometimes right. Nonetheless they continued to have authority over us.
quote:Again, I didn't say that. I said this tool must provide all the answers. If it doesn't, then how can you say that psyduck is wrong? The only answer you've got is, "well, he says he's not an inerrantist, and he says the Bible is mistaken here, so he's wrong." But that's as fallacious as an argument can be.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Our discussion here on this thread has shown how inerrancy limits the interpretations available to us on difficult passages. No one is saying it answers everything, but to say it leaves you with "nothing" is..well..rubbish. [\qb]\[quote]
No, it's not. As you and Fish Fish keep saying, inerrancy is different from other approaches to interpretation.
Look, for purposes of doing arithmetic, you expect your calculator to be inerrant, don't you? And if it isn't, even if it gets the right answer 99% of the time, what would you do with it? I don't know about you, but I'd toss it if it were me. If it's not right 100% of the time, it's useless.
That standard doesn't apply to slide rules or other tools that only claim to provide estimates. A claim of inerrancy sets you up for a higher standard than other approaches.
[quote][qb]To say, as you seem to be saying Josephine, that to use any interpretative tool that doesn't give you ALL the answers means that such a tool is useless seems to me to be over egging your pudding somehwat.
quote:I hesitate to speak for anyone else, but I would certainly agree that the Holy Scriptures are reliable. But reliable is not the same thing as inerrant.
Psyduck, again I had some difficulty following - but are you questioning why we should approach the Bible with an a priori assumption that it is God reliably revealing truth to us? I thought you agreed that we should? Or not?
quote:Fish Fish, authority does not require inerrancy.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I honestly don't see how the book can be authoritative over us if we have the authority over the Bible to decide what is in error. I just simply cannot see this.
quote:Sorry this is not a fair comparison. It sets you up for a higher standard for the material or tool, but doesn't demand that my understanding of what comes out be inerrant - I quite often don't understand what comes out of my calculator, but because I assume it is internally consistent I keep on using it and not chucking it. It's the same. Knwoing my calculator is inerrant doesn't get me to the right answer all the time, but it helps me interpret the figures that come out.
Originally posted by josephine:
No, it's not. As you and Fish Fish keep saying, inerrancy is different from other approaches to interpretation.
Look, for purposes of doing arithmetic, you expect your calculator to be inerrant, don't you? And if it isn't, even if it gets the right answer 99% of the time, what would you do with it? I don't know about you, but I'd toss it if it were me. If it's not right 100% of the time, it's useless.
That standard doesn't apply to slide rules or other tools that only claim to provide estimates. A claim of inerrancy sets you up for a higher standard than other approaches.
quote:I would venture a guess that there are more differences between Psyduck's theology and my own than inerrancy. One of the reason I think his interpretation is wrong is because I think he has a wrong view of the materials. But I daresay there are other issues we disagree over.
If it doesn't, then how can you say that psyduck is wrong? The only answer you've got is, "well, he says he's not an inerrantist, and he says the Bible is mistaken here, so he's wrong."
quote:That is an altogether different issue. But I think then at least we would be talking on a more similar platform, and would be more likely to come to agreement. In the same way you are more likely to come to agreement with Father G on many issues than me because you are coming with the same set of assumptions.
And what if psyduck restated his argument? What if he said, "Okay, I agree with you and Fish Fish, that the Bible is inerrant, as long as it's interpreted correctly, but I interpret this passage as being allegory." What answer do you have for him then? Can you say he's wrong then?
quote:Well, as I have said before, how something with mistakes in it can be relied on is beyond me.
I hesitate to speak for anyone else, but I would certainly agree that the Holy Scriptures are reliable. But reliable is not the same thing as inerrant.
quote:Oh Josephine, as I have said, if people here submitted themselves to the Bible's authority in the same way you do to the police there would be no discussion. The issue here is people saying, this is wrong therefore I am not bound to accept or believe it. You cannot take THAT approach to the police, or else you go to jail.
Fish Fish, authority does not require inerrancy.
If a policeman pulls me over and tells me I was speeding, he doesn't lose a whit of his authority if I think he was wrong. If I choose to submit to my priest, my husband, my boss at work, there is nothing in that relationship that requires them to be inerrant.
quote:Ah, so you never use the phone book?
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Well, as I have said before, how something with mistakes in it can be relied on is beyond me.
quote:Certainly don't stake my eternal destiny on it, no.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Ah, so you never use the phone book?
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Well, as I have said before, how something with mistakes in it can be relied on is beyond me.
quote:And how did you find out about Jesus? How did you come to hear his promises so that you could trust them? How did you come to know that God was there and he loved you?
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Come to that - you stake your eternal destiny on the Bible... ???
With me, it's Jesus Christ. That's the watershed.
quote:In Church. Where Scripture was read and preached, and the Word stood in the midst. In the total event of evelation which was always - is always - in the hand of Christ. Christ spoke. The inerrancy of the Bible had nothing to do with it. I wasn't saved by the Bible. I was saved by Christ.
And how did you find out about Jesus? How did you come to hear his promises so that you could trust them? How did you come to know that God was there and he loved you?
quote:You are actually saying, in so many words, that everything derives from the Bible? Surely you don't mean that?!? That's sheer Bibliolatry. You have replaced God and Christ with the Bible. If that's what you mean.
An answer to all of those questions MUST be the Bible (even if it was derivatively).
quote:And precisely the mistake you're making. You have now as good as said that you have to believe in an inerrant Bible, or you can't be saved, because an inerrant Bible is the means of salvation. You're basically adding something to trusting Jesus. You're saying that you can only trust Jesus if the Bible is inerrant - i.e. you can only trust Jesus if you see the Bible in a certain way.
I suppose you've just got to hope those who were hearing the word of God had their radio tuned in the day that Jesus promised salvation for those who trusted him. Or that there isn't a "louder voice" coming from another part of the text that says actually its trusting Jesus, but you've got to do this too (which incidentally is a mistake the supposedly "inspired" church have been making since day 1)
quote:I put it to you respectfully, that it was only the truth of the words read and preached that meant you were able to trust Christ. If they are not true, there is nothing to trust. That is all I am arguing for.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
In Church. Where Scripture was read and preached <snip> The inerrancy of the Bible had nothing to do with it. I wasn't saved by the Bible. I was saved by Christ.
quote:No, that all of our knowledge about Christ, in whom we trust, is derived from there. I was reading John Piper (whom I have just been waxing lyrical about on another thread) and he says something like this
You are actually saying, in so many words, that everything derives from the Bible? Surely you don't mean that?!? That's sheer Bibliolatry. You have replaced God and Christ with the Bible. If that's what you mean.
quote:
I suppose you've just got to hope those who were hearing the word of God had their radio tuned in the day that Jesus promised salvation for those who trusted him. Or that there isn't a "louder voice" coming from another part of the text that says actually its trusting Jesus, but you've got to do this too (which incidentally is a mistake the supposedly "inspired" church have been making since day 1)
quote:I am most certainly not saying this. All of your examples are ones I have no doubt that God's spirit worked powerfully through his word to change people's hearts.
And precisely the mistake you're making. You have now as good as said that you have to believe in an inerrant Bible, or you can't be saved, because an inerrant Bible is the means of salvation.
quote:I will respectfully submit that, if by "God's revelation of himself" you mean the Bible, and not Christ Jesus, then you are guilty of bibliolatry.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I do believe the reason that any of us, in reality, will get to heaven in the end is because what we trusted in, God's revelation of himself, was perfect, flawless, inerrant.
quote:But you're saying that God's saving revelation of himself is the Bible.
I am not saying you have to believe inerrancy to get to heaven - but I do believe the reason that any of us, in reality, will get to heaven in the end is because what we trusted in, God's revelation of himself, was perfect, flawless, inerrant.
quote:He's obviously done a lot of thinking about his eyes. I suspect that a bit of him now can't help thinking first thing in the morning "What great eyes!"
"I love the Bible like I love my eyes. I don't get up in the morning, and see the beauty of the world and think "what great eyes". But I love them because I can see the glory of the world through them."
quote:Madam, I respectfully disagree. In the same way you would have consider me to have trust in you if I believe the things you say, and wouldn't get upset that its your words I am trusting, rather than you, I do not consider that God sees it as idolatory that my way of trusting him is relying on the things he says.
Originally posted by josephine:
I will respectfully submit that, if by "God's revelation of himself" you mean the Bible, and not Christ Jesus, then you are guilty of bibliolatry.
quote:And there's nothing wrong with that. Just as the Psalmist saw nothing wrong with waxing lyrical about God's law (even if you don't accept that means the whole Scripture, it is certainly God's written revelation) praising God for its perfection, and the effect it has on him. Its great to think something is brilliant because it has a great effect on you, and leads you to other great things.
Psyduck wrote:
He's obviously done a lot of thinking about his eyes. I suspect that a bit of him now can't help thinking first thing in the morning "What great eyes!"
quote:I didn't imply "better" ... I suggested comparisons of sturdiness on the principle of the vulnerability of a certain faith position to certain questions. So, on the God / E.T. threads I have previously stated that a faith that is ready for the implications of E.T. life is more sturdy than one that is not.
Father G. I could answer your question, but I don't want to get into a "my faith is better than your faith" discussion thanks.
quote:Actually, this is perhaps it. I don't agree that it is through the written word (read or preached) that we discover Christ. It's through the Word read and preached that Christ confronts us - that we encounter him. And in the encounter he is always the living subject. He speaks, he comes, he meets.
So much we agree on, but I can't pin down - you agree that it is through the written word (read or preached) that we discover Christ. That is all I am saying. That the Bible can reliably and effectively do this.
quote:That strongly suggest to me that we "discover him" in a way that's a bit like seeing him accurately portrayed. He is the object of our gaze, not the subject of the encounter, not the one who graciously meets us as a living presence. And that's when what we discover aren't just 'true facts' about Christ, which is, on your account, all the Old Testament seems to be able to offer us.
it is through the written word (read or preached) that we discover Christ.
quote:Yes, but you're vesting the power to do this in the Bible itself, by making 'inerrancy' a virtually metaphysical property of the Bible itself. You make the Bible broker the encounter between us and God in Christ. What I'm insisting on is that that encounter is solely in God's hand.
The Bible can reliably and effectively do this.
quote:is so terrifying. It's the Bible that does everything, brokers everything, mediates everything. It fulfils the roles of God, Christ, Church. I honestly don't think that the charge of 'Bibliolatry' is a very helpful one, because it's adversarial, and I really want you to see what I'm saying here, and don't think that you do. I think that inerrantist positions make the Bible perform all sorts of roles in the economy of the Christian faith that it's just not meant to - and that really fall to other protagonists in the drama of faith: us; the Church; the preacher; Christ; the Holy Spirit; God.
The Bible can reliably and effectively do this.
quote:Its a good illustration - but flawed!
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Fish Fish
A loose analogy ...
When we were young our parents had authority over us. Sometimes we thought them wrong, sometimes right. Nonetheless they continued to have authority over us.
Why does the accuracy (which can't be maintained from the evidence anyway) have to be total in respect of the Bible in order for it to have authority over us?
quote:AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!
The Bible is different from other authorities since it contains God's revelation of himself.
quote:JESUS CHRIST!!!!!!
We can know vertually nothing about God unles he tells us about himself.
quote:AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!
So, if we assume the authority over the text in determining errors and contradictions, we are in some sense telling God what he is like rather than him revealing himself to us.
quote:NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! JESUS CHRIST!!!!!!
But only by accepting the text by faith do we acccept God's revelation of himself as Trinity.
quote:How exactly is this different from saying God reveals himself to us in the Bible? Hmmm? And I don't mean think of a way of saying why its different with long words and airy fairy illustrations. I mean really, in words in plain English, how is it different?
I'd say that Scripture is the impress of impact of the Word made Flesh who calls the Church into being, and the embodiment in writing of the preached Word under which the Church lives.
quote:The Bible says nothing to us unless God speaks through it in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Bible doesn't 'reveal' God. God reveals himself through the eternal Word - Christ - who speaks through Scripture. If you want me to underline what this means, that's why the Bible doesn't have to be inerrant, nor claims to be inerrant. All it has to be - along with the preaching of the Word (sc. Christ) is the place where God in Christ confronts us. The Bible is what it is, and it isn't an infallible book. It's a meeting-place.
1) How do you know anything about Jesus Christ? From the Bible. Even if this experience has now been cemented in your life and by the church our primary source of information about Jesus is THROUGH THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE. It is therefore a nonsense to say you accept God's revelation of Jesus without admitting that the Bible is in some sense God's self revelation.
quote:How's it different? It asserts that God reveals himself, and the Bible is the (inspired) testimony to that self-revelation. The Bible isn't the revelation. On your view, God doesn't have to be there at all - because the Bible is 'inerrant', it's self -contained. Revelation is something that God does, not 'the Bible™'.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd say that Scripture is the impress of impact of the Word made Flesh who calls the Church into being, and the embodiment in writing of the preached Word under which the Church lives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How exactly is this different from saying God reveals himself to us in the Bible? Hmmm? And I don't mean think of a way of saying why its different with long words and airy fairy illustrations. I mean really, in words in plain English, how is it different?
quote:No, I believe in Jesus Christ as the revelation of God, and I believe you put a book in his place.
To me it seems you are just going back to this "have your cake and eat it" situation - where you believe in the Jesus of the Bible, except not really the bits that you can't understand, or wouldn't want to preach on.
quote:Thanks for answering that then.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
FishFish: Let's try a new approach.
quote:AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!
The Bible is different from other authorities since it contains God's revelation of himself.
quote:JESUS CHRIST!!!!!!
We can know vertually nothing about God unles he tells us about himself.
quote:AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!
So, if we assume the authority over the text in determining errors and contradictions, we are in some sense telling God what he is like rather than him revealing himself to us.
quote:NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! JESUS CHRIST!!!!!!
But only by accepting the text by faith do we acccept God's revelation of himself as Trinity.
quote:I don't hear anyone disagreeing with any of that!
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
FF
Back again!
I think that the point Psyduck was making, though he is more than capable of speaking for himself, is that revelation only becomes revelation when the Revealer speaks. Without the revealer, the words are just words on a page. I would just stick my neck out here and say that no-one, NO ONE has become a Christian just through reading the Bible. It is the Holy Sprit, working through, amongst other things, the Bible, who brings us into living relationship with Jesus, the Living Word. Without Him (Them) the words are just that, words; no matter how inspired they were. To pretend that the Bible, in and of itself, is sufficient, is to fly in the face, not only of common sense, but of the actual message of the Scripture. You cannot have a personal relationship(TM) with a book, you cannot even have a personal relationship with someone's words. You can only have a personal relationsip with a person, or, in this case, Person. We are led to that Person by the book, but He's the one who holds the dynamic. It's Him, not the book, who makes it happen.
quote:Ah, Ok, having got up to date wuith the debate, I realise I should have done that before posting. Humble apologies.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
FishFish: Let's try a new approach.
quote:AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!
The Bible is different from other authorities since it contains God's revelation of himself.
...
quote:I accept that totally. That actually would be my argument. But that is also my point. Why decide that the trinity or Jesus' divinity is not a contradiction, but other passages in the Bible are contradictory. Can't those other passages be conundrums or mysterious revelations from God, stretching our understanding of him. Why dismiss them as contradictions - especially as Jesus never does?!
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
FF
The Trinity is not a contradiction, in the way in which we normally use the word. I do seem to remember that this ground has been covered before; however, I'll rehash it a bit. The Trinity is certainly a Mystery, a conundrum, if that's not irreverent, even a paradox. But to say that Jesus was both fully God and fully man, to take one aspect of trinitarian thought, (a mystery), is not the same as saying Jesus is exclusively God and exclusively man, which would be a contradiction.
quote:Because it's not a logical fallacy.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Why decide that the trinity or Jesus' divinity is not a contradiction, but other passages in the Bible are contradictory
quote:I must admit, that's a new one on me! I don't like having to answer these issues - but this one intrigues me! Can you give me references please?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Fish fish - because some of the other contradictions are contradictions.
To resolve the issue of Jesus' adoptive paternal grandfather (discrepancy between Matthew and Luke) in the manner in which the Trinity is resolved would be to suggest that both are correct and they are the same person. This is not the rationalisation I generally see; usually it's "well, erm, father means father in law here".
quote:We're told "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." and yet "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" - these are just as contradictory as any other contradiction we've discussed on this site. One says one thing. The other says something different. We only say they are not contradictory cos we've found a "solution" - the doctrine of the Trinity "solves" the apparent contradiction. And so I'm arguing that there are "solutions" to other "contradictions", and that they in fact only apparent contradictions, and the Bible is indeed inerrant.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The Trinity conundrum is not posed by a pair of contradictory statements. It is altogether different in nature.
quote:Well, yes the verses are contradictory taken on their own. But, we don't do that. There are a whole load of passages that make clear that God is one God (the only God), and this is a vital and inescapable part of the Jewish religion. The NT is clear that Jesus was fully God, yet seperate from the Father in some sense, while still holding onto the clear teaching that God is one. To reject one or the other is to reject a major part of the Bible.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
We're told "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." and yet "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" - these are just as contradictory as any other contradiction we've discussed on this site. One says one thing. The other says something different. We only say they are not contradictory cos we've found a "solution" - the doctrine of the Trinity "solves" the apparent contradiction. And so I'm arguing that there are "solutions" to other "contradictions", and that they in fact only apparent contradictions, and the Bible is indeed inerrant.
quote:Riiiight, that makes sense. You close your eyes and believe the contradictions are not there. And then when you open them again and it is still there you decide your eyes aren't working.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
We only say they are not contradictory cos we've found a "solution" - the doctrine of the Trinity "solves" the apparent contradiction. And so I'm arguing that there are "solutions" to other "contradictions", and that they in fact only apparent contradictions, and the Bible is indeed inerrant.
quote:Which "Church"?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But, FF, the Bible as a stand-alone source did not provide the "solution" - the Church did, through the direction of the Holy Ghost. That's really my main point (as it was several pages back!). We needed the Church through the Hoily Ghost to ratify that "solution" as opposed to the numerous other heretical but equally "biblical" "solutions" that were doing the rounds.
CB
quote:The One Holy Catholic(k) and Apostolic(k) one I mention every week?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Which "Church"?
quote:Bzzzzt. Wrong answer. The Church teaches the doctrine of the Trinity because the Church experiences God as Trinity. Part of that experience is recorded in the Bible. But the Bible isn't unequivocal one way or the other -- just look at how many sola scriptura groups are Jesus Only or modalists of other sorts.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
The church teaches the doctrine of the Trinity fundamentally cos the church wrestled with that doctrine revealed in the scriptures.
quote:Antiquity, universality, consensus.
How do errantists decide that doctrine is a "contradiction" worth accepting, but other "contradictions" are actually just that - contradictions caused by human error and misunderstanding?
quote:Last time I checked it was part of it.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And where precisely does the Baptist church I attend fit into that grand scheme of things?
Yours in Christ
Matt
quote:The one that met at Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, etc. precisely to define her doctrine of Trinity. The Church.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Which "Church"?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But, FF, the Bible as a stand-alone source did not provide the "solution" - the Church did, through the direction of the Holy Ghost. That's really my main point (as it was several pages back!). We needed the Church through the Hoily Ghost to ratify that "solution" as opposed to the numerous other heretical but equally "biblical" "solutions" that were doing the rounds.
CB
Yours in Christ
Matt
quote:Again, some evangelicals woudld be unhappy with that definition so that does not IMHO really take us very far forward.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:The one that met at Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, etc. precisely to define her doctrine of Trinity. The Church.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Which "Church"?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But, FF, the Bible as a stand-alone source did not provide the "solution" - the Church did, through the direction of the Holy Ghost. That's really my main point (as it was several pages back!). We needed the Church through the Hoily Ghost to ratify that "solution" as opposed to the numerous other heretical but equally "biblical" "solutions" that were doing the rounds.
CB
Yours in Christ
Matt
CB
quote:Now I know what the words mean, but I'm not quite sure I have grasped the point at which you're getting. Care to amplify, at all?
And where precisely does the Baptist church I attend fit into that grand scheme of things?
. However, I would have thought that all Christians, be they ever so evangelical, would have valued the wisdom and testimony of the Church Fathers. I suspect this has the potential for a thread-derailler, though.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But, FF, the Bible as a stand-alone source did not provide the "solution" - the Church did, through the direction of the Holy Ghost. That's really my main point (as it was several pages back!). We needed the Church through the Hoily Ghost to ratify that "solution" as opposed to the numerous other heretical but equally "biblical" "solutions" that were doing the rounds.
quote:As Matt asks, which church?
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:Antiquity, universality, consensus.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
How do errantists decide that doctrine is a "contradiction" worth accepting, but other "contradictions" are actually just that - contradictions caused by human error and misunderstanding?
quote:Likewise, the so called "genocide" passages are a vital and inescapable part of the Jewish religion - yet we are being urged to see as in error.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[Well, yes the verses are contradictory taken on their own. But, we don't do that. There are a whole load of passages that make clear that God is one God (the only God), and this is a vital and inescapable part of the Jewish religion.
quote:I have answered this, as indeed has Lep, many times.
Originally posted by josephine:
Now, would you kindly answer my questions?
If you and I both use the Scriptures, and faith, and prayer, and come up with different interpretations of an apparently contradictory passage, who gets to decide which is right?
quote:Eh?? Where has anyone suggested any such thing? What has been suggested is that, over the centuries, there have been a lot of very Godly men and women, who have wrestled with the problem of interpreting the scriptures. Of course they were weak, sinful people. Who is not a weak, sinful person. They found the task difficult. We find it difficult. But we trust that the Holy Spirit can use their meditation and ours to help us to meet with the risen Lord.
I think there's a rather "rose coloured specticles" view of the church being banded about on this thread - a church which cannot err and stray. Now, with a view on history, I find that much harder to believe than inerrancy!
quote:Nay, nay and thrice nay sir! I was merely pointing out that some evangelicals in the Radical Reformation tradition/ denominations may not be entirely happy with the definitions advanced here - note I didn't say that I was unhappy with the definition, although as an ex-catholic the term "holy catholic apostolic church" did unsettle me a bit. It's all very well saying "the Church", but an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist is going to have a very different idea of "the church" than a member of Opus Dei, for example. As FF has pointed out, when you say "the church", do you mean orthodox, catholic etc?
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Hang on, Matt, don't even have the slightest inkling that perhaps your local Baptist church may well be linked to some bigger - and I don't just mean BUGB - and that it is part of a movement, whether you like it or not, that takes in the people who participated in the great debates of the 4th and 5th centuries? Or are you one of those people who just thinks the Holy Spirit buggered off in approximately AD95 only to return to show the world how God was establishing his kingdom through his holy army of middle class British people with their Overhead Projectors and their copies of the NIV and Songs 'n' Hymns of Fellowship?
quote:Now I'm not such a fan of the Constantinian Settlement myself, but that's what happened, and it was the same tradition that created (or recognised, if you will) the NT Canon. To return to what you claim to be the Sola Scriptura of the early church would be to ditch the New Testament, because their Sola Scriptura would have been just the OT, until those nasty Orthodox types had decided what the NT would be.
I hope I've given some pointers in my last couple of posts. Some evangelicals, particularly those in the Radical Reformation traditions, in seeking to return to the sola scriptura of the NT and rejecting the compromise of the Constantinian Settlement, would be uncomfortable both with the terminology used and the definition of that term. So, again, I'm saying that it is not necessarily a helpful paradigm...
quote:Well, for a thousand years or so, there was only one Church. So, for questions that were asked and answered during that time, the answer is "The Church." Since then, my choice is to stick with the visible Church that has the most continuity with the Church of the first 1000 years. But, as C.S. Lewis explained in "Mere Christianity," even with all the divisions of the last millenium, there is still an enormous amount of doctrinal and practical unity among those who call themselves Christian.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
As Matt asks, which church?
quote:What's the last book on church history you've read, Fish Fish? What do you actually know about it?
I think there's a rather "rose coloured specticles" view of the church being banded about on this thread - a church which cannot err and stray. Now, with a view on history, I find that much harder to believe than inerrancy!
quote:I have answered this, as indeed has Lep, many times.[/qb][/quote]
Originally posted by josephine:
Now, would you kindly answer my questions?
If you and I both use the Scriptures, and faith, and prayer, and come up with different interpretations of an apparently contradictory passage, who gets to decide which is right?
quote:You've misunderstood the principles. It's antiquity -- prefer the ancient interpretations to new ones; universality -- prefer the interpretations accepted by all or nearly all Christians of all places and times to those accepted by just a small group; consensus -- believe the consensus of those who are clearly holy for their entire life to the teachings of sinners like me. So "ancient consensus" isn't what we're looking for.
The question can equally be bounced back to you. If we take simply "Antiquity, universality, consensus", then whose ancient consensus do we take? The Catholic, Protestant, or Orthadox?
quote:
When different churches live by faith, and prayer, and come up with different interpretations of an apparently contradictory passage, who gets to decide which is right?
quote:Are you willing to say that, if someone who believes in the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, comes to believe that your interpretation of the passages regarding homosexuality are incorrect, and that the Bible does NOT in fact teach that homosexual sex is wrong, but that that is simply a misinterpretation, are you willing to accept their interpretation as being as good as yours?
The answer, as I have already said, is that holding the scriptures as inerrant does not get rid of every interpretative problem. Nor does your stance.
quote:Are you saying, Fish Fish, that St. Paul was rong when he said that the Church is the bulwark and foundation of Truth? Are you saying that our Lord lied when he said he would send the Holy Spirit to teach us truth? Are you saying that Jesus was wrong, and that the Gates of Hell can prevail over the Church? Or are you saying that the Holy Spirit is incompetent to teach the Truth?
But the inerrancy of scripture does give us a framework and boundaries within which to tackle these issues of interpretation. Without these boundaries, churches can have a wonderful concensus over milennia - but be univerally wrong.
quote:I don't deny this for a minute. I don't think the HS left us at Pentecost.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
But - and this is a big but - that doesn't mean that the Church cannot speak the truth. After all, only God is perfect, but we still trust him enough to be able to work through the blithering idiots he has called out to do his work.
quote:But I have a real problem with that as that same church made, IMO, a number of pretty dodgy doctrinal rulings in that 1000 years. So that simply doesn't wash with me.
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:Well, for a thousand years or so, there was only one Church. So, for questions that were asked and answered during that time, the answer is "The Church." Since then, my choice is to stick with the visible Church that has the most continuity with the Church of the first 1000 years.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
As Matt asks, which church?
quote:A profound question, young Fish. At the Reformation they found that much of what the Church taught didn't fit with the scriptures they had - how could the Church have got to where it was?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
So its need the HS if it is to survive at all. But then the quesiton becomes, how does the HS guide the church. And, as I've argued before, the HS breathed the auhtoritative scriptures so we can test today what he may be saying to the church.
quote:There is still a big difference between the genocide passages and the "your Lord God is one God".
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:Likewise, the so called "genocide" passages are a vital and inescapable part of the Jewish religion - yet we are being urged to see as in error.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, yes the verses are contradictory taken on their own. But, we don't do that. There are a whole load of passages that make clear that God is one God (the only God), and this is a vital and inescapable part of the Jewish religion.
And by not accepting these passages, or the inerrancy of whole swathes of the OT, then some people here are indeed asking us to reject large parts of Scripture. Scriptures which are said to be contradictory - but aint necessarily so. Scriptures which may be teaching us truth about God which we're happily (and foolishly) ignoring
quote:Is that what you're saying, Fish Fish? You realise of course that Josephine is arguing that she accepts the authority (to interpret Scripture, if nothing else) of the Church, whereas you are claiming... well, nothing other than your own reason, as far as I can tell?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:Me.
Originally posted by josephine:
If you and I both see something in the Bible that appears to be a contradiction, and we each, in good faith, with prayer, with reference to the rest of Scripture and to the best information we can find about genre, history, etc., come up with an explanation for that contradiction -- if our explanations differ, who gets to decide which one of us is right?
quote:No there wasn't. What about the Montanists, and Donatists, and Arians, and Nestorians, and Monophysites.
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:Well, for a thousand years or so, there was only one Church.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
As Matt asks, which church?
quote:Which for us here in Britain is either the Anglicans or the Presbyterians.
Since then, my choice is to stick with the visible Church that has the most continuity with the Church of the first 1000 years.
quote:Of course - but that also applies to those pesky Monophysites & Nestorians & Anglicans and Presbyterians.
But, as C.S. Lewis explained in "Mere Christianity," even with all the divisions of the last millenium, there is still an enormous amount of doctrinal and practical unity among those who call themselves Christian.
quote:Right -- but the thing is, those teachings weren't heresies when they were first proposed by Arius or Nestorius or whomever. They were legitimate attempts to understand and make sense of the experience of the Church, the Holy Scriptures, and so on. There were different interpretations, leading to radically different understandings of God and of how we were to relate to him -- so the Church met in council to hammer it out.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:No there wasn't. What about the Montanists, and Donatists, and Arians, and Nestorians, and Monophysites.
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:Well, for a thousand years or so, there was only one Church.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
As Matt asks, which church?
You and I might know that those folk are heretics & so noit to be trusted as to the interpretation of teachings. But did their flock at the time? Obviously not, otherwise they would have instantly left for the real church down the road.
quote:What else can he say?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by josephine:
If you and I both see something in the Bible that appears to be a contradiction, and we each, in good faith, with prayer, with reference to the rest of Scripture and to the best information we can find about genre, history, etc., come up with an explanation for that contradiction -- if our explanations differ, who gets to decide which one of us is right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me.
quote:I dunno. I was rather hoping he'd come back with "just joking!" and a serious answer.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
quote:What else can he say?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Me.
quote:Would you seriously trust a comittee of bishops to determine doctrine without a greater authority than a nebulous "We're trusting the Spirit"? I wouldn't. No way! They need an authoritative text to guide them and determine their deliberations. A committee without the firm foundations of scripture will produce a theological camel...
Originally posted by josephine:
Either they agree to live in peace, deciding that it doesn't matter which one is right -- not all differences make a difference. Or they hold a council of bishops to hash out who is right. The bishops decide, together, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
quote:Check the context of when Paul says this! It's in the context of a church riddled with terrible teaching. A Church that has erred and strayed. Paul's solution? That the church is the source of truth when it follows the Apostle's teaching - our NT!!!
Originally posted by josephine:
Are you saying, Fish Fish, that St. Paul was rong when he said that the Church is the bulwark and foundation of Truth? Are you saying that our Lord lied when he said he would send the Holy Spirit to teach us truth? Are you saying that Jesus was wrong, and that the Gates of Hell can prevail over the Church? Or are you saying that the Holy Spirit is incompetent to teach the Truth?
quote:Interesting stuff! It seems to me that God was always God of the whole world, and Israel was chosen to be a light to the Gentiles - so the Gentiles could also repent and turn to the living God. Israel consistently failed in this calling, and did become introverted. But that does not mean God does not judge other nations for their sins (hence the "genocide" passages). The Jonah story is an excellent example of this - God about to judge a nation apart from Israel - and yet graciously speaks to them through a prophet.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Or, howabout Jonah sent to preach to the Ninevites rather than the chosen people of God. These all, even within the OT, question whether God is a God who'll simply command the destruction of evil doers.
quote:Yes. No problem there - so long as they too submit their wisdom to the supreme authority of scripture.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Fish Fish, do you use commentaries?
quote:That was a joke.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Sorry Josephine, but you keep asking Fish Fish for an answer to your question, when he's already given one.
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Me.
quote:
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Sola scriptura is ultimately sine ecclesia . It's a guy reading a book on his own. What happens then to "Wherever two or three are gathered together, there am I in the midst of them..."? So it's also a guy who's one short of a quorum for the Church. There's no such thing as a one-man church. So in that sense too, sola Scriptura is at war with solus Christus. To be an inerrantist is, in a profound sense, to be "One Christian short of the Church..."
quote:I have kept referring us back to Lep's posts on this, for he did an excellent job of saying that Inerrancy does not solver every problem etc.
Originally posted by josephine:
And if so, then there has to be some way of resolving contradictions, if not for every difference of opinion, at least for the ones that matter. Some differences don't matter, of course -- but how is it decided which ones matter? By whom? Who decides which answers are good enough?
I really would like a serious answer!
quote:Er... who do you trust? Do you realize that this is you at last saying, without any equivocation at all, that you trust the Bible more than the Holy Spirit?
Would you seriously trust a comittee of bishops to determine doctrine without a greater authority than a nebulous "We're trusting the Spirit"?
quote:Jesus Christ!!!!! The Holy Spirit!!!
But if we reject innerancy, how on earth do we agree on anything? We have no authority external to the various churches to guide in any clear discernable way.
quote:NO NO NO! I'm saying that the Spirit guides the church as he has always guided the church. So, by trusting the Bible, I am not only trusting him to guide us now, but trusting him to have given us an authoritative written guide to guide us. I would thus argue I trust him more than you, for I trust him to guide us in a written word and not just a "nebulous" way.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
FishFish:quote:Er... who do you trust? Do you realize that this is you at last saying, without any equivocation at all, that you trust the Bible more than the Holy Spirit?
Would you seriously trust a comittee of bishops to determine doctrine without a greater authority than a nebulous "We're trusting the Spirit"?
quote:...except where you disagree with it, and so assume authority over it.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Jesus Christ!!!!! The Holy Spirit!!!
And of course: Holy Scripture!!!!! WHich we all accept as authoritative!!!!
, I don't see how rejecting the concept of episcopal interpretation means placing the Bible above the HS; clearly we need the HS to interpret the Bible - we all disagree on the method of interpretation.quote:Well, actually I don't see it as such a big contradiction as some others (eg: the opening posts on this thread). But, the fact that it is a complexity in the nature of God that is addressed within the OT does make it slightly different from the Trinity, which is my main point.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:Interesting stuff! It seems to me that God was always God of the whole world, and Israel was chosen to be a light to the Gentiles - so the Gentiles could also repent and turn to the living God. Israel consistently failed in this calling, and did become introverted. But that does not mean God does not judge other nations for their sins (hence the "genocide" passages). The Jonah story is an excellent example of this - God about to judge a nation apart from Israel - and yet graciously speaks to them through a prophet.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Or, howabout Jonah sent to preach to the Ninevites rather than the chosen people of God. These all, even within the OT, question whether God is a God who'll simply command the destruction of evil doers.
So I don't see a contradiction as you seem to.
quote:Maybe you see biblical authority as an expression of definition a), whereas I would see it falling under definition d)? I dunno.
a) The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.
One that is invested with this power, especially a government or body of government officials: land titles issued by the civil authority.
b) Power assigned to another; authorization: Deputies were given authority to make arrests.
c) A public agency or corporation with administrative powers in a specified field: a city transit authority.
d) An accepted source of expert information or advice: a noted authority on birds; a reference book often cited as an authority.
A quotation or citation from such a source: biblical authorities for a moral argument.
e) Justification; grounds: On what authority do you make such a claim?
f) A conclusive statement or decision that may be taken as a guide or precedent.
g) Power to influence or persuade resulting from knowledge or experience: political observers who acquire authority with age.
h) Confidence derived from experience or practice; firm self-assurance: played the sonata with authority.
quote:
But if we reject innerancy, how on earth do we agree on anything? We have no authority external to the various churches to guide in any clear discernable way.
quote:In what way? Inerrantly? And if he leads the Church to believe that Scripture is not inerrant... ?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
NO NO NO! I'm saying that the Spirit guides the church as he has always guided the church.
quote:You are saying that there's nothing that the Holy Spirit could tell us that isn't in the Bible. You are telling us that the Holy Spirit can't give us anything that we couldn't get by reading the Bible. You are telling us that if we have the Bible we really don't need the Holy Spirit. Of course, we have Him as an Optional Extra - a 'belt and braces' - but the Holy Spirit is really like a mute person with a book that he wrote a long time ago, basically just points and gesticulates to the effect that "It's all in there..."
NO NO NO! I'm saying that the Spirit guides the church as he has always guided the church. So, by trusting the Bible, I am not only trusting him to guide us now, but trusting him to have given us an authoritative written guide to guide us.
quote:What I said. And by the way, how did the Church know that the writers of Holy Scripture were inerrantly inspired, and not just 'guided in a nebulous way'?
I would thus argue I trust him more than you, for I trust him to guide us in a written word and not just a "nebulous" way.
quote:Disagree with it? You really haven't listened to anything on this thread, have you? You haven't the slightest idea how any of the rest of us read Scripture, have you? No doubt this is the abyss out of which this came:
......except where you disagree with it, and so assume authority over it.
quote:How dare you accuse me of blasphemy. If you can shout your mantras, I can draw your attention in a metaphorically loud voice, to my sources of authority.
And please don't blaspheme at me.
quote:Yeah, you may be right. It seems to me that if something perports to as revelation from God, then it is more authoritative than a reference book on birds!
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Maybe you see biblical authority as an expression of definition a), whereas I would see it falling under definition d)? I dunno.
quote:I'm sorry, ISTM that if we don't interpret writing in the style of its writing, then we have no hope of understanding what is really being written. What is the laternative? We'd make nonsense of the text.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
2. Inerrancy is IMHO, and I do mean this without offence, merely a name for an interpretative framework that assumes a higher level of literalism than the non-inerrantists do. You do not assume perfect literalism or you would accept Genesis as literal truth. Its claim that the bible contains no errors is founded on a particular pre-existing framework of interpretation that says such things as "Genesis is poetry", allowing you to take a non-literal interpretation of what it says.
quote:It still seems to me that is exactly what people are doing. Saying, in any sense, "This is in error" is to say "I know best" - hardly a stance of submission to something greater or wiser or revealing God.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
As far as I can tell, nobody opposing you in this debate is claiming that the truth contained in the scriptures has no authority over them, merely that your interpretative framework is different from the one they use.
quote:Yeah - of course I interpret the scriptures. But then I do also go to "the church" to seek wiser, consensus interpretation - by reading comentaries etc. And the church teaches me the doctrine of the Trinity, which I guess I may work out over time by reading scripture alone - but the church
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Now, getting back to the question of who interprets - Matt freely admits that it is on his own authority (hopefully guided by the Holy Spirit) that he interprets scripture. Will you admit the same? Cards on the table here, I must admit that I'm guilty of the same approach, because I tend to try and grasp the arguments that led the church to the conclusions it has reached (in the guidance of the Spirit) and judge them for myself, but equally I recognise my own incompetence (due primarily to stupidity I think but I have no defence against Josephine's argument about holiness either) to do so most of the time. So...
Submitting to the authority of the church isn't about setting mere humans above the revelation of God, for me. It's about giving an appropriate weight to the opinions of countless experts both contemporary and who've gone before me, in the belief that many of them were guided more effectively by the HS than I am allowing myself to be.
quote:No, that's not really what I'm saying - though it could seem like that I guess. What I meant was that the Spirit will not contradict what he's said before. So, for example, ISTM that the Spirit has made clear his teaching on sexual morality in the Bible. So I would be suspicious of any claim that the Spirit was saying that, in todays day and age, things have changed.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
FishFish: You are saying that there's nothing that the Holy Spirit could tell us that isn't in the Bible. You are telling us that the Holy Spirit can't give us anything that we couldn't get by reading the Bible.
quote:By saying, in response to one of my posts,
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
How dare you accuse me of blasphemy. If you can shout your mantras, I can draw your attention in a metaphorically loud voice, to my sources of authority.
quote:...that reads, IMO, as though you are blaspheming - ie using Jesus' name inapropriately. If that's not the case, then please at least be aware that that is how it seemed to me.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Jesus Christ!!!!!
quote:And, saying of something that "this cannot be an error" isn't saying "I know best"???
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Saying, in any sense, "This is in error" is to say "I know best"
quote:SO what have we here? Your post abstracts what I'm saying from its clear context, and then tells me that you understand what it means better than I do. And then when I protest your imputation, another post tells me that you decide what I mean. I see a pattern here...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
How dare you accuse me of blasphemy. If you can shout your mantras, I can draw your attention in a metaphorically loud voice, to my sources of authority.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By saying, in response to one of my posts,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Jesus Christ!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...that reads, IMO, as though you are blaspheming - ie using Jesus' name inapropriately. If that's not the case, then please at least be aware that that is how it seemed to me.
quote:And I read that as a total retraction of all your theology, a grovelling apology, and submission to my wiser ways.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
FishFish:quote:SO what have we here? Your post abstracts what I'm saying from its clear context, and then tells me that you understand what it means better than I do. And then when I protest your imputation, another post tells me that you decide what I mean. I see a pattern here...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
How dare you accuse me of blasphemy. If you can shout your mantras, I can draw your attention in a metaphorically loud voice, to my sources of authority.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By saying, in response to one of my posts,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Jesus Christ!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...that reads, IMO, as though you are blaspheming - ie using Jesus' name inapropriately. If that's not the case, then please at least be aware that that is how it seemed to me.
quote:No, its acknowledging the God who cannot lie or be in error and his revelation to us. Its not trusting my wisdom, but submitting to his.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:And, saying of something that "this cannot be an error" isn't saying "I know best"???
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Saying, in any sense, "This is in error" is to say "I know best"
quote:I then, in an attempt to further clarify the situation, quoted a definition of authority extracted from a dictionary; to which you responded
I don't know how to resolve the problem, as none of the metaphors we have used for authority seems adequate to help our understanding.
quote:OK, I accept, from your use of a smiley, that the comment was intended to be light hearted, and I'm as tempted by the cheap shot as the next man, but do you not see the problem I have here. No matter what analogy I use to explore the differences between us, it is never accurate enough for you to grasp the point. I don't really feel that there is any meaningful engagement here, just continuous restatement of your position, viz, I believe the Bible is inerrant, therefore the bible is inerrant (oh, and let's throw in one verse from Matt 5 for good measure.) For all the twenty-odd pages of posts, I still don't understand why you feel that there is such a close identification between inerrancy and authority, and when I try to explore this area, I don't get any genuine feedback from you.
It seems to me that if something perports to as revelation from God, then it is more authoritative than a reference book on birds!
quote:But Genesis isn't poetry. It follows none of the conventions of Jewish poetry. If anything, it's genre is Myth.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I'm sorry, ISTM that if we don't interpret writing in the style of its writing, then we have no hope of understanding what is really being written. What is the laternative? We'd make nonsense of the text.
quote:No, it's you saying "I know God cannot lie or be in error" (and "if others don't know that then, I know better"). It's saying "I know the Bible is Gods revelation to us" (and "if others don't know that then, I know better"). It's saying "I know that Gods revelation, like God, cannot lie or be in error" (and "if others don't know that then, I know better").
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:No, its acknowledging the God who cannot lie or be in error and his revelation to us. Its not trusting my wisdom, but submitting to his.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:And, saying of something that "this cannot be an error" isn't saying "I know best"???
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Saying, in any sense, "This is in error" is to say "I know best"
quote:Yes, that's because you're NOT LISTENING.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:It still seems to me that is exactly what people are doing.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
As far as I can tell, nobody opposing you in this debate is claiming that the truth contained in the scriptures has no authority over them, merely that your interpretative framework is different from the one they use.
quote:And just exactly what constitutes their "submitt[ing] their wisdom to the supreme authority of scripture..."? What do they have to do, in order to be doing that?
Yes. No problem there - so long as they too submit their wisdom to the supreme authority of scripture.
quote:Of course they need an authoritative text. And they have one! What have I said here to make you think they wouldn't use the Holy Scriptures to help figure out what the Holy Scriptures mean?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:Would you seriously trust a comittee of bishops to determine doctrine without a greater authority than a nebulous "We're trusting the Spirit"? I wouldn't. No way! They need an authoritative text to guide them and determine their deliberations. A committee without the firm foundations of scripture will produce a theological camel...
Originally posted by josephine:
Either they agree to live in peace, deciding that it doesn't matter which one is right -- not all differences make a difference. Or they hold a council of bishops to hash out who is right. The bishops decide, together, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
quote:Yes. No problem there - so long as they too submit their wisdom to the supreme authority of scripture.[/qb][/quote]
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Fish Fish, do you use commentaries?
quote:We have the Holy Spirit, Fish Fish! Do you not think the Holy Spirit is competent to do the job? If every copy of the Bible on earth were destroyed tomorrow, would that be an end of salvation? Would there be no more faith?
But if we reject innerancy, how on earth do we agree on anything? We have no authority external to the various churches to guide in any clear discernable way.
quote:Authoritative, yes. Absolutely. Without question. Without a doubt. Everyone on this thread has argued that the Bible IS authoritative. You keep telling us that we don't think so. We keep telling you that we do.
I'll say it again - what the HS said in the past gives us a wonderful, authoritative guide to what he may say to the church today. If we say this is not the case, then the boundaries fly apart, and the church is much less likely to come to any sort of consensus.
quote:I'm sorry that I'm not being clear. I don't know how to be clearer on the issue of authority and innerancy.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
For all the twenty-odd pages of posts, I still don't understand why you feel that there is such a close identification between inerrancy and authority, and when I try to explore this area, I don't get any genuine feedback from you.
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
You refuse to accept authority <> inerrancy in spite of several good examples. You refuse to even consider any other position from your own as being valid. This isn't debate.
quote:I honestly have no idea what you mean by this, cos I've been trying my best in interact and respond. But I haven't heard anything to change my view yet. Do I have to change my opinion to be genuinely interacting or for this to be a debate?
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I don't get any genuine feedback from you.
quote:Sorry not to have answered this before.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Futhermore, you still haven't answered my oft-repeated question, viz. if, as you say, you submit yourself to the authority of scripture, would you be prepared to change your position wrt inerrancy if you were to become convinced, as I am, that the Bible does not teach that it is itself inerrant?
quote:Yep, I was wrong in calling it poetry. I'm not certain what genre it is. Whatever its genre, it is treated as true in the NT, and so not Myth. And whatever genre, my statement still stands:
Originally posted by Stoo:
But Genesis isn't poetry. It follows none of the conventions of Jewish poetry. If anything, it's genre is Myth.
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I'm sorry, ISTM that if we don't interpret writing in the style of its writing, then we have no hope of understanding what is really being written. What is the laternative? We'd make nonsense of the text.
quote:No, it's you saying "I know God cannot lie or be in error" (and "if others don't know that then, I know better"). It's saying "I know the Bible is Gods revelation to us" (and "if others don't know that then, I know better"). It's saying "I know that Gods revelation, like God, cannot lie or be in error" (and "if others don't know that then, I know better").
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, its acknowledging the God who cannot lie or be in error and his revelation to us. Its not trusting my wisdom, but submitting to his.
quote:I didn't say that. What I was freely admitting was that I don't know everything - so I'm happy to listen to others who know much more, and have studdied deeply, and who themselves are submitting to the text and seeking its true meaning, and not to impose their meaning on it.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
So the task of simply explaining the text as it stands isn't good enough - it has to be explained within a particular already held position.
quote:
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
And just exactly what constitutes their "submitt[ing] their wisdom to the supreme authority of scripture..."? What do they have to do, in order to be doing that?
quote:If they are seeking the meaning of the text, and if they will submit themselves and their church to what it says, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. It sounds wonderful!
Originally posted by josephine:
But they don't use the Holy Scriptures in isolation -- they use them with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in the context of the tradition of the Church, with all the scholarship and wisdom and holiness they can bring to bear. What's wrong with that?
quote:On the basis of my understanding of the text. I'm not claiming inerrancy of my interpretation. But I would stand my ground on that issue cos I think they would be wrong. What's wrong with that?
Originally posted by josephine:
Take an example, Fish Fish. Suppose a fellow inerrantist decided that, based on context and genre and whatnot, that our Lord and Savior did not literally rise from the dead, that those passages were poetic, metaphorical expressions of a spiritual rising.
I would assume that we would both consider him wrong. On what basis would you say he's wrong?
quote:Yes the Spirit is competant. Of course.
Originally posted by josephine:
We have the Holy Spirit, Fish Fish! Do you not think the Holy Spirit is competent to do the job? If every copy of the Bible on earth were destroyed tomorrow, would that be an end of salvation? Would there be no more faith?
quote:No of course I don't think you're a bunch of liars.
Originally posted by josephine:
Authoritative, yes. Absolutely. Without question. Without a doubt. Everyone on this thread has argued that the Bible IS authoritative. You keep telling us that we don't think so. We keep telling you that we do.
Are you having that much trouble understanding what we're saying? Or do you think we're all a bunch of liars?
quote:But, ISTM to be saying something different. We are both standing in the same place, reading Scripture based on how it seems to be to each of us. There is no difference in our approach. Yet you insist that when I read Scripture I stand in authority over it, and when you do it it stands in authority over you.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:No - ISTM that's what the bible says - so since that's what ISTM to be saying then I'll point to it and away from my puny wisdom. And if it becomes apparent that the Bible says otherwise, then I'll change my opinion.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, it's you saying "I know God cannot lie or be in error" (and "if others don't know that then, I know better"). It's saying "I know the Bible is Gods revelation to us" (and "if others don't know that then, I know better"). It's saying "I know that Gods revelation, like God, cannot lie or be in error" (and "if others don't know that then, I know better").
Basically, you know better.
quote:It's not that you're not being clear. It's that you ignore the parts of the debate you don't wish to hear, and then claim that no-one's responding to you. You discount analogies continuously, and then say that no-one's answering you. You repeat your questions which have been answered because you say the answers did not satisfy you.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I'm sorry that I'm not being clear. I don't know how to be clearer on the issue of authority and innerancy.
Let me say it again in a question I keep repeating - but using different terms...
quote:OK remind us how God gives us the Scriptures. Tell us how you think it is done. Tell us what roles the human and the divine play in the giving of Scripture, in what sense God writes it and what the human authors do. Tell us what their input is, and how its flawed humanity is overcome to make the Bible inerrant. Then tell us how you know this. And why there's not a peep about it in the Bible itself.
But none of that negates the fact that God gives us the scriptures so we know what he thinks, and don't have to rely on the wise counsel of flawed, sinful humans.
quote:Because wisdom is not to be found in a collection of facts?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
If I have the wisdom and insight to spot errors in the Bible, and so know better than the authors what is true and untrue, how can I still say that I submit to its wisdom?
quote:How many times do we have to repeat ourselves in answering the same questions??!!
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
OK remind us how God gives us the Scriptures. Tell us how you think it is done. Tell us what roles the human and the divine play in the giving of Scripture, in what sense God writes it and what the human authors do. Tell us what their input is, and how its flawed humanity is overcome to make the Bible inerrant. Then tell us how you know this. And why there's not a peep about it in the Bible itself.
2 Peter 1:21, as I've said already, sets out this process. That's your answer. Next question, please.quote:How can it be, when the inerrant Scriptures are themselves a product of the Spirit in the Church?
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
To be an inerrantist is, in a profound sense, to be "One Christian short of the Church..."
quote:I think you are using the term 'refute' in the popular rather than the proper sense. Inerrantist scholars may well have said: "no these passages are not contradictory" but I don't think that they have demonstrated it to the satisfaction of anyone who was not already committed to inerrancy.
Dyfrig, the apparently contradictory passages in Scripture to which you refer are an old chestnut which has been refuted by a number of scholars who take an inerrantist view.
quote:Absolutely agreed that this is one of the purposes of scripture, but this again does not rely on those scriptures being inerrant, only on them being authoritative. Or so ISTM.
It might be that the relatively constant Scriptures allow the believer to check that the teachings of the local church in the place and time in which the believer finds themself are in fact in agreement with the teachings of the Church in the past.
quote:Now that would be:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
OK remind us how God gives us the Scriptures. Tell us how you think it is done. Tell us what roles the human and the divine play in the giving of Scripture, in what sense God writes it and what the human authors do. Tell us what their input is, and how its flawed humanity is overcome to make the Bible inerrant. Then tell us how you know this. And why there's not a peep about it in the Bible itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many times do we have to repeat ourselves in answering the same questions??!! 2 Peter 1:21, as I've said already, sets out this process. That's your answer. Next question, please.
quote:Well, you might like to explain how none of us "errantists" would dissent from that...
because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God
quote:
First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation
quote:I'd go with the author's intent - they're the one's writing, and they're the ones guided by HS to write.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
FF:
Ah, but you see, that's the problem. "Seeking it's true meaning" is an odd phrase, because texts are slippery things. Where does meaning lie?
quote:It tells us of a God of grace, who interacts with people through history, and who promises and then fulfils those promises.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
And what does it say about a God who lets himself be known through such a strange collection of texts?
quote:And I've been arguing that they do claim this, that the apparent errors are only apparant and not real, and that it is indeed important for the Book's authority over us to be completely trustworthy, or else its hard to see why its worth trusting error or mistake.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
How do you know that "inerrancy" as a tool will let you find it, when the texts themselves neither claim this particular brand of it nor, on closer study, stand up to such a claim in the first place?
quote:If you think in any way that you can tell the authors of the Bible that they got it wrong, then how do you not sit over it?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, ISTM to be saying something different. We are both standing in the same place, reading Scripture based on how it seems to be to each of us. There is no difference in our approach. Yet you insist that when I read Scripture I stand in authority over it, and when you do it it stands in authority over you.
quote:I disagree with the analogies because they don't work. And up until recently no one did interact with some of my points - about the trinity for example. They have done more recently, and I'm grateful for that. But, no, the answers haven't satisfied me yet!
Originally posted by Stoo:
You discount analogies continuously, and then say that no-one's answering you. You repeat your questions which have been answered because you say the answers did not satisfy you.
quote:I am not simply saying "I don't like" - I am giving reasons and interacting. Or would you rather I rolled over and simply said "Yes you are all right"? Cos I don't think you are, so I won't!
Originally posted by Stoo:
You need to think about others' arguments, and not just discount them because you dislike them.
quote:But the problem is that this is a slippery slope. As I've said before, and not really had a satisfactory answer, we accept some solutions to "contradictions" in the Bible (such as the trinity), and so perhaps if there are solutions to other "contradictions", we should be so quick to dismiss those solutions.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Forgot one thing - we're not dealing with judging the "wisdom" of the Bible, we're dealing with very mundane things like the way certain details (many of which have been mentioned above) don't fit together. Pointing the phraes "This door is blue" and "this door is red" about the same door (which happens to be green!) isn't putting yourself above someone's wisdom - it's merely speaking truthfully. Is it someone a denial of the entire Christian faith to say that Jesus misidentifies a person in a particular OT incident he's referring to? Is it so bad to point out that Kings and Chronicles suggest different details? Why?
quote:True. But if the facts are wrong, it undermines the reason to accept its wisdom.
Originally posted by josephine:
The wisdom of the Holy Scriptures does not lie in its being a recitation of facts. Its wisdom is far deeper, more real, than any fact.
quote:But why on earth should I trust that I will find Christ in a book if its riddled with errors? How on earth do I know that what I am trusting is not an error? How do I know that what it says about Christ's divinity is not an error? Or his resurrection? Or even his existence? If there's even one error, then there may be millions, or not even a jot of truth. Pull on that thread, and the whole book can unravel.
Originally posted by josephine:
When we read the Holy Scriptures, we are not seeking facts. We are seeking Christ. We trust him to be found by us there.
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:True. But if the facts are wrong, it undermines the reason to accept its wisdom.
Originally posted by josephine:
The wisdom of the Holy Scriptures does not lie in its being a recitation of facts. Its wisdom is far deeper, more real, than any fact.
quote:It depends on the object of your trust, of course. I trust Christ, revealed to us by the Holy Spirit, through Holy Scripture, through the lives of the saints, through the holy icons, through the prayers that Christians have prayed for more than a millenium.
quote:But why on earth should I trust that I will find Christ in a book if its riddled with errors? How on earth do I know that what I am trusting is not an error?
Originally posted by josephine:
When we read the Holy Scriptures, we are not seeking facts. We are seeking Christ. We trust him to be found by us there.
quote:OK. So we go with the authors intent. What about when Ahaz king of Judah is given a prophecy that the foreign kings who threaten the nation will be destroyed by God, and when God offers a sign that this will happen it is simply a sign for that king? Surely that is the authors intent? Well, go to Isaiah 7 and read the account ... what's that "a young woman will give birth to a son" ... the text Matthew applied to Mary. So, the Bible authors themselves don't go with the authors intent when they quote other passages of Scripture. Where does that leave you?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:I'd go with the author's intent - they're the one's writing, and they're the ones guided by HS to write.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
FF:
Ah, but you see, that's the problem. "Seeking it's true meaning" is an odd phrase, because texts are slippery things. Where does meaning lie?
quote:But, if the Bible isn't inerrant, if the intent of God wasn't to give us a book of facts then our positions are reversed. At the best, all that can be said is that we both come to the Bible with certain expectations ... you that it's inerrant, me that God speaks through it even if it isn't correct in every detail. In a real sense we're both standing over the same book.
quote:If you think in any way that you can tell the authors of the Bible that they got it wrong, then how do you not sit over it?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, ISTM to be saying something different. We are both standing in the same place, reading Scripture based on how it seems to be to each of us. There is no difference in our approach. Yet you insist that when I read Scripture I stand in authority over it, and when you do it it stands in authority over you.
If I say they didn’t not get it wrong, and submissively learn from it, how is that not fundamentally different from you?
quote:This is the key issue, isn't it? For inerrantists God speaks through facts and through propositional logic. If God gets his facts or his propositional logic wrong then the game is up. The Bible is a manual of aircraft maintenance. Put one bolt out of place and the whole thing crashes to earth in flames.
But why on earth should I trust that I will find Christ in a book if its riddled with errors? How on earth do I know that what I am trusting is not an error? How do I know that what it says about Christ's divinity is not an error? Or his resurrection? Or even his existence? If there's even one error, then there may be millions, or not even a jot of truth. Pull on that thread, and the whole book can unravel.
quote:Maybe you're starting from the wrong end. We all do find Christ here. Because we meet him in our encounter with the book(s). None of us is calling into question his presence in the reading and the hearing, or setting any conditions for it. You're the one doing that. You're the one saying that it's only if the book is inerrant that Christ can meet us here. What really worries me about inerrantism, religiously, is that it seems to me to exhibit a really crucial lack of trust. Unless the book is guaranteed, unless it meets our criteria, unless the Word of God comes to us as a tangible paper object, and is put into our hands, we can't believe. That seems to me to stand Biblical faith on its head. God comes to Abram and says Come with me, and I'll fulfil this absolutely impossible-sounding promise which I'm making with no guarantee beyond that I'm saying it. And Abram says "OK". Jesus calls to these two guys at a lakeside, who've never known anything but fishing, and says "Leave all that and come with me!" - and they go. He calls to a man who's known no friendship or anything but hatred for years, because he's a tax-collector, and says "Come with me and I'll be your friend" - and Matthew gets up, and leaves the money on the table, and just follows, on a word. That's how faith works. Inerrancy may seem to be that sort of faith - but it's not. It's not straightforwrd faith in Christ, and a determination to get up and follow where he leads. It's a guaranteed faith, a faith that says - and how many times have the inerrantists on this thread said it - how can we trust in God unless we know beforehand that God is trustworthy? How can we trust in God unless the book is inerrant?
But why on earth should I trust that I will find Christ in a book if its riddled with errors?
quote:This is an illogical position. We all learn things from imperfect textbooks and imperfect people all the time. The measure of 'correctness' of the bible does not lie in its literal accuracy. Try to fit together the stories of the resurrection for example. The simple answer is that you can't.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But why on earth should I trust that I will find Christ in a book if its riddled with errors? How on earth do I know that what I am trusting is not an error? How do I know that what it says about Christ's divinity is not an error? Or his resurrection? Or even his existence? If there's even one error, then there may be millions, or not even a jot of truth. Pull on that thread, and the whole book can unravel.
quote:[/QUOTE]
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
quote:Now that would be:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
OK remind us how God gives us the Scriptures. Tell us how you think it is done. Tell us what roles the human and the divine play in the giving of Scripture, in what sense God writes it and what the human authors do. Tell us what their input is, and how its flawed humanity is overcome to make the Bible inerrant. Then tell us how you know this. And why there's not a peep about it in the Bible itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many times do we have to repeat ourselves in answering the same questions??!! 2 Peter 1:21, as I've said already, sets out this process. That's your answer. Next question, please.quote:Well, you might like to explain how none of us "errantists" would dissent from that...
because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God
Oh, and that's me being kind and letting you off the hook for not telling us "what roles the human and the divine play in the giving of Scripture, in what sense God writes it and what the human authors do; what their input is, and how its flawed humanity is overcome to make the Bible inerrant." Oh - and "how you know this". None of which is covered in the verse you cite.
quote:Er...no.I've referred to it twice earlier - on pp 20 and 21
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Matt, as far as I can see, this is the first time 2Peter 1;21 has come up in these discussions. .
quote:The trouble is that you seem to be refusing to take on board what I'm saying, which is that a) I read the 2 Peter text and understand it differently to you, and b) the 2 Peter text read straight doesn't seem to be saying anything like - or anything like as much - as you seem to read into it.
I really don't know what else you want from me! You ask me a question (how was Scripture given), I give you my answer (by the HS). You then don't accept my answer. OK, fine, that's up to you, but permit me to at least hold to my answer. This is fast becoming a dialogue of the deaf...
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Our Lord said that if we seek him, we'll find him.
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
He said, "My sheep know my voice." I believe him. I trust him.
quote:Each of these statements begs the question - How do you know? If you accept that the Bible has some errors and mistakes in it, how do you know that these are not those errors or mistakes? How can you trust what you know to be flawed? Its like standding on rotten floor boards or thin ice.
Originally posted by josephine:
The Holy Scriptures are trustworthy and reliable and authoritative, they are useful, they are given to us by God in his love for us because he knows we need them.
quote:I am NOT confusing the Bible with God. I AM saying it points to Jesus in an inerrant way. Its NOT the same thing. I do NOT worship the Bible. But I DO trust God to be able to perfectly reveal his truth to me.
Originally posted by josephine:
We should never confuse an icon with its Prototype. We must not confuse the image with the Original.
quote:Because prophecy can be true on a number of levels. The sign was for Ahaz, a king in David's line, who had failed to trust God - he would indeed see a virgin with a child as a sign that God could do what he wants. But that prophecy has a much deeper meaning when another King of David's line is born to a virgin - Jesus. The author intended it for Ahaz - but in God's wonderful sovereignty, he had a deeper meaning as well. But Matthew does not go against the author's intent - he goes with the intent (to report God's prophecy) and shows its ultimate fulfilment.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
OK. So we go with the authors intent. What about when Ahaz king of Judah is given a prophecy that the foreign kings who threaten the nation will be destroyed by God, and when God offers a sign that this will happen it is simply a sign for that king? Surely that is the authors intent? Well, go to Isaiah 7 and read the account ... what's that "a young woman will give birth to a son" ... the text Matthew applied to Mary. So, the Bible authors themselves don't go with the authors intent when they quote other passages of Scripture. Where does that leave you?
quote:No, I disagree - for I am not sitting in judgment of any passage and saying "I don't need to submit to the teaching of this passage for I can see it is a mistake, an error, a rotton floor board, thin ice..." Instead I am seeking what the book can teach me rather than what I can teach it.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, if the Bible isn't inerrant, if the intent of God wasn't to give us a book of facts then our positions are reversed. At the best, all that can be said is that we both come to the Bible with certain expectations ... you that it's inerrant, me that God speaks through it even if it isn't correct in every detail. In a real sense we're both standing over the same book.
quote:While I stand by every word of the Bible being true, I am not saying its like an aircraft manual or the highway code. If you read what I've been saying, I am arguing that everything is true WITHIN ITS GENRE. So, yes, the Bible speaks in many genres - speaks through poetry and story and proverb and prophecy. Absolutely deluighted to affirm that again. But however the Bible communicates truth, it does so perfectly.
Originally posted by Callan.:
This is the key issue, isn't it? For inerrantists God speaks through facts and through propositional logic. If God gets his facts or his propositional logic wrong then the game is up. The Bible is a manual of aircraft maintenance. Put one bolt out of place and the whole thing crashes to earth in flames.
For the non-inerrantists God speaks through facts and through propositional logic but he also speaks through poetry and mysticism and story. The Bible isn't invalidated by wrong facts because presenting a complete schema of correct facts wasn't the object of its writers.
quote:However, what may appear to be an error at first is not always an error. What is an apparant contradiction may not be. What appears to be a "clear" error may infact not be. What we dismiss as contradiction may in fact be telling us something true or mysterious about God which we dismiss to easily.
Originally posted by Callan.:
To insist that where clear errors exist there is, in fact, no error. The very epistemological relativism which inerrancy is supposed to act as a bulwark against is the basis of a view that maintains that truth is of less value than a 'faith position'.
quote:No, I'm not! I am asking how you know you've met Christ when you cas doubt on the place where you meet him?
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
FishFish: [ You're the one doing that. You're the one saying that it's only if the book is inerrant that Christ can meet us here.
quote:On the contrary, it trusts God more - trusting him to be able to comunicate rather than be constrained in any way. It takes God at his word, rather than keeping a foot in either camp and choosing to doubt some things and then choosing to believe others.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
What really worries me about inerrantism, religiously, is that it seems to me to exhibit a really crucial lack of trust. Unless the book is guaranteed, unless it meets our criteria, unless the Word of God comes to us as a tangible paper object, and is put into our hands, we can't believe.
quote:But of course there is still faith - I still have to believe that Jesus loves me, died for me, was raised for me. But I also have to have faith that God has revealed himselves in ways I cannot always understand, which may seem like contradiction...
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
FishFish: It's not straightforwrd faith in Christ, and a determination to get up and follow where he leads. It's a guaranteed faith, a faith that says - and how many times have the inerrantists on this thread said it - how can we trust in God unless we know beforehand that God is trustworthy? How can we trust in God unless the book is inerrant?
quote:I honestly can't see how taking God and Christ at their word and trusting the Bible does not do this. And I honestly don't see how you can do this if you think the text you are leaning on is actually riddled with errors, and so whatever you might lean on today may give way tomorrow.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
The real trick is to listen to what Christ is saying to us. To the Church. Through the Bible.
quote:Yes - and we judge what is worth learning from this human and what is in error. But the Bible is different in that it perports to be a revelation from God. And, in the face of a perfect, powerful, creative God, I am a fool to think I can sit in judgment over his words and say, in effect, "Excuse me, you've clearly got that bit wrong - but I'm happy to believe that you have got that bit right." ISTM to be foolish - and I won't set myself up as more wise than God. I can't do it. I'd rather be thought of as a fool by you all than thought of as foolish or arrogant by God.
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
quote:This is an illogical position. We all learn things from imperfect textbooks and imperfect people all the time.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But why on earth should I trust that I will find Christ in a book if its riddled with errors? How on earth do I know that what I am trusting is not an error? How do I know that what it says about Christ's divinity is not an error? Or his resurrection? Or even his existence? If there's even one error, then there may be millions, or not even a jot of truth. Pull on that thread, and the whole book can unravel.
quote:The thing is, if you know the floorboards may be rotten or the ice thin you proceed with caution, you put a little weight on the next step watching in case it starts to give and stepping back if it won't take your weight, you look for cracks or other signs that the next steps aren't sound, you take measures to spread your weight such as putting in additional boards. In approaching Scripture we do something similar - we read it carefully, we assess one passage in light of another and if cracks start to appear we don't go and build doctrines on those verses instead prefering to stand on stronger texts, we are supported by others (and support them in turn) in the Church through the traditions and teaching passed down to us as well as discussion with contemporaries.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
How can you trust what you know to be flawed? Its like standding on rotten floor boards or thin ice.
quote:Sorry, Matt. I stand corrected. Must have missed those.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Matt, as far as I can see, this is the first time 2Peter 1;21 has come up in these discussions. .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Er...no.I've referred to it twice earlier - on pp 20 and 21
Yours in Christ
Matt
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's the people who assume the ice is think and walk out blindly without taking care who end up needing to be fished out of icy water.
Good call!quote:So then we come back to the fact that no one in the Bible, especially Jesus, treats the Bible like you advocate. Its treated as completely trustworthy and true. Nowhere does anyone ever point out a crack or thin ice.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:The thing is, if you know the floorboards may be rotten or the ice thin you proceed with caution, you put a little weight on the next step watching in case it starts to give and stepping back if it won't take your weight, you look for cracks or other signs that the next steps aren't sound, you take measures to spread your weight such as putting in additional boards. In approaching Scripture we do something similar - we read it carefully, we assess one passage in light of another and if cracks start to appear we don't go and build doctrines on those verses instead prefering to stand on stronger texts, we are supported by others (and support them in turn) in the Church through the traditions and teaching passed down to us as well as discussion with contemporaries.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
How can you trust what you know to be flawed? Its like standding on rotten floor boards or thin ice.
quote:Foolish in what way? And how is that less foolish than attempting to connect and match up things that cannot be. You tie yourself in a million knots over the detail, I don't need to.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:Yes - and we judge what is worth learning from this human and what is in error. But the Bible is different in that it perports to be a revelation from God. And, in the face of a perfect, powerful, creative God, I am a fool to think I can sit in judgment over his words and say, in effect, "Excuse me, you've clearly got that bit wrong - but I'm happy to believe that you have got that bit right." ISTM to be foolish - and I won't set myself up as more wise than God. I can't do it. I'd rather be thought of as a fool by you all than thought of as foolish or arrogant by God.
This is an illogical position. We all learn things from imperfect textbooks and imperfect people all the time.
quote:Er... Jesus does!
Nowhere does anyone ever point out a crack or thin ice.
quote:Looks to me like he's saying that his Jewish opponents are standing on Scriptural thin ice!
You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me;
quote:No we don't. We get back to the Christ who said 'It is written this, but I tell you y.' Nowhere in my reading is Christ blindly following OT tradition, quite the contrary.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
So then we come back to the fact that no one in the Bible, especially Jesus, treats the Bible like you advocate. Its treated as completely trustworthy and true. Nowhere does anyone ever point out a crack or thin ice.
quote:Well, I'd accept they treat it as true. But that's different from inerrant. And, I'd accept they treated the God they knew through the Scriptures and their experience as trustworthy.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
So then we come back to the fact that no one in the Bible, especially Jesus, treats the Bible like you advocate. Its treated as completely trustworthy and true. Nowhere does anyone ever point out a crack or thin ice.
quote:Well, perhaps you'll quote the next verse as well to complete the quote?
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
In fact, I think I'll maybe start quoting John 5:39 back at everyone who juts quotes 2 Peter 1:21 at me!
quote:This is no criticism of the scriptures - but of their failure to follow the scriptures. Jesus affirms that the scriptures are indeed the place to find eternal life - but its the Pharisees hard hearts that will not follow the scriptures to Jesus. There is no value in diligently studying the scriptures unless we follow where they point and follow Jesus. We are not saved by studying scripture in an academic way. We are saved by turning to Jesus - who, he affirms, is revealed in the scriptures.
You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
quote:Fair enough - I'm against symplistic reading and twisting passages as well. But that passage very much affirms Paul's writings as scripture and authoritative - its the interpretations that are open to error, not the text.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
We have Peter saying that Pauls letters are difficult to understand and (like other Scriptures) distorted by the "untaught and unstable". This should give us warning to take care with simplistic readings of complex passages or twisting passages to say something they don't (like, IMO, claiming inerrancy when they don't).
quote:Lacking does not equal error. And in the context, as we've said before, jesus affirms the law as inerrant.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
We have all of Jesus' sayings about "it's written ... but I say ..." which could indicate that he saw the Law as somehow lacking.
quote:You recal wrongly. Jesus doesn't say Moses got it wrong. He does say "But it was not this way from the beginning."
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I seem to recall Jesus saying that Moses got the divorce law wrong, and wrote his own law because the people couldn't take the one God would have wanted.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
) I went on to read verse 40, and thought that it was rather a clincher for psyduck's argument. Jesus was setting the priority upon coming to Him. If anything, he was downplaying the role of scripture. They were saying, "The scriptures are the final word, they give us all we need to know for salvation." He was refuting this.
quote:I'm just giving you my answer to your question. What's wrong with that? My objection was that I kept getting asked the same question. If people ask me the same question over and over, they'll get the same answer
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
quote:The trouble is that you seem to be refusing to take on board what I'm saying, which is that a) I read the 2 Peter text and understand it differently to you, and b) the 2 Peter text read straight doesn't seem to be saying anything like - or anything like as much - as you seem to read into it.
I really don't know what else you want from me! You ask me a question (how was Scripture given), I give you my answer (by the HS). You then don't accept my answer. OK, fine, that's up to you, but permit me to at least hold to my answer. This is fast becoming a dialogue of the deaf...
You say "This settles it!" We say "We don't think it does, because a)... b)..." and you say "You're not listening..." That's actually what's happening.
quote:That is so completely inside-out that it makes me want to
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
In fact, I think I'll maybe start quoting John 5:39 back at everyone who juts quotes 2 Peter 1:21 at me!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, perhaps you'll quote the next verse as well to complete the quote?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is no criticism of the scriptures - but of their failure to follow the scriptures. Jesus affirms that the scriptures are indeed the place to find eternal life - but its the Pharisees hard hearts that will not follow the scriptures to Jesus. There is no value in diligently studying the scriptures unless we follow where they point and follow Jesus. We are not saved by studying scripture in an academic way. We are saved by turning to Jesus - who, he affirms, is revealed in the scriptures.
So, yeah, please do continue to quote John 5:39 - for Jesus affirms again the value of the scriptures, and says nothing to diminish them!!!
quote:...but you have completely turned the section inside out, in order to try and fit it into your prior understanding of what the Bible is and how it works.
This is no criticism of the scriptures - but of their failure to follow the scriptures.
quote:He says no such thing! He says the scriptures are all about him - totally affirming them - not criticisng them one jot or tittle - criticising the Phirisees - saying that they need to put them in practice.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
FF,
Funny, when I read the passage (not that I didn't know John 5:39 by heart, of course
quote:...I wouldn't want anyone to think that I was saying that about anyone on this thread. And in any case, just as a text, it doesn't advance the argument at all (or if it does, I think, like JJ, that it clinches it...)
These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
quote:Ask and ye shall receive
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
OK Matt, given that you are so good at listening, perhaps you would like to address my last post.
C
quote:Not much with which to disagree except the last para; for me, God's providence does override the human frailty. This makes the documents no less human for that, well at least no more than Jesus' divinity negates His humanity. For me, inerrancy is necessary for the reasons put forward in my last post
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Matt,
OK, not sure you are really addressing ...psyduck...'s question, but how about me trying to give my answer, and then you picking out the points, if any, with which you disagree.
ISTM that the authors of the various books had different and diverse purposes. Few of them werre consciously writing what they believed would become Scripture, and most of that subset wrote in the New Testament. Some were writing down oral traditions, some were recording prophesy which they or others had received in the past. Most, if not all, did it prayerfully, and using all their God-given intellectual powers. For them, it was a fully human activity, people using their creativity to accomplish their goals, and, as a result, consciously or unconsciously to glorify God.
Now, you may say, that would negate the 2Peter passage. However, that is not the whole story. During this process, God is also active, through the Holy Spirit. With one writer, He will move their heart to worship, and the result is a Psalm of praise, but it is still the author's work. With another, He will quicken the remembrance of how He spoke to the author in the past, bringing to mind the prophetic word - step forward Isaiah. Sometimes, a faithful disciple will write down a record of activities as they happen, an eye-witness report like those of Baruch in Jeremiah. Sometimes is just boring old chroniclers, earning their bread in the Jerusalem scriptoria, but doing it to God's glory and with the Holy Spirit strenghthening them. Sometimes, ISTM, very occasionally, there is that surprising word that comes through as being a direct intervention of the Spirit, where the writer was not in control; where, on looking back, the author must have thought, "Did I really write that?" Job 39:9 must have been like that, I think. Right back at the beginning (chronologically; Job is usually thought of as one of the oldest books) we see a prophecy of the Incarnation. This is a "special case" I would suggest, but is no more inspired or less inspired than the other examples. I would contend that the process of the writing of scripture is fully divine - and fully human.
Now you might or might not agree with what I have written. It's my understanding, and, as such, is no better or worse than the next man's. But it seems to me that the above schema does not require inerrancy, ie, in this context, the overriding of the frailty of the authors by God's Providence. I submit that it's hard to see what inerrancy would contribute to the process.
quote:Then from your definition it cannot be of God. Even if there was one minute spelling mistake.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Ask and ye shall receive
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
OK Matt, given that you are so good at listening, perhaps you would like to address my last post.
C
ISTM that what you are saying casts doubt on the very reliability of Scripture.This is not a merely human document or collection of documents but ones inspired by God, in a way that is different to, say, a modern charismatic going up to the front of church and saying "thus saith the Lord...". If we are saying that Scripture is merely on a par with that example, then that begs the question "why bother with it at all?" Now, I hear what the non-inerrantists are saying, that inerrancy and authority/ reliability and not co-related, but I have to disagree; for me it is a logical impossibility to relie upon a book that purports to be by and of God and yet is in error. For me, it really is 'either-or'
Yours in Christ
Matt
quote:Now that is fascinating! I wonder if there's not more than an analogy here? Would you care to expand, maybe with reference to the relationship of Jesus' humanity to his divinity?
This makes the documents no less human for that, well at least no more than Jesus' divinity negates His humanity.
quote:This distinction doesn't really work.
Originally posted by Leprechaun in a purgatory thread:
Progressive revelation = OT incomplete BUT NOT MISTAKEN.
quote:Antiquity, universality, consensus.
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Our Lord said that if we seek him, we'll find him.quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
He said, "My sheep know my voice." I believe him. I trust him.quote:Each of these statements begs the question - How do you know? If you accept that the Bible has some errors and mistakes in it, how do you know that these are not those errors or mistakes?
Originally posted by josephine:
The Holy Scriptures are trustworthy and reliable and authoritative, they are useful, they are given to us by God in his love for us because he knows we need them.
quote:I think that's already been asked and answered. But I suppose that's what makes this a dead horse.
How can you trust what you know to be flawed?
quote:The problem with these examples is that they are general examples that do not apply in every case. Unfortunately I think inerrancy leads one to believe they do apply in every case.
Originally posted by Sean D:
I wanted to respond to something Leprechaun said in the "God the pathological killer" thread in purgatory but thought it probably would be too tangential there so here it is:
quote:This distinction doesn't really work.
Originally posted by Leprechaun in a purgatory thread:
Progressive revelation = OT incomplete BUT NOT MISTAKEN.
- The OT writers did not know everything God was eventually going to reveal about himself.
- They therefore believed some things about God which God was later to reveal were not the only side of the story.
- This lack of fuller revelation inevitably means that they are de facto mistaken about stuff.
A good example might be the idea in Deuteronomy and elsewhere in Torah that punishment for sins will be visited by Yahweh on several generations after the sinner. This is explicitly countermanded by both Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
Another one is the idea in early wisdom lit (mostly in Proverbs but also see Psalm 37) that a moral life is rewarded with a good and happy life. This is corrected by Job, which notes drastic exceptions to this accepted truth.
quote:I guess so. I was citing the examples, however, to make the explicit point that the Bible itself revises these "truths" about God. Thus, the incompleteness of revelation here leads to actual misinformation about what God is like/what he said, which in the fullness of revelation is corrected. Therefore, whilst Scripture as a whole reveals God one cannot pick these passages on their own and say they are accurate, without reference to the rest of Scripture.
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
The problem with these examples is that they are general examples that do not apply in every case. Unfortunately I think inerrancy leads one to believe they do apply in every case.
s
quote:No, judging by your sig.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Is the Ship inerrant?
--------------------
"An unproofread sig is not worht psoting" - Scorates
quote:There's an interesting, if dense, essay by Rowan Williams in his book "On Christian Theology" where he makes the point that all claims about God are, by definition, incomplete and themselves subject to God's judgement; no-one can speak fully of God, and that the Church or any group within it does so at its own peril. Theology - expressed in prayer, praxis, worship, scripture, etc - cannot speak fully because it is not God, so theology can only really be trusted when it acknowledges that it cannot do this.and allows for the fact of its provisional and incomplete nature.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, it follows ISTM, that inerrancy, if it can be applied at all, can only be applied to the complete revelation of God in it's entirety.
quote:Did this put anyone else in mind of I Corinthians?
There's an interesting, if dense, essay by Rowan Williams in his book "On Christian Theology" where he makes the point that all claims about God are, by definition, incomplete and themselves subject to God's judgement; no-one can speak fully of God, and that the Church or any group within it does so at its own peril.
quote:Who could have seen it coming?
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Well, I think my time has come. I think in many ways we're reaching stalemate, and coming full circle in many discussions.
quote:You're toying with me now...just toying with me. Will.not.get.into.this.again....
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Well, I kinda' miss 'em....
I'm always fretting that I don't take Scripture seriously enough. Fencing with these guys - who whatever else one might say, do take Scripture very seriously - reassured me that I do.
quote:Calm down, calm down Mr sensitive. Just pointing out that you were all sorely tempting me to come back onto this thread. Which I said I wouldn't do. But you've succeeded. I have. AAAAAAAARGH!
Originally posted by Mousethief:
It's toying with you to claim that we take scripture as seriously as you do? I hope that's not what you meant, L, but that certainly is how it came across.
quote:Granted but only because we orthodox don't use the weasel-word "infallible."
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
You don't have an infallible interpretation of the guy's meaning, you know!
How do you know...???
quote:
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
"When Dead Horses Decompose..."
quote:It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
See - you're toying with me...
quote:Ouch.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
quote:
please keep the debate going while I'm gone.
quote:Hooray!
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Hi, Grey Face. I want to play.
quote:Hmmmm. I'm even lower on brain power today. What basic contradiction are you proposing?
Is there a basic contradiction between 1 Cor 15 and the Gospels?
quote:Right, I'm really feeling thick now. Are we talking empty tomb versus new spiritual but not physical body, conjuring tricks with bones, ex- and present Bishops of Durham, or what?
And - since this isn't Kerygmania - if we are to be reclothed in spiritual bodies according to Paul, and Christ's resurrection is a resurrection like ours, what does that say about the identity of Christ's crucified and risen body according to the Gospels? How much violence do you have to do to reconcile both accounts? Is any reconciliation necessarily violent and distorting?
quote:vs.
"I tell you this, brethren: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
..." I Cor. 15:50
quote:
"See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have." Lk 24:19
quote:Oh Psyduck - this is EASY.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
quote:vs.
"I tell you this, brethren: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
..." I Cor. 15:50quote:
"See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have." Lk 24:19
: quote:Gee - I didn't see the portal, but I'm clearly in a Parallel Universe...
One of the texts is mistaken.
quote:Well, ok. But you really need to check that the majority of the church throughout history agree with you, or else you're wrong. Antiquity, universality, consensus, remember?
Originally posted by GreyFace:
How am I doing, Lep?
quote:Or syllogistic logic, either. As in
And make sure you are not applying enlightenment thinking - because that is the root of all evil.
)quote:Therefore it wasn't his flesh that did the inheriting?
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
THEREFORE: I tremble to finish the syllogism...
quote:You wouldn't have been able to make that mistake if you were an inerrantist.
(*not 19, as I typed originally
quote:I've kind of come to the conclusion that inerrancy is a useless category, other than to label the self-declared inerrantist as someone who will almost certainly be bordering on the fundamentalism end of the spectrum and believe in PSA as the only possible model of atonement. No offence intended - I'm not saying this is wrong. It's certainly not what I believe but as I'm not inerrant...
But I still honestly can't see what an inerrantist would do with these two statements - or at least what an inerrantist would do that I don't.
quote:Hmm? *pokes his nose round the door into dead horses*
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
quote:vs.
"I tell you this, brethren: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
..." I Cor. 15:50quote:
"See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have." Lk 24:19
quote:
Rather commentators are agreed that 'flesh and blood' is a typical Semitic expression denoting the frail human nature.{27} It emphasizes our feeble mortality over against God; hence, the second half of v 50 is Paul's elaboration in other words of exactly the same thought. The fact that the verb is in the singular may also suggest that Paul is not talking of physical aspects of the body, but about a conceptual unity: 'flesh and blood is not able to inherit . . . .' Elsewhere Paul also employs the expression 'flesh and blood' to mean simply 'people' or 'mortal creatures' (Gal 1.16; Eph 6.12). Therefore, Paul is not talking about anatomy here; rather he means that mortal human beings cannot enter into God's eternal kingdom: therefore, they must become imperishable (cf. v 53). This imperishability does not connote immateriality or unextendedness; on the contrary Paul's doctrine of the world to come is that our resurrection bodies will be part of, so to speak, a resurrected creation (Rom 8.18-23). The universe will be delivered from sin and decay, not materiality, and our bodies wil1 be part of that universe.
quote:
Many scholars have stumbled at Luke's 'a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have,' claiming this is a direct contradiction to Paul. In fact, Paul speaks of 'flesh and blood', not 'flesh and bones.' Is the difference significant? It certainly is! 'Flesh and blood,' as we have seen, is a Semitic expression for mortal human nature and has nothing to do with anatomy. Paul agrees with Luke on the physicality of the resurrection body. But furthermore, neither is 'flesh and bones' meant to be an anatomical description. Rather, proceeding from the Jewish idea that it is the bones that are preserved and raised (Gen R 28.3; Lev R 18.1; Eccl R 12.5), the expression connotes the physical reality of Jesus's resurrection. Michaelis writes,
quote:I'm not sure - I presume that it lies within the original communication which was made. I think that if one were to adopt an inerrantist point of view one would include two points:
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
So - and this is where I knew we were headed - we need an inerrant interpretation of the letter of the text. The meaning - which is inerrant - doesn't inhere in the words, but in the intrpretation of, among other things, the idioms in which the thought of the text is cast. So if the meaning doesn't inhere in the words - if you need to know that σαρξ (1) in the context of a particular idiom doesn't mean the same as σαρξ (2) in the context of another idiom, where does inerrancy lie? And in what sense can the Bible be said to be inerrant?
quote:I'm not clear as to what you think that would be. Do you mean from 'author*' to 'paper**' - albeit inspired - or from God to 'author'?
I'm not sure - I presume that it lies within the original communication which was made.
quote:is that so much of the 'inerrant meaning' is extra-textual and interpretative. And as for 'flesh and blood' having 'nothing to do with anatomy' - I just can't make sense of that!
fact, Paul speaks of 'flesh and blood', not 'flesh and bones.' Is the difference significant? It certainly is! 'Flesh and blood,' as we have seen, is a Semitic expression for mortal human nature and has nothing to do with anatomy.
quote:It's about the meaning which the author communicated to the original audience IMO (although I suspect those of a more liberal bent would opt for the other alternative) - yes it requires a lot of context, but it would seem impossible to write a document which required no knowledge of context whatsoever, even a mathematics textbook cannot be understood as it is - you need knowledge of language and how it is used etc. Maybe it does undermine alot of what some inerrantists want to say, inerrancy needs to be a little flexible at least, allowing for different genres etc. I don't think that the need for interpretation ultimately undermines inerrancy.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Markporter:quote:I'm not clear as to what you think that would be. Do you mean from 'author*' to 'paper**' - albeit inspired - or from God to 'author'?
I'm not sure - I presume that it lies within the original communication which was made.
*For want of a better word
** I know it wasn't Basildon Bond originally!
Worth repeating and clarifying, maybe, that my problem with this:
quote:is that so much of the 'inerrant meaning' is extra-textual and interpretative. And as for 'flesh and blood' having 'nothing to do with anatomy' - I just can't make sense of that!
fact, Paul speaks of 'flesh and blood', not 'flesh and bones.' Is the difference significant? It certainly is! 'Flesh and blood,' as we have seen, is a Semitic expression for mortal human nature and has nothing to do with anatomy.
I'd certainly be willing to follow a line that differentiated Paul's very developed notion of σαρξ from that of Luke 24:39; but again so much is a matter of interpretation - and at points legitimate scholarly difference. I'm quite clear that to decide what Paul means by σαρξin any particular verse one must take into detailed and consistent account his use of σαρξ elsewhere. But again, this introduces the element of interpretation, which simply undercuts the sort of things that inerrantists want to say about the Biblical text, IMHO.
quote:I beleive that I was coverted by the power of the Logos. I was evangelised at University, I wasn't a church going Christian but I did believe in some sort of creator God. The very boldness with which the claim 'Jesus is the Son of God, he's come to save us from our sins, he died for us etc', made without apology and with bible quotes, infuriated me. I thought 'How flipping arrogant these people are!' And yet their claims were so bold I had to investigate, and I now am a Christian and I would say of the evangelical tradition.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
So...
You're saying that truth in the sense we're discussing can only be found in a communication event which requires a recipient?
And therefore - saying that a text is true without a reader, is meaningless? That if someone reads the bible there'll be no encounter between that someone and God, unless the Holy Spirit is at work in the communication?
And this is perhaps at the root of the more radical evangelical view that proof-texting at people will convert them - i.e. that the words have power rather than the meaning (one might say, the Logos) that lies behind them?
If so I'm with you this far but I don't see how that kicks into touch any claim of factual accuracy in the text to begin with - it simply makes it less relevent for the purpose we think the bible is intended, surely?
quote:Does your view lead to the position of biblical errancy psyduck? It seems more that you're saying it's a useless category than necessarily an errant bible?
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Philo25 - would you say, though, that you're an inerrantist? I'm not - and my position is precisely that faith arises through encounter with the Logos, i.e. Jesus Christ. I don't consider myself to be either conservative or evangelical, either, but I don't see anything in your narration of your coming to faith anything inconsistent with what I believe - nor anything that requires an inerrant Bible.
quote:Great stuff, psyduck! The search for meaning is very much related to collating and comparing texts. But it amounts to nothing if the reader is not receptive to the meaning.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
We read texts, and we interpret them, and we interpret them by comparing them with every other text we've ever read. That's how Mark Porter was able to suggest that 'flesh' in I Cor. 15 means something different to 'flesh' in Luke 24 - because 'flesh and blood' is encountered in different contexts to 'flesh and bone', and also - and this is significant - he clinched his point by appealing first to one text, which he quoted, and then to a 'better quote', which he obliged us with. All of which is completely kosher. It's the way we sift through meanings, establish meanings and criticize them.
But all of that means that meaning is something that's established between the reader and the text. Not contained in the text.
quote:I think this is true. That view can't deal with apparent inconsistencies and factual mistatements and still consider the text to be inerrant. A better view of truth, I think, is that it is something more wholistic.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
As I say, I wouldn't want to push the postmodern thing too far here - just enough to show that we seem to be at the end of understandings of truth and language that only began less than half a millennium ago. But I really do think that inerrancy is rooted in the intellectual culture of that period now ending.
quote:Really honestly just in the spirit of enquiry, not sniping or anything:
Daniel 2 - who do we think the 4 kingdoms are?
I understand that the Apocrypha says the iron and clay one is Rome, but my (evangelical) commentary says not.
quote:I'm not sure it's necessarily at odds with inerrancy. If, however, you start bandying phrases like "supreme authority" around coupled to inerrancy then discussion of other authorities becomes pretty meaningless. Such authorities are only authoritative if they accord with Scripture, in which case why read them rather than just read Scripture. If, on the other hand, such "authorities" are needed then that means that the authority of Scripture is obscure and requires the church to interpret it. In which case the need for the Scripture itself to be inerrant is reduced because the additional level of authority to interpret Scripture can then cope with inaccuracies.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I'm confused though that you think the method of comparing authorities on the subject is at odds with an inerrantist approach. Why must this be so?
quote:I agree that this seems contradictory. It might be, however, that it is something that lines up and makes sense once someone explains it. Then it can be accepted as confirming an inerrantist approach.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
If your position is that you don't know who the kingdoms represent (just like me) and you are weighing authoritative expositions to see who they might think the 4 kingdoms are (which I have done too) - how does this sit with an inerrantist approach to Scripture?
quote:Not necessarily. The key might be explained in other books of Scripture.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Aren't you saying:
1) That there isn't enough information in Scripture - here, the book of Daniel - to tell us unambiguously who the 4 kingdoms are?
quote:It could be divined from looking at the pattern of Scripture in general.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
2) That there is no absolutely authoritative authority (not a pretty way to put it, but you know what I mean) in the whole universe who can tell us who they are?
quote:An explanation that was consistent with other Scriptural teaching, taken as a whole, might provide a reasonably sure way of knowing what it means.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
3) That there is, in this life, and this universe, for us, no absolutely sure way of knowing what the text means?
quote:No. The key could be in the rest of Scripture and in the words of Jesus.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
4) That the key to understanding the true meaning of the text is a) locked in the head of the person who wrote it, and maybe his apocalyptic circle, now all dead, and/or b) known only unto God, who ain't telling?
quote:It would be no good if it were impossible to discern. Therefore, if there is a God, it must be possible.
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
And if this is true,
5) What good to our salvation is an inerrant text that we can't possibly know the meaning of?
quote:That's right. I'm not talking about a literal inarrancy.
Originally posted by Zeke:
Your definition of "inerrancy" does not seem to be in line with that of others who have posted here.
quote:I think that's right. Which is why I normally would not describe myself as an inerrantist.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Most inerrantists I've come across (Freddy, you're one of the exceptions) have stressed that the Bible has to be inerrant in matters of history because if it isn't inerrant there (where we can verify it's accuracy) then how can we trust it to be inerrant in matters of faith and theology?
quote:Sorry. That should be "epistemological"!
Originally posted by Freddy:
I think that the resolution of this epistemoligical issue is key to the survival of Christianity. Information is just so important.
quote:
Originally posted by evangelical_backslider:
I was wondering if anyone could think of any examples of 'inconsistencies' or contradictions within the Bible that can't be explained by the normal methods (looking in original languages, etc.)?
The one I can think of at the moment is Mark 2.26 when Jesus says that David ate the consecrated bread in the time of Abiathar the High Priest. The corresponding passage in 1 Sam. 21.1ff where the Priest is apparently Ahimelech.
I know this seems a minor point, but I was wondering how people who want to claim the total inerrancy of the Bible reconcile difficulties of this sort, and if there are any examples.
Thanks,
EB.
quote:There are a number of examples like this one, where an Old Testament reference in the New Testament is wrong or misquoted. One that comes to mind is:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Originally posted by evangelical_backslider:
[qb] I know this seems a minor point, but I was wondering how people who want to claim the total inerrancy of the Bible reconcile difficulties of this sort, and if there are any examples.
quote:This is ostensibly quoting Micah 5.2, which says the opposite:
Matthew 2:6 'But you, Bethlehem, [in] the land of Judah, Are not the least among the rulers of Judah
quote:So is Bethlehem the least or not?
Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, [Though] you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Neverthless, I’ve enjoyed following much of the discussion and have been heartened to witness the grace of many participants in the face of an increasingly polarised debate.quote:I can certainly appreciate the idea of the Bible containing two or more layers of meaning, so that the text appeals to people with different educational backgrounds, but the last sentence concerns me (and it’s not the first time I’ve heard such an argument put forward).
The purpose behind this is so that it could be received and grasped by children and uneducated people, and at the same time be loved and understood by receptive educated people. Meanwhile it can be completely opaque to non-receptive people - ensuring the freedom to accept or reject it.
quote:Very good question. I agree that it would be bad for the Bible to be so opaque that ordinary well-meaning people would be left in the dark on vital life issues. But I think the Bible is mostly transparent regardless of how receptive the reader is.
Originally posted by Sandy Nicholson:
Why should any text be opaque to its readers for them to be able to reject it? OK, so this is the inerrant, infallible Word of God and if everyone understood it they’d have no choice but to accept it (which would be bad!). But what can it possibly mean to reject a message that you haven’t even understood in the first place? And what makes someone non-receptive anyway?
quote:This seems like a strange saying, and even stranger that Jesus would repeat it in Matthew 13. But the point is to protect people from the details of the truth until they are prepared to receive it. The idea is that the truth can actually be harmful. This is also why God does not typically perform miracles and thereby conclusively prove things to the human race.
9And He said, “Go, and tell this people:
‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
10 “Make the heart of this people dull,
And their ears heavy,
And shut their eyes;
Lest they see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart,
And return and be healed.” Isaiah 6
quote:Lep asked me to move this to more temperate climes.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:IIRC, you don't believe in a literal 7 day creation?
The discussion (here, briefly, and in Dead Horses at length)is about whether certain bits of the Bible can be said to be describing events as having happened, when they did not, because our reason tells us so. This, IMO, elevates reason to a role of authority above Scripture, and that's why I'm not happy with the route.
So why can God speak to us through myth in the early chapters of Genesis but be confined to literal history thereafter? There are fairly strong reasons on both archeological and literary grounds to regard Joshua as mythical rather than historical - in genre it is closer to the Aeneid or Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain, than it is to Thucydides or Macaulay. Another good reason for not treating the book of Joshua literally is the Copernican theory of astronomy - the sun does not travel across the sky every day, rather the earth rotates on it's axis. If this were to stop the results would be... interesting.
Would you honestly say that the book of Joshua was a work of history if you weren't committed to a theory of Biblical inerrancy?
quote:I agree this is the teaching point of Joshua. I suppose I just don't see how the text can do this job for the people then (or us now) if it is not describing real events that a real God did to give his people a real land. If they are just a myth, just an inspirational story, but ultimately untrue, then they cannot serve the purpose of convincing the people that their God is real and that they should not serve other Gods.
Joshua isn't invalidated by the fact that it is a myth about how God gave the land to our ancestors despite terrible odds and absolutely loathes foreign gods. The point of Joshua is to tell the Jews in exile that they are not to give up hope and not to worship the gods of Babylon.
quote:There are also fairly strong reasons to regard Joshua and the surrounding books as historical, whether or not you believe that the miracles recounted in those books could have happened. Whereas the evidence is overwhelming that the early chapters of Genesis could not have literally happened.
Originally posted by Callan:
So why can God speak to us through myth in the early chapters of Genesis but be confined to literal history thereafter? There are fairly strong reasons on both archeological and literary grounds to regard Joshua as mythical rather than historical
quote:But surely that is the purpose of mythologies. For example most national identities are to some extent founded on a mythology (or even a sketchy and rather dubious version of history).
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I agree this is the teaching point of Joshua. I suppose I just don't see how the text can do this job for the people then (or us now) if it is not describing real events that a real God did to give his people a real land. If they are just a myth, just an inspirational story, but ultimately untrue, then they cannot serve the purpose of convincing the people that their God is real and that they should not serve other Gods.
quote:Indeed. But the purpose of the Bible "mythology" is somewhat different than simply forming a national identity. It was important to the people of Israel ( as it is, I submit, to the people of God today) to know that God is real, more real than the Gods of the nations around them, and that he was actively involved in rescuing them and shaping their history. Now, I admit, these stories can do many jobs for the nation and the church without being true, but this key lesson rather falls down of the stories are not true. They do not demonstrate God's faithfulness, as the later writers say they do if they didn't happen.
Originally posted by ce:
quote:But surely that is the purpose of mythologies. For example most national identities are to some extent founded on a mythology (or even a sketchy and rather dubious version of history).
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I agree this is the teaching point of Joshua. I suppose I just don't see how the text can do this job for the people then (or us now) if it is not describing real events that a real God did to give his people a real land. If they are just a myth, just an inspirational story, but ultimately untrue, then they cannot serve the purpose of convincing the people that their God is real and that they should not serve other Gods.
quote:But they will demonstrate God's faithfulness (to many, at least) if the outcome of what is predicted by myths can demonstrably seen to have happened.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Now, I admit, these stories can do many jobs for the nation and the church without being true, but this key lesson rather falls down of the stories are not true. They do not demonstrate God's faithfulness, as the later writers say they do if they didn't happen.
quote:So why isn't "I believe in one God, creator of heaven and earth" invalidated by the fact that he didn't create the world in six days.
I agree this is the teaching point of Joshua. I suppose I just don't see how the text can do this job for the people then (or us now) if it is not describing real events that a real God did to give his people a real land. If they are just a myth, just an inspirational story, but ultimately untrue, then they cannot serve the purpose of convincing the people that their God is real and that they should not serve other Gods.
quote:When I studied OT the consensus seemed to be that history proper started around the time of Saul and David, although the earlier stuff may well have had historical antecedents.
There are also fairly strong reasons to regard Joshua and the surrounding books as historical, whether or not you believe that the miracles recounted in those books could have happened. Whereas the evidence is overwhelming that the early chapters of Genesis could not have literally happened.
quote:Oh, I agree with you. I occasionally make the comparison with Geoffrey of Monmouth's 'History of the Kings of Britain' which isn't history at all, mostly. His treatment of King Arthur, for example, is written 700 years after the events he purports to describe and based on no primary sources. One could say something similar about the book of Exodus. On the other hand his treatment of the post Arthurian material derives from Gildas and Bede who were near contemporaries and is likely to be as true as anything else we've got. In that sense I think Geoffrey covers the purely mythical - the pre-Roman material - the historical and mythical - the fall of Rome to the death of Arthur - and the largely historical - the post Arthurian stuff. I think that one can identify a similar progression in scripture based on the nature of the material and the date of the events in question.
I think the larger question is whether, if God can speak to us through myth in parts of the Bible, it is important to believe that anything in the Bible is historical. I think it is.
quote:Because that statement can still be true without believing the world was created in 6 days. Believing (for example) this:
Originally posted by Callan:
So why isn't "I believe in one God, creator of heaven and earth" invalidated by the fact that he didn't create the world in six days.
quote:Yes, but it would be pretty hard to prove the thesis if a fictional book like 1984 was the only genre of evidence to hand.
Consider the proposition: "Totalitarian governments are wicked". It would be eccentric to say that one should prefer Arthur Koestler's 'The Yogi and the Commisar', which is now largely unread, to George Orwell's 1984 as a literary expression of this prohibition just because 1984 is fiction.
quote:I suppose I just don't accept that this is the way the rest of the Bible teaches about Joshua, or in fact any of the books traditionally known as "history".
Saying Joshua is errant because it does not belong to the genre of literal history is like saying the Song of Solomon is errant because it doesn't belong to the genre of literal history. It isn't supposed to.
quote:That may well be true, and certainly anyone can make up their own mind about these things. But it doesn't make it necessarily wrong to believe that the events of Joshua took place as recorded. There is nothing inherently impossible about them, unless you assume that the minor miracles involved are impossible. There is no way of proving that they didn't happen.
Originally posted by Callan:
When I studied OT the consensus seemed to be that history proper started around the time of Saul and David, although the earlier stuff may well have had historical antecedents.
quote:But then St Paul writes in Romans things like: "Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's righteousness leads to justification and life for all", as if he believed in a literal Adam and Eve (which he probably did). But one can believe that the story of Adam and Eve is a myth without abandoning Paul's theory of redemption.
Because that statement can still be true without believing the world was created in 6 days. Believing (for example) this:
Psalm 44: 1 - 3: We have heard with our ears, O God;
our fathers have told us
what you did in their days,
in days long ago.
2 With your hand you drove out the nations
and planted our fathers;
you crushed the peoples
and made our fathers flourish.
3 It was not by their sword that they won the land,
nor did their arm bring them victory;
it was your right hand, your arm,
and the light of your face, for you loved them.
is pretty much predicated on God playing the role that the book of Joshua says he played. Now of course, Psalms too may be part of the myth culture, but then the Psalmists cry to God to help them, as in former days, is pretty pointless. Like me calling out to Zeus or whatever.
quote:I think the 'truth' as it were of 1984 - and indeed of all fiction or myth - derives from its ability to accurately describe the human condition rather than its proximity to actual historical events. If there had been no totalitarianism in the twentieth century 1984 would be regarded as a rather macabre curio, rather than one of the prophetic books of the age but it wouldn't cease, on a rather important level, to be true.
quote:Yes, but it would be pretty hard to prove the thesis if a fictional book like 1984 was the only genre of evidence to hand.
Consider the proposition: "Totalitarian governments are wicked". It would be eccentric to say that one should prefer Arthur Koestler's 'The Yogi and the Commisar', which is now largely unread, to George Orwell's 1984 as a literary expression of this prohibition just because 1984 is fiction.
quote:Indeed. That's why I do believe there must have been one first true human being who "fell".
Originally posted by Callan:
But then St Paul writes in Romans things like: "Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's righteousness leads to justification and life for all", as if he believed in a literal Adam and Eve (which he probably did). But one can believe that the story of Adam and Eve is a myth without abandoning Paul's theory of redemption.
quote:I accept that completely. But much of its persuasive power about the dangers of totalitarianism, and using it as a basis (in fact THE most important basis) for decisions about future government would be foolish, unless it had some basis in fact. I'm stretching the analogy too far - but do you see what I mean? So much, ISTM, of OT and NT spirituality rests on those events having actually happened.
If there had been no totalitarianism in the twentieth century 1984 would be regarded as a rather macabre curio, rather than one of the prophetic books of the age but it wouldn't cease, on a rather important level, to be true.
quote:Indeed. I certainly don't think that of you Callan. Part of the reason I stopped contributing to THAT thread is because I don't want to end up flinging insults at "liberals", but understand and engage with the position. I hope you will be able to extend to me, the grace to assume that I am not an inerrantist to proof text all my favourite prejudices! I have been guilty of flinging mud in the past, even
I take the point that Kelly and NP make in the post above, and I don't imagine that either of us is going to convert the other, but I think that the benefit of our exchanges - at least from my POV is that I have a clearer idea of where thoughtful inerrantists are coming from. I hope that I am giving the impression that non-inerrantists are attempting to faithfully engage with scripture as it is, or at least as we perceive it to be, rather than just attempting to ignore the nasty bits, as it were.
towards Gormenghast. But it was wrong and silly, and I'm here far more to learn than to teach.
quote:I would agree that if the whole story is fiction from start to finish, then the persuasive power of the Bible evaporates, unless we are clearly dealing with theological language that is poetic or parabolic or story-like in form. This is quite common in some parts of the OT, at least as far as I can see. I think the witness of the Bible is especially powerful in situations where the historical events described can indeed be confirmed from other secular sources.
Leprechaun said:
Incidentally, this is not to say I believe the books to be attempting a non-biased purely factual account of history, the like of which, you rightly say was not even thought of till later. Rather, that they are God-inspired, and thus completely reliable, and that the author's concerns reflect what God wants us to learn. In that sense I agree with you - that's the most important issue - but I think the persuasive power of it is almost entirely removed if the events did not happen.
quote:Um.. and the Resurrection?
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
Even the crucifixion and resurrection are invested in the Bible with theological significance far beyond the bare historical facts. The Romans crucified many people (history), but the church’s historic proclamation, that Jesus is the Christ who died for the sins of the whole world, cannot be confirmed by history - that is to be received by faith.
(hangs head in shame)quote:Whoops, sorry for the delay in getting back to this thread.
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:Um.. and the Resurrection?
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
Even the crucifixion and resurrection are invested in the Bible with theological significance far beyond the bare historical facts. The Romans crucified many people (history), but the church’s historic proclamation, that Jesus is the Christ who died for the sins of the whole world, cannot be confirmed by history - that is to be received by faith.
Custard
quote:Well, I think that the Jesus presented to us in Scripture actually subverts Scripture, and thus demonstrates that he is Lord of Scripture, and that Christ's revelation of God is not constrained by Scripture. And the last thing that Scripture does is to deliver Christ into our hands, wrapped up according to our conceits and prejudices.
DO I think that the Pope or the minister down the road have gained perfect wisdom from reading it's pages? Do I believe that the humans that teach and study the bible are inerrant? NO.
bit of a silly issue I reckon.
quote:I had an orthodox Jewish friend who followed a rabbinical ruling (widely respected I think) that he called "Not in heaven". It was a story, used to illustrate the fact that the law had been given by God, but was now on earth, and that the interpretation of the law was now an earthly activity, to be pursued by the minds of men (they were all men) using logic, based on the infallibility of the original law as given.
Originally posted by Psyduck:
My understanding of the authority of Scripture is that Scripture has no authority at all separated from God - or for that matter separated from us. The authority of Scripture is precisely God-speaking-to-us-through-it.
quote:I think it's a huge illogicality.
There's then a slight illogicality, since if the scripture is inerrant and obvious in meaning, what guidaince would one need?
quote:I belive in a Scripture that plainly is dead wrong in places (Joshua 10 for one!) but through which God can still speak in Christ. I don't see the problem. But then it only is a problem if you insist that Scripture has to possess in itself the authority of God. Yes, I know the theory - God made it inerrant, so its inerrancy is contingent on all those properties that are not contingent but proper to God.
There is a big step between the dead infallibility of scripture to a scripture needing interpretation, the guiding Spirit of God to understand......and then I think another step again to a scripture which might actually just be plain wrong in places.
quote:But even here there's a great difference between "can't read you properly" and "need actually to ignore you on occasion".
Originally posted by Psyduck:
But you still have, on an inerrantist understanding, a "Toddling-Off Moment" in which God says "OK little Bible - that's you all nice and inerrant - off you go into the world. Oh - and don't worry - if those sinful people I want to save can't read you properly, I'll send the Holy Spirit to sort things out for them...."
quote:I honestly don't see why. Is the fact that there's no way on God's earth that Paul wrote Hebrews in any way a diminutuion of its authority as an exposition of what God did in Christ?
One could believe in a scripture subservient to God, a tool of communication, no more......and so be unsurprised if people get it wrong, if it isn't always literal, if it needs interpreting......and yet still be shocked that it is just plain wrong in places.
quote:But this is only an objection if you believe that the Bible is in some sense the direct speech of God. If the human "authors" are to be taken into account, why shouldn't they be telling it the best way they can? And if you believe that "author" is a conceit of modernism, and that there's nothng outside the text - why not just let the texts speak, and listen to what they might tell you? Why this need to make them inerrant?
It's one thing to be misunderstood, and demand that what one is trying to say be listened to, not what the hearer heard - another to give a completely misleading, erroneous instruction, and try to get off the hook claiming that what one said shouldn't be elevated to the same status of ones person.
; and you have the Epistles, some of which are in because Paul wrote them, and some of which are in because Paul might as well have written them, and some of which - as Orgien of Alexandria said - God only knows who really wrote them. Which is saturated in... stuff. And a lot of it is very liturgical stuff. quote:It doesn't need to be inerrant. It needs to bear some relationship to the truth.
Originally posted by Psyduck:
.....Why can't it just point kaliedoscopically towards the Christ who fills it all to overflowing so that if everything he did and said were written down, the world itself couldn't contain the books? As William Temple (I think!) said "Anevent is always richer than any possible description of it". ....All these people were telling the truth as they had it to tell. Why do they have to be inerrant on top of that?
quote:Absolutely. That's why I could never be an inerrantist.
OK, granted, much of it does. But certain passages bear no relationship to the truth - the point in the exact opposite direction.
quote:Again, absolutely. That's what people are like. And Scripture considered objectively is the impression made by God, via a religious tradition, on a large number of human beings. It's faithful and true because there's so much bigotry and genocide and small-minded censoriousness in it. That's a true reflection of how human beings are. But the astonishing thing is how much else there is in it. What inerrantists tend to dismiss as "picking and choosing" is really only responding to the bits through which God speaks. And God isn't the same as the Bible. Which is the point I've been making.
Certain passages aren't a mess pointing at Christ, they're a mess pointing at oppression and hatred.
I also hapen to think in context (household codes etc etc etc) PAul is actually liberating to women *at that time* quote:I think this is the point of difference. I find the problem bits so inglorious, I can't find it in me to refer to the resulting hodgepodge as glorious. Or even half-way decent.
Originally posted by Psyduck:
....which is in many ways a glorious hodgepodge.
quote:I tend to find that when I approach the Bible as "just" humanly-produced literature, it always seems to point beyond itself. Biblical Studies was my subject, and I always found that really radical, critical Biblical study actually clarified, for me, the sense in which the Bible did "point beyond itself" - and also that part of that was to do with my own faith-commitment.
hmm. gosh im surprising myself, i still seem to like the bible......
quote:Mt. 5:8; Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
I have just discovered this thread but have not had time to trawl the whole way through
quote:...well, some of it, but he was also referring to what Protestants like to call "Apocrypha" but is more accurately called "DeuteroCanonica."
Originally posted by leo:
Re what Paul meant by scripture, yes, of course, her was referring to what Christians call the Old Testament.
quote:St. Paul almost certainly meant the Septuagint. Modern inerrantists almost certainly mean the OT, minus the Deuterocanonical books and the New Testament.
Given Paul's background, I imagine he probably meant the Jewish scriptures. It seems highly unlikely that he would have considered his own letters as scripture, since there was no precedent of epistles as scripture. If he had done so, he might have omitted some of the personal details, and the 'this not from the Lord, but from me' bit.
So if we interpret the statement to cover the NT as well, then we are deliberately misunderstanding Paul.
quote:Oh. Cheers then, as they say round here!
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Just meant that it was delightful to come across someone who was not a battle-scarred veteran of this thread...
quote:Well, inerrant probably usually does (just looked it up to try to check spelling 'incapable of being wrong' was the definition there) mean without errors or mistakes. But then, you know, you can redefine it.
Originally posted by leo:
Surely 'innerant' means without errors/mistakes - yet the bible is full of them.
quote:I love Leo's list! Those are errors all right.
Originally posted by leo:
Surely 'innerant' means without errors/mistakes - yet the bible is full of them.
Inspiration is not innerancy
quote:I'm looking for a new doctrine of scripture, my old one being a little the worse for wear. That's interesting, and close. I'll bear it in mind.
Originally posted by Freddy:
I see it as dictated by God, miraculously preserved over time, and containing divine truth in every letter. It is literally the Word of God.
At the same time it is full of mistaken appearances, literal errors, and inconsistencies. It was written in a form that would be accessible and loved by the people among whom it was written. It presents many false ideas about the nature of God and the nature of good and evil.
quote:I like that!
So the Bible, as Leo said, is inspired but not inerrant.
quote:I like that. How is it different from what I said?
Originally posted by Petaflop:
At the moment I think I'm more comfortable with the Bible as chosen, or even predestined, by God as his means of self-revelation from the free-will works of men, but maybe I'll find problems with that.
quote:In particular free-will trumps predestination: predestination cannot remove the free-will or human expression of the human authors. (David Edwards wrote an interesting book on predestination and free will IIRC).
I'm more comfortable with the Bible as chosen, or even predestined, by God as his means of self-revelation from the free-will works of men.
quote:I can go with this too. I agree that the authors wrote according to their own free will, using expressions and describing events that they were familiar with.
Originally posted by Petaflop:
In particular free-will trumps predestination: predestination cannot remove the free-will or human expression of the human authors.
quote:Freddy, I've always been fascinated by your approach to the Bible. In many respects, I've felt that your approach resonates with me, and that mine, however far it may or may not bee from yours, in practice produces Christian undrestandings that aren't too terribly far away. As an exercise, I snipped out the following, your statement of your attitude to the Bible, and italicized the bits I can't agree with.
I keep looking for someone who has a similar view of the Bible to mine.
quote:(* I'm not thinking there so much of the miraculous preservation of the text of a book. I'd want to connect its "miraculous preservation" directly with the preservaton of the People of God - and by that, I mean whatever's on the other side of the sense that God's People have of being "brought through" so much. I'd also want to find some way of connecting that with Auschwitz.)
I see it as dictated by God, miraculously preserved over time*, and containing divine truth in every letter. It is literally the Word of God.
At the same time it is full of mistaken appearances, literal errors, and inconsistencies. It was written in a form that would be accessible and loved by the people among whom it was written. It presents many false ideas about the nature of God and the nature of good and evil.
However, a person who reads it intelligently and sincerely will be able to see past the literal errors and inconsistencies, and gain true wisdom from it. Its purpose is to teach a person how to love God and the neighbor.
quote:I think that's conclusive proof that you're not an Apollinarian in the sense of the discussion on the Evangelical Christology thread. Is what we're talking about here maybe an "Apollinarian" attitude to Scripture in some quarters? (Not you, Freddy!)
It was strangely conforting to think of Jesus forgetting and losing things too and that this was not necessarily a sign of weakness.
quote:Excellent thought. Yes, to some extent this really does amount to the same thing.
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Maybe thinking like this also highlights the question "If we have a doctrine of the Church and some sort of doctrine of providence, do we actually need any sort of doctrine of inspiration?" "If the Bible is just there - and if everything that's just there is there because God wants it to be, do we really need anything more than a stated belief that the Bible is the preserved tradition out of which we have come, and the Holy Spirit can bring it to life for us, and us to life through it?
quote:OK. If that works as far as giving people confidence that this is where you find the path to salvation.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
How about: "It's that collection of flawed, very human writings about God, Man, and the interactions between God and Man that God wanted us to have"?
quote:Because it means that you come to rather different conclusions about other things that are important. The character of God for example.
Originally posted by Psyduck:
I also find myself in the position of looking at Scripture the way I do, and thinking "Why do people who take a "more inspired" or even "inerrantist" view of Scripture feel that mine isn't enough?" What do they feel is missing?"
quote:I agree.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:Because it means that you come to rather different conclusions about other things that are important. The character of God for example.
Originally posted by Psyduck:
I also find myself in the position of looking at Scripture the way I do, and thinking "Why do people who take a "more inspired" or even "inerrantist" view of Scripture feel that mine isn't enough?" What do they feel is missing?"
quote:Yes. Which I assume is why you are having this discussion with me about whether inerrancy is true. If "you" are right, I have a lot of things wrong about God's character. If I am right, the same is true of "you". You asked why I was bothered, that's why - because I think it's important that people have a view of God that is real.
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Yes - but the important point, surely, is that if "we" are right (and I don't mean this in an adversarial way, just this side of the argument) then the other side are surely in danger of drawing conclusions about the character of God based on flawed data.
quote:I don't understand your point I am afraid. What has this got to do with me agreeing with your view of God or not?
It's the circularity that bothers me. The Bible guarantees our picture of God, who guarantees the Bible, which guarantees our picture of God... I like Jimi Hendrix a lot, but isn't this amount of feedback really quite risky?
quote:True. Good point. I guess what I mean is that doctrine is often more crucial to understanding Scripture than whether we see it as inerrant or not.
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Why isn't it possible, regarding Revelation? Inerrantist isn't the same as literalist.
quote:Yours might Freddy, as long as we can also agree on an understanding of how providence works - or how predestination and free will interact. Unfrotunately I'm not sure I've agreed one with myself yet.
"It's that collection of flawed, very human writings about God, Man, and the interactions between God and Man that God wanted us to have"?
quote:Did he now?
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
As John Wimber used to say, "experience changes theology."
quote:In the event that that thread doesn't make it to Limbo when it's done, I'm going to copy in a couple of the posts that seem to me to be particularly relevant to this thread.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm linking in here these recent exchanges in Kerygmania . In some ways they continue and extend the recent exchanges on this thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Um (carefully attempting to step around the rotting equine), I AM an inerrantist, and that doesn't force me to approve of the sentiment expressed in this verse (re killing babies). Believing in inerrancy doesn't mean approving of everything someone voices in the Scriptures. Nor does it mean taking everything dead literally and ignoring hyperbole, sarcasm and irony, etc.
In this case, I take inerrancy to mean that this verse is a true record of the feelings of the psalmist--not necessarily of God.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:I think that Christians have known from the beginning that killing children was not the way to go.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In private conversations, I tend to find that many folks see the ethical dilemmas which the cursing verses in the Psalms produce - and don't like them. But they aren't prepared to "sell" the inerrant principle because of what they don't like. Ultimately, conceding that one does not understand why "that" is "there" is preferable (from that POV) to conceding that it shows an erroneous ethic, or history, etc.
Yet up until recently people did not question that psalms, and other scriptures, like this one, belong in the Bible. They are consistent, in a superficial way, with the idea that the bad guys get what they deserve.
Inerrantism is not the only alternative to thinking that these verses don't belong.
Saying that we not understand why "that" is "there" is not the only alternative to thinking that God can do what He wants and that the recipients deserve what they get.
The alternative that I prefer is to accept that good and loving actions can be symbolized by actions that are actually wicked and hateful. Like slaughtering the enemy until not one remains. These wicked and hateful actions can be symbolically attributed to God even if the truth is that they did not originate in Him, and that actually opposes them.
The account can be seen as something endorsed by God as a metaphor that was easily understood by ancient and simple peoples, who saw nothing more than that God was on their side.
The cursing psalms are just a few of a large number of biblical examples of God apparently doing the kind of angry, hurtful and vengeful things that He repudiates in the New Testament.
Many examples of this kind of thing are undeniably metaphoric, such as Jesus' parable about ejecting a man from heaven who did not have a wedding garment. No one thinks that this is really the basis for anyone's ejection.
To my mind it is less problematic to accept that the Old Testament describes wicked times, and imperfect people - and that God used the events of that time to teach something better and prepare for His Advent - than to reject them.
The epistemological consequences of rejecting Scripture are more difficult to deal with than the relatively simple interpretation of the many biblical instances of God, or Israel, or the writer of this Psalm, acting or speaking vengefully or cruelly.
We need to get beyond the simplistic errant/inerrant dichotomy. It sets up a straw man that few have ever accepted.
quote:Which is why the Catholic and Orthodox churches postulate an infallible interpretation, if I'm not mistaken.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Just a thought (which I'm sure has already been raised here): what is the point of an infallible Bible if the best any of us can come up with is a fallible interpretation?
quote:Sort of Sola Swedenborga, then?
Originally posted by Freddy:
[My own denomination, Swedenborgian, also postulates an infallible interpretation in the works of Swedenborg. Sort of a twist on Sola Scriptura.
quote:No. Heh-heh. Sola Scriptura. But through the, a-hem, lens of Swedenborg.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Sort of Sola Swedenborga, then?
quote:No doubt that's the best attitude for an individual to take.
Originally posted by Custard.:
I'd always go for perfect Scripture, imperfect interpretation, but done reverentially, humbly and with much effort (and listening to others).
quote:Nope. No more problematic than having all these imperfect Christians running around.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn't it somewhat problematic to have all these "imperfect interpretations" running around?
quote:Then why is this such a long thread? And why is it a dead horse?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Nope. No more problematic than having all these imperfect Christians running around.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn't it somewhat problematic to have all these "imperfect interpretations" running around?
quote:Ah, but what does it say it means?
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
Scripture says what it means, and means what it says.
quote:Very true.
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
If we use Scripture as a practical guide to living, praying, and learning how to EXPERIENCE God, we may well find yourself having a little chat with Jesus in our prayer lives.
If we use our time analyzing contradictions, odd-sounding passages - and dissecting Scripture like some frog in the anatomy lab, we lose the opportunity to have a personal, experiential knowledge of God.
quote:It would be easier to buy this if (a) it didn't contradict itself so frequently, and (b) there weren't so many (and I mean many) differing interpretations of nearly every single passage.
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
Scripture says what it means, and means what it says.
quote:
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
If we use our time analyzing contradictions, odd-sounding passages - and dissecting Scripture like some frog in the anatomy lab
but those weird ones are my favorite ones. Plus, it would be stupid for me to be like, well - I like this scripture but this other scripture is weird so obviously I should not think about it. I like the bible. A lot. A couple of years ago, I would pick one Prophet and mediate and read through it every December. Because of that, I really like Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Nehemiah (go, go, go build that wall, uh huh, oh right, okay!)quote:I haven't had this experience, so I cannot relate to what you are saying. Everything I read, analyze, and meditate helps me in discovering beauty and truth and reality of God.
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
- and dissecting Scripture like some frog in the anatomy lab, we lose the opportunity to have a personal, experiential knowledge of God.
quote:I present myself as proof that the above dichotomy is not valid. I've been studying scripture in the former manner for 15 years, but have developed an increasing discomfort with the problems I've encountered on assuming that it 'means what it says and says what it means'.
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
If we use Scripture as a practical guide to living, praying, and learning how to EXPERIENCE God, we may well find yourself having a little chat with Jesus in our prayer lives.
If we use our time analyzing contradictions, odd-sounding passages - and dissecting Scripture like some frog in the anatomy lab, we lose the opportunity to have a personal, experiential knowledge of God. Swedenborg was NOT the first individual in history to discover this. Mysticism isn't some New Age craze.
Scripture says what it means, and means what it says.
quote:No, I think most Christians see it as a real problem; and,even though it's a dead horse, I feel compelled to add my own uneducated and ill-informed view to the general mish-mash.
Then why is this such a long thread? And why is it a dead horse?
I think that there is a real problem. Am I the only one that thinks so?
quote:Merely repeating this doesn't constitute discussion.
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
Scripture says what it means, and means what it says.
quote:It sounds to me like it's happened to you. So do you never find yourself in disagreement about the scriptures with another christian to whom this process has also happened? If you do, how do you resolve it?
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
It doesn't usually happen overnight, though it may have for Paul.
Nobody (nobody I know, anyway) can really explain this in a posting at a website. It has to be experienced.
quote:Why do you keep saying that it is an instruction manual?
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
It's an instruction manual, written in code.
quote:I'm not disagreeing with that, and I'm not saying for a moment that this is not a valid way for a person to come to his or her own convictions about how to live.
Nobody (nobody I know, anyway) can really explain this in a posting at a website. It has to be experienced.
quote:Revelation, a "highly imaginative fantasy"? I suppose there's little point in arguing about such things, Friend. Some people see one level of meaning in a given passage, and take it quite literally. Others probably overinterpret. Revelation falls victim to both approaches.
Originally posted by Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz:
quote:Why do you keep saying that it is an instruction manual?
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
It's an instruction manual, written in code.
Some things in the scriptures do look like instructions. But many things (e.g. the psalms) are outpourings, expressions. One might as well say that Keats's poetry is an instruction manual.
And some things in the scriptures are histories - which are informative, but not instructions to live by. E.g. when I read that Abraham laid out on a rock the carcases of several birds split in half, am I to go out and do likewise? Or when Samuel cuts up Agag to pieces, should all Christian pastors go out and practice their sword skills? Is it instructing me? Only in the sense that, say, Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" might be described as an instruction manual in good manners, rather than described as a novel.
The scriptures are a collection of many different kinds of writings: love poems, prayers, instructions on sacrificing animals, edifying anecdotes about various people, myths, made-up stories to illustrate moral points, letters to young churches to settle various issues, highly imaginative fantasies (e.g. Revelation), etc. To say that they are often worthwhile (in some sense) is not the same as saying they are all "instructions". And quite a few bits of the scriptures are simply opaque - I don't know what they mean, and cannot apply them to anything. And how do I "apply" the passage that tells me the reputed names of the rivers that flowed out of the Garden of Eden? What am I meant to do with this passage in any "instruction manual" sense?
A lot of the scriptures is indeed preaching, in some sense of the word - proclaiming a message. But "instruction manual" seems way too narrow a description to fit the wide diversity of literary content in the scriptures.
quote:If everyone who thought he had the one right way to interpret the Scriptures properly were to write a book, I don't suppose the whole world could contain them.
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
Perhaps someone fully familiar with the "code" will write a book about it someday.
quote:That little statement is meant to be a koan, for meditation. Perhaps I'm in over my head on this discussion; I'll go post something funny in heaven! Merry Christmas to all - do reflect on the words of the hymn "O Little Town of Bethlehem" this year. It's in code, too.
Originally posted by mdijon:
If the requisite "open mind" is so difficult to achieve (and I expect harder to ascertain) then does it really have any meaning to say scripture "means what it says"?
Normally the description "means what it says" is used to imply that the meaning is obvious.... difficult to dispute.... and that most reasonable people would draw the same conclusion.
That's clearly not your point here, then.....?
quote:Yes, I don't think he did.
Originally posted by mdijon:
So you didn't mean what you said when you said it meant what it said.
quote:This is not so far-fetched. This is exactly what my denomination, the New Church, is about. We have detailed descriptions of the "code".
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:If everyone who thought he had the one right way to interpret the Scriptures properly were to write a book, I don't suppose the whole world could contain them.
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
Perhaps someone fully familiar with the "code" will write a book about it someday.
quote:Don't you mean "No, I don't think he did"..... or is that another koan to redirect me to the true meaning of what he really meant when he didn't meant what he said when he said it meant what is said.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Yes, I don't think he did.
Originally posted by mdijon:
So you didn't mean what you said when you said it meant what it said.
quote:No. That's right.
Originally posted by mdijon:
Don't you mean "No, I don't think he did"..... or is that another koan to redirect me to the true meaning of what he really meant when he didn't meant what he said when he said it meant what is said.
Or what you mean when you said you didn't think he really meant that he didn't mean what he said when he said it meant what is said.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Don't you mean "No, I don't think he did"..... or is that another koan to redirect me to the true meaning of what he really meant when he didn't meant what he said when he said it meant what is said.
Or what you mean when you said you didn't think he really meant that he didn't mean what he said when he said it meant what is said.
quote:Wow. That's an insightful comment. Exactly the right question.
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
The question would be whether they know what the commentaries mean, that is, how to put them to practical, personal use.
quote:My take is that he didn't knock. He was called. He didn't start any religion, but just wrote books. People of all denominations use them.
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
Swedenborg seems to meet the general criteria for having been a prophet. I suspect he knocked, and the door was opened.
quote:At various points in our lives, there's a dream (or a deep contemplative prayer experience) in which we come up to a closed door. Most of us walk away. Try knocking three times, and ask to enter. Knock, and the door will be opened; ask, and it shall be given to you.
Originally posted by mdijon:
Although he is unique, isn't he?
In that the other writers (certainly not the RC or Orthodox ones) quite agree with him completely.
Suggesting that if there is some sort of decoding/knocking-at-the-door approach, it doesn't give reproducible results. Not in that sense, anyway.
quote:mdijon, I'm not sure what either you or Oreo are getting at.
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.... many of the things you say may well be true.... but if the results are not reproducible then I'd say that does not infer biblical inerrancy, even with the special pleading of a code book.
quote:I agree. The esoteric tradition opines (for what that's worth) that each story of Scripture can be understood on seven levels. The first level is the story itself. See the evolving thread about Jephtha, who sacrifices his daughter. The second level deals with what the story might mean as an allegory; a good homilist brings this out. For instance, Jephtha made a rash promise. The higher levels are more inaccessible. Is "sons of Ammon" a code phrase? Are there other code phrases built into that story?
Originally posted by Freddy:
One of the things I love about Swedenborg is that it is not anything mystical, nor does he claim to have opened a door that anyone can open. The claim, which may be true or false, is that it is written revelation pure and simple.
...
In this sense the results are reproducible, because anyone can use this "code" to interpret Scripture in a consistent way.
The effect of the "code", called the "spiritual" or "internal" sense of Scripture, is that it is built around the assumption of an inerrant Bible.
The idea is that every word of the original communicates a coherent, connected message that is directly from God. Some of this message is open and obvious to everyone, and some is cloaked in appearances so as to appeal to those to whom it was given, and to children and others. These appearances are not in themselves strictly accurate or true, but they are given according to a consistent pattern of symbolism which is true when its meaning is understood - the "spiritual" sense.
...
I don't know how unique Swedenborg is in this.
...
quote:I know Swedenborg very well, and it is an entirely different system from Weor's, who is, as the site says, Gnostic.
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
It would be interesting for someone who KNOWS Swedenborg's writings to compare them to Weor.
quote:The Swedenborgian system also does not look to self-realization, but to repentance from evil and service to others as the way to spiritual re-birth. The goal is therefore not nirvana but the heavenly joy that comes with living a productive and loving life - as a way of loving and serving God. This is seen as the the fundamental biblical message.
Luke 16.30 "‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’"
quote:I guess that there are lots of ways to think of it, and lots of meanings to the term "mystical tradition."
Originally posted by Oreophagite:
I'm told that the same mystical tradition can be practiced by anybody who is in God's grace and favor. Even Anglicans.
quote:How about, "The Bible says what it means if we are able to interpret it correctly"?
Originally posted by mdijon:
Your last line was what I was getting at. That if one claims the bible "says what it means" as a form of inerrancy, then that doesn't, to me, seem compatible with "I guess we each have our own answers to that."
quote:Yes. Good point.
Originally posted by mdijon:
Exactly. But I'd not have used the word 'inerrant' to describe the final answer I was trying to get at; if I'm trying to do a sum, it makes more sense to classify my method or answer as 'inerrant' or 'errant', rather than the actual correct solution, were I able to find it.
quote:Isn't this what most people think about their particular traditions?
Originally posted by mdijon:
However, is that really what you think? That all Swedenborg's teachings and the church's subsequent development of them cover the whole message of the bible and are entirely correct and without blemish? And dependably so?
quote:Earthly things?
Originally posted by mdijon:
Doesn't this require considerable faith in earthly things?
quote:I do agree with that. Certainly what I say and teach is not in any way inerrant, nor were my teachers. Or the applications my church organization makes. Or the way members live, etc.
Originally posted by mdijon:
By earthly things I meant us humans who make up the church, write stuff down, interpret it.... granted, with inspiration of the divine... but not the inerrancy of the divine.
quote:My church organization has changed its mind too. I'm sure they all do. But that may just have to do with progress, or its opposite, in understanding the best application of the teachings.
Originally posted by mdijon:
I certainly don't believe my tradition to be inerrant. It's changed it's mind too many times, to start with. The same goes for my take on it. Of course, any particular idea I believe I think is correct at the time... but I know the chances are overwhelmingly high that at least 20-30% is wrong. Up to 60-70% I'd say.
quote:Not in my experience. There are some people on the ship who are like that; they tend to get the most flak and calls to Hell.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Isn't this what most people think about their particular traditions?
Originally posted by mdijon:
However, is that really what you think? That all Swedenborg's teachings and the church's subsequent development of them cover the whole message of the bible and are entirely correct and without blemish? And dependably so?
quote:Well, what else is "Unrest" if not attempting to shake the complacent and certain out of their religious comfort zones?
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Not in my experience. There are some people on the ship who are like that; they tend to get the most flak and calls to Hell.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Isn't this what most people think about their particular traditions?
Originally posted by mdijon:
However, is that really what you think? That all Swedenborg's teachings and the church's subsequent development of them cover the whole message of the bible and are entirely correct and without blemish? And dependably so?
quote:Mousethief, you are right about that. I don't know what I was thinking.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I'm not saying it's a bad thing to shake the complacent. Just that the population here doesn't seem nearly so smug as Freddy wants to say "most people" are.
quote:Jeff, I agree that Christ is not a literalist. But I think that what He chooses to emphasize is consistent with the emphasis of the Old Testament - at least with the emphasis of the Prophets. I certainly agree with what He chooses to emphasize.
Originally posted by PaxChristi:
Actually, I don't see Jesus reading his own Scriptures as a literalist. In fact, he tends to pick and choose the passages to which he gives most authority. He chooses mercy over obedience to law, he chooses forgiveness over judgement/vengeance.
quote:It is interesting that He stopped there, right in the middle of a couplet. Of course He had to stop somewhere.
Originally posted by PaxChristi:
And then he stops. Right in the middle of a verse. In the middle of a Hebrew couplet. He breaks a poetic structure right in half when he leaves off, "And the day of vengeance of our God."
Look it up. Jesus cherry picked his Scriptures, because his Father is not vengeful.
quote:This is interesting Papio - do you feel like unpacking it a bit? Why for you does Conclusion A (finding parts of the bible morally abhorrent, wrong etc) lead inevitably to Conclusion B (reject this faith)? What for you makes the connection between A and B? Really interested in how you see this, as I think a lot of people find bits of the Bible horrible or wrong, but from that extrapolate a whole range of possible conclusions and directions. How does it look to you?
Originally posted by Papio:
Why can't I convince myself that it would be possible for me (I mean no implication for anyone else) to hold to Christinity whilst rejecting some parts of the Bible? Why can't I do it?
Plenty of other people seem to manage it.
Still, the fact that I find some parts of the Bible to be morally aborant, the fact that I consider some parts to just be just plain wrong, means I can't consider any reversal of my rejection of this faith. I wish it didn't, but it does.
quote:Papio, I think that you are right to hold this view. I don't believe that I could hold to Christianity whilst rejecting some parts of the Bible.
Originally posted by Papio:
Why can't I convince myself that it would be possible for me (I mean no implication for anyone else) to hold to Christinity whilst rejecting some parts of the Bible? Why can't I do it?
quote:There is a story about a divorced man who was given a lie detector test; and was asked whether he was married.
Originally posted by Papio:
Why can't I convince myself that it would be possible for me (I mean no implication for anyone else) to hold to Christinity whilst rejecting some parts of the Bible? Why can't I do it?
quote:I certainly don't. It is strange isn't it?
Originally posted by Demas:
If you had never been told that you must accept or reject the entire Bible would it even occur to you to think that way? Do you approach any other collection of documents in that way?
quote:Surely a number of religious texts do this? At the very least the Quran does this, as does the Torah as a stand-alone subset of what we call the "Bible". And the Book of Mormon.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:I certainly don't. It is strange isn't it?
Originally posted by Demas:
If you had never been told that you must accept or reject the entire Bible would it even occur to you to think that way? Do you approach any other collection of documents in that way?
The trouble is that this is the way the biblical books present themselves. They talk about events that are impossible if they aren't genuine miracles, and recount people's conversations with God while claiming complete veracity. Other books don't do this.
quote:As a child growing up in a liberal Christian household, no one ever told me that I had to accept or reject the entire Bible, and the thought certainly didn't occur to me by myself. For me revelation is in the people and their ideas of God (and in particular in Jesus and his idea of God) that the Bible fallibly describes, not in the Bible itself.
So I think that even if I had never been told that I must accept or reject the entire Bible, it would still occur to me to think as Papio is doing. Maybe others see it differently though.
quote:I guess that I do see this "unfolding and expanding view of who God is throughout the Bible rather" also. It's pretty interesting, actually.
Originally posted by Demas:
I don't see the Bible as speaking with one voice but many - in fact I see an unfolding and expanding view of who God is throughout the Bible rather than a "pretty consistent approach from beginning to end".
quote:Demas, I would agree that they are not obviously self-consistent. They often contradict themselves.
Originally posted by Demas:
I guess I don't see the books making up the Bible as being as obviously self-consistent as you do.
quote:I guess I've always had a bit of trouble separating the two. I mean, how can you accept ideas as valid from a source you find fallible? I agree, there's nothing truly "sacred" about the volume itself. It's just a book. That's how I feel about church buildings, too; nothing sacred, just a structure. It's what's inside that makes it remarkable and sacred, if you will. But just the existance of the text, preserved in the format we have, with an obvious sense of continuity and blend and prophecy and revelation, makes it hard for me to conceive that it wasn't all guided by the hand of God.
Originally posted by Demas:
For me revelation is in the people and their ideas of God (and in particular in Jesus and his idea of God) that the Bible fallibly describes, not in the Bible itself.
quote:Grits, it is interesting that it is this way for so many people, and not for so many others. I feel the way that you do. To me it is inconceivable that the Bible might be untrue. And yet I am an Ivy-League-educated skeptic in most areas of life, committed to evidence and what passes for rigorous thinking. No explaining it, I guess.
Originally posted by Grits:
The belief I have in God and the scriptures is independent of any other experience in my life. There is nothing or no one in whom I give such trust and faith. Why? Because there is nothing else I consider above failings or inconsistencies or reliance. It sometimes seems odd that I can be so skeptical and unreliant on everything else in life, and yet be so unswerving convinced and confident in the Bible. It's not really my nature to be so trusting, so it must be supernatural.
quote:As I said in my earlier post, I come from a background that doesn't consider the Bible to be infallible (in fact, didn't consider anything infallible - God Is, but we see him through a glass darkly). So I'm not someone who used to consider the Bible to be one thing, only to reject that view. That's one of the reasons I find Papio's comment interesting - he is seeing a choice I don't see (All the Bible is true vs. None is true).
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:I guess I've always had a bit of trouble separating the two. I mean, how can you accept ideas as valid from a source you find fallible?
Originally posted by Demas:
For me revelation is in the people and their ideas of God (and in particular in Jesus and his idea of God) that the Bible fallibly describes, not in the Bible itself.
quote:Now I could quibble about the language and some of the ideas in this, but it expresses clearly the distinction between the Bible as source and witness - between the revelation of God's nature in Jesus and the witness to Jesus in the New Testament.
[T]he scriptures are only a declaration of the source, and not the source itself, they are not to be considered the principal foundation of all truth and knowledge. They are not even to be considered as the adequate primary rule of all faith and practice. Yet, because they give a true and faithful testimony of the source itself, they are and may be regarded as a secondary rule that is subordinate to the Spirit, from which they obtain all their excellence and certainty. We truly know them only by the inward testimony of the Spirit or, as the scriptures themselves say, the Spirit is the guide by which the faithful are led into all Truth (John 16:13). Therefore, according to the scriptures, the Spirit is the first and principal leader (Rom 8:14). Because we are receptive to the scriptures, as the product of the Spirit, it is for that very reason that the Spirit is the primary and principal rule of faith. (source)
quote:I'm discovering that once you get past the initial disagreements about biblical inerrancy etc, there is a lot of interesting overlap between the modernist tradition that I grew up in and the reformed/fundamentalist tradition. That spirituality is inside us, and not in the building or the bread or wine, a suspicion of symbols and a minimalist visual aesthetic, a wariness about ritual all seem to be in common. I guess it is because the two traditions are historically brothers - coming from a common stock (and family feuds are always the nastiest).
Originally posted by Grits:
I agree, there's nothing truly "sacred" about the volume itself. It's just a book. That's how I feel about church buildings, too; nothing sacred, just a structure. It's what's inside that makes it remarkable and sacred, if you will.
quote:I tend to think that everything is guided by the hand of God; I don't think that God guided the preservation of the text so as to make it inerrant.
Originally posted by Grits:
But just the existance of the text, preserved in the format we have, with an obvious sense of continuity and blend and prophecy and revelation, makes it hard for me to conceive that it wasn't all guided by the hand of God.
quote:At the core of my faith is the belief that the nature of God is revealed in the life and teachings of Jesus. If I were to come to the view that the New Testament was wholly inaccurate or misleading in its description of what Jesus taught about God (as some writers would maintain) then I would certainly have a crisis of faith! I wouldn't call this a 'rejection of the Bible', though. It would be me being dragged kicking and screaming away from it.
Originally posted by Grits:
Do I believe every pronoun and apostrophe and spelling is God-breathed? Not really. I do believe the events recorded are historical events (no, NOT the parables, for Pete's sake.) But I could never "reject" parts of the Bible in the sense it is being discussed here, at least, not and keep my faith.
quote:Personally I would describe my trust as being in the God of Love revealed in and by Jesus and imperfectly witnessed by the writers of the New Testament.
The belief I have in God and the scriptures is independent of any other experience in my life. There is nothing or no one in whom I give such trust and faith. Why? Because there is nothing else I consider above failings or inconsistencies or reliance. It sometimes seems odd that I can be so skeptical and unreliant on everything else in life, and yet be so unswerving convinced and confident in the Bible. It's not really my nature to be so trusting, so it must be supernatural.
quote:Perfect description. I wonder what, if anything, could ever bring one that that "view"? I can't even imagine.
Originally posted by Demas:
If I were to come to the view that the New Testament was wholly inaccurate or misleading in its description of what Jesus taught about God (as some writers would maintain) then I would certainly have a crisis of faith! I wouldn't call this a 'rejection of the Bible', though. It would be me being dragged kicking and screaming away from it.
quote:I almost don't understand this question. Almost, because I might have asked it myself at one point in life. But I don't really understand the "all-or-nothing" stance. I accept ideas as valid from all kinds of fallible sources. I read an scientific article, say, and with no assumptions about the infallibility of the author accept it or reject as it fits with everything else I know. Or conditionally accept it and hie me to the research stacks.
Originally posted by Grits:
I mean, how can you accept ideas as valid from a source you find fallible?
quote:that's what an inerrantist view of Scripture seems to me to be doing. I read my Bible in the light the Holy Spirit gives me. As it's clear to me you do, not least from the humanity of so much of what you post. And true humanity is surely something that proceeds from God, if we take the Incarnation seriously, huh?
No one seems to want to just have faith anymore. We've become too analytical, too intelligent. We have to dig and delve and unearth and compare
between inerrantists and non-inerrantists. It seems to me that faith is one, wherever you find it, and in whichever "camp". God does the same kind of stuff in souls, whatever they think they believe about what the Bible is.
quote:I think I may have posted this before, but not on this thread.
Originally posted by Grits:
What I seem to be discovering more and more, though, is that often the God you feel you don't "know from Jesus Christ" is located in the OT, and I don't think any of us know or will ever know that God. And yes, I know it's a whole other discussion of did God change (I don't believe He did, but the nature of His relationship to man did) after Jesus.
quote:I do too, samara. The thing is that most "fallible sources" don't make the kind of preposterous claims of speaking to God, attesting to miracles, seeing into heaven, and predicting the future that the Bible does. Plus there are all those sayings about "every jot and tittle must be fulfilled."
Originally posted by samara:
quote:I almost don't understand this question. Almost, because I might have asked it myself at one point in life. But I don't really understand the "all-or-nothing" stance. I accept ideas as valid from all kinds of fallible sources.
Originally posted by Grits:
I mean, how can you accept ideas as valid from a source you find fallible?
quote:I have to be honest, Freddy, that with me it falls out exactly the other way. The more closely I study the Bible, the more evident it seems to me that what it actually is is a collection of perspectives on God, often related to, or even derived from, each other, and often affirming the most striking, and counter-intuitive, things about God, but nonetheless, perspectives that are often radically different, contradictory and sometimes completely incompatible. Yet out of all this, God speaks. And this tension, and even flat contradiction, is what means that God speaking out of Scripture, the living enocunter, is the thing, not that what God says is somehow in Scripture.
But the more you get wrapped up in biblical studies the harder it gets to tolerate this tension.
quote:Psyduck, I think that this is just what I'm saying. When you study the Bible closely over long periods of time, it becomes more difficult to say "this particular statement is God Himself speaking. But this statement over here is not." You tend to come to some different idea of synthesis.
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Yet out of all this, God speaks. And this tension, and even flat contradiction, is what means that God speaking out of Scripture, the living enocunter, is the thing, not that what God says is somehow in Scripture.
quote:The interesting thing, though, is that some of what Grits thinks is part of "The Bible", Freddy does not (based on his rejection of the Epistles as scripture). So when Freddy says he accepts it all, he is saying something very different from what Grits is saying when she says it.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Grits, it is interesting that it is this way for so many people, and not for so many others. I feel the way that you do. To me it is inconceivable that the Bible might be untrue. And yet I am an Ivy-League-educated skeptic in most areas of life, committed to evidence and what passes for rigorous thinking. No explaining it, I guess.
Originally posted by Grits:
The belief I have in God and the scriptures is independent of any other experience in my life. There is nothing or no one in whom I give such trust and faith. Why? Because there is nothing else I consider above failings or inconsistencies or reliance. It sometimes seems odd that I can be so skeptical and unreliant on everything else in life, and yet be so unswerving convinced and confident in the Bible. It's not really my nature to be so trusting, so it must be supernatural.
quote:Maybe my comment was misleading, but I am not of that mindset at all either. How could it prove itself? What evidence could it offer?
Originally posted by Grits:
I guess I am just not of the mindset that the Bible has to prove itself, nor offer "evidence". That sends one off in a different direction from faith.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It seems natural to me that there would be a continuing tension between the evident unbelievability of many things in the Bible, and its own interlocking claims of revealed truth.
quote:The stance I am describing is not understanding people saying "all-or-nothing" is the only stance possible. I have not described my stance to the Bible. Having had many perplexing conversations with inerrantists, I want to know what we agree is logically possible before moving on to what our stance on the Bible is.
The way that this seems to go, in my experience, is that it is fairly easy to hold the kind of stance you describe if you don't have to deal that much with the various texts. But the more you get wrapped up in biblical studies the harder it gets to tolerate this tension.
You know, that's always been one of my bugaboos -- how one can feel they have the discernment and the authority to accept or reject certain parts of the Bible. You know my biggest objection to that, though? They want to reject the parts that don't fit their particular theology. I can see where the Epistles would fall into that category.
quote:Right after the moratorium, too. Tsk.
Originally posted by Grits:
Maybe we can "unpack" that a little bit, John. (I've always wanted to say that on the Ship!)
quote:Which is how the biblical canon was established in the first place. Not that I have a beef with the canon -- when I read some of the rejected gospels I could see why they got left out.
Originally posted by Grits:
You know, that's always been one of my bugaboos -- how one can feel they have the discernment and the authority to accept or reject certain parts of the Bible. You know my biggest objection to that, though? They want to reject the parts that don't fit their particular theology.
quote:I guess my situation is the process of determining which bits are going to be ignored or refuted. I just have a real problem with man as editor, you know? Of course, "all or nothing" isn't the only stance possible, but I don't like using the term "logic". My thoughts are that we often try to place too many human standards and procedures on something which, if one believes the Spirit is alive and moving in the scriptures, is totally illogical in and of inself. We just have to be open-minded enough and vulnerable enough to approach it in a completely different way than we do other texts. And I know that can be too difficult for people who do rely on and need proof and logic and analysis. If one part proves untrue to their tests, it just opens the door for fallibility of all the rest.
Originally posted by samara:
The stance I am describing is not understanding people saying "all-or-nothing" is the only stance possible. I have not described my stance to the Bible. Having had many perplexing conversations with inerrantists, I want to know what we agree is logically possible before moving on to what our stance on the Bible is.
quote:It is an awesome responsibility, trying to recognize the Spirit of truth. But it's got to be possible.
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God... You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
quote:I can't believe he did that, and only hours before my big chance. Oh, well. Sine is not the boss of me. (But don't tell him I said that.)
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Right after the moratorium, too. Tsk.
Originally posted by Grits:
Maybe we can "unpack" that a little bit, John. (I've always wanted to say that on the Ship!)
quote:Hi Grits,
Originally posted by Grits:
We just have to be open-minded enough and vulnerable enough to approach it in a completely different way than we do other texts.
quote:But, as a principle, is that not what non-inerrantists are trying to do when they come to the Bible? To see what the Spirit of God is saying through a text which, I would argue, never claims inerrancy for itself*. It's not that we edit the text, determining which bits are OK and which are not. It doesn't work like that, IMO. Rather, it's a matter of encountering the risen Lord by the Holy Spirit through the scriptural record. The whole concept of "editing" scripture, as you perceive non-inerrantists doing, seems to me uncomfortably like treating the bible as a rule book, rather than a place in which such encounters can occur. In a way, whether the Bible was inspired in its' writing is of lesser objective importance than whether it is inspired in its' reading.
I like what John says:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God... You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is an awesome responsibility, trying to recognize the Spirit of truth. But it's got to be possible.
quote:Grits, I wouldn't exactly say that I reject the Epistles. My denomination takes the Epistles as the (essentially true) doctrine of the early church. The only thing I disagree with in Paul is a few of his statements about marriage - that the husband is the head of the wife and that it is better to remain single than to marry.
Originally posted by Grits:
I guess I've missed the part about Freddy rejecting the Epistles. So, what parts does he accept?
quote:That's right. As a Swedenborgian my canon is defined by Swedenborg, just as a Lutheran canon might have been defined by Luther or the Catholic canon by the Catholic Church. There are a number of different versions of the canon in Christianity. Swedenborg claims he got it from God, just as we trust that the councils that determined the canon early on were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Originally posted by Grits:
You know, that's always been one of my bugaboos -- how one can feel they have the discernment and the authority to accept or reject certain parts of the Bible. You know my biggest objection to that, though? They want to reject the parts that don't fit their particular theology. I can see where the Epistles would fall into that category.
quote:Sorry, Samara, I misunderstood what you were saying. You had said:
Originally posted by samara:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It seems natural to me that there would be a continuing tension between the evident unbelievability of many things in the Bible, and its own interlocking claims of revealed truth.
I do not think I disbelieve any of the things you think I disbelieve. I suspect we're talking past each other entirely.
quote:The stance I am describing is not understanding people saying "all-or-nothing" is the only stance possible. I have not described my stance to the Bible. Having had many perplexing conversations with inerrantists, I want to know what we agree is logically possible before moving on to what our stance on the Bible is.
The way that this seems to go, in my experience, is that it is fairly easy to hold the kind of stance you describe if you don't have to deal that much with the various texts. But the more you get wrapped up in biblical studies the harder it gets to tolerate this tension.
quote:I took this as your agreement with Demas, so my comments were really more directed at what he was saying. I apologize.
Originally posted by samara:
quote:I almost don't understand this question. Almost, because I might have asked it myself at one point in life. But I don't really understand the "all-or-nothing" stance. I accept ideas as valid from all kinds of fallible sources. I read an scientific article, say, and with no assumptions about the infallibility of the author accept it or reject as it fits with everything else I know. Or conditionally accept it and hie me to the research stacks.
Originally posted by Grits:
I mean, how can you accept ideas as valid from a source you find fallible?
My attitude to the Bible is not this cavalier, but surely, at least in other circumstances, this idea of weighing evidence is not strange to anyone?
quote:Sorry to take a while to come back to this thread, but I think Demas has hit the nail on the head. Of course, I am aware that it isn't rational but that was what i was saying. What I know rationally about certain interpretations of certain verses of the Bible and where they *may* have gone wrong, is different from the way I feel about it all. There is a certain amount of dissonance between what I know in my head and what I "know" in my heart, but to be honest I think maybe I shouldn't have posted as I am not really presenting, or trying to present, a cold, rational arguement.
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:There is a story about a divorced man who was given a lie detector test; and was asked whether he was married.
Originally posted by Papio:
Why can't I convince myself that it would be possible for me (I mean no implication for anyone else) to hold to Christinity whilst rejecting some parts of the Bible? Why can't I do it?
"No", he said.
But the polygraph showed that he was lying.
One researcher asked "Why is it showing that he's lying? He knows that he is divorced."
The other researcher explained: "He's Catholic, so in his heart he still believes he is married, the poor bastard".
If you had never been told that you must accept or reject the entire Bible would it even occur to you to think that way? Do you approach any other collection of documents in that way?
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
I too want to use the word 'unpack' in defiance of Sine's moratorium.
quote:That's almost too existential for me, but I'll give it a try. Can I answer that it's probably a bit of both? I feel it is most definitely a foundational belief, but I'm not sure if the "approach" aspect is the correct impression I meant to give about it. I don't want to perpetuate the concept that I "turn off my brain" in regards to any analysis regarding the Bible. I don't, and believe me, in my 50+ years, I have been on every side of just about every perspective. (I remember announcing to my mom when I was a teenager that my friends and I were just going to start our own church some day... so there!) However, I also have a total belief in allowing the Spirit to let the scriptures speak to me, and I have never gotten a "wrong" answer. I don't think there's any other facet of life in which I have such confidence and peace. I'm not completely sure what you mean about "other beliefs" that affect this.
Is your belief that the Bible must be approached differently from other texts a foundational belief for you, or is it something you conclude must be true from other beliefs?
quote:Yes, I agree with this, although I'd think that leads to the fear of discounting any portion as it might contain something important! I don't consider the Bible as a rule book, but I certainly consider it to be a guide. I would never argue that every pronoun, every verb tense, every name and location is right on the money -- and according to your point, that doesn't really matter, as it is the sum of the words that provide the underlying message. I still wonder, though. why so many believe in an inspired reading and not an inspired writing.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But, as a principle, is that not what non-inerrantists are trying to do when they come to the Bible? To see what the Spirit of God is saying through a text which, I would argue, never claims inerrancy for itself*. It's not that we edit the text, determining which bits are OK and which are not. It doesn't work like that, IMO. Rather, it's a matter of encountering the risen Lord by the Holy Spirit through the scriptural record. The whole concept of "editing" scripture, as you perceive non-inerrantists doing, seems to me uncomfortably like treating the bible as a rule book, rather than a place in which such encounters can occur. In a way, whether the Bible was inspired in its' writing is of lesser objective importance than whether it is inspired in its' reading.
quote:I'm sure you are familiar with the writings contained in the books which Luther deleted. I guess I've never thought they showed much similarity to other biblical writings. Do you? Are they historical? Certainly. Accurate? Mostly, I imagine. I know they were also set in OT times, so they would be more non-essential to salvation, anyway, I suppose.
Originally posted by John Holding:
Now I'm not an inerrantist, so it isn't really as big a deal for me what's in and what's out, but how do you regard, say, I Maccabees, or Sirach?
Bible? or not?
And if not, why did Luther (and his followers) get to change the definition of what was and what was not "in the bible", and what was and what was not inerrant?
quote:I can't speak for everyone, but I believe in both. It's just that what most inerrantists mean by inspired writing is not the same as what I mean. So it's hard to communicate at all, sometimes.
Originally posted by Grits:
I still wonder, though. why so many believe in an inspired reading and not an inspired writing.
quote:A third is, is there a hierarchy of sorts within the authoratative written divine revelation, or are all parts on equal footing? Orthodoxy in a sense "values" the gospels more than the epistles, but both are seen as Holy Writ.
Originally posted by Freddy:
In other words, there are two different questions here. One is whether there is such a thing as authoritative written divine revelation. The other is whether this or that particular piece of writing is part of that authoritative written divine revelation. We can agree about the one without agreeing about the other.
quote:Thanks, Alexis, that is interesting.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
A third is, is there a hierarchy of sorts within the authoritative written divine revelation, or are all parts on equal footing? Orthodoxy in a sense "values" the gospels more than the epistles, but both are seen as Holy Writ.
quote:I don't mean to sound rude, but why?
Originally posted by Freddy:
In my denomination the theological writings of Swedenborg are viewed as divine revelation and authoritative on the same level as Scripture. The writings of the early church, and the decisions of councils, by contrast, are not seen that way at all, only as individual fallible opinions which may or may not be true.
quote:Cheesy, do you mean why accept Swedenborg, or why consider the writings of the early church, and the decisions of the councils, to be fallible?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I don't mean to sound rude, but why?
Originally posted by Freddy:
In my denomination the theological writings of Swedenborg are viewed as divine revelation and authoritative on the same level as Scripture. The writings of the early church, and the decisions of councils, by contrast, are not seen that way at all, only as individual fallible opinions which may or may not be true.
quote:Both I suppose. Most Christians would be very wary about holding anything up to be authoritative on the same level as Scripture.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Cheesy, do you mean why accept Swedenborg, or why consider the writings of the early church, and the decisions of the councils, to be fallible?
Assuming the first, I guess that it is because I have read the books and think that they offer explanations of the Bible and Christian doctrine that hang together as a consistent and rational system. I imagine that most of us feel the same way about whatever system we have accepted.
quote:YOur test of "It would be in everyone's bible" is, IMO, a difficulty.
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:I'm sure you are familiar with the writings contained in the books which Luther deleted. I guess I've never thought they showed much similarity to other biblical writings. Do you? Are they historical? Certainly. Accurate? Mostly, I imagine. I know they were also set in OT times, so they would be more non-essential to salvation, anyway, I suppose.
Originally posted by John Holding:
Now I'm not an inerrantist, so it isn't really as big a deal for me what's in and what's out, but how do you regard, say, I Maccabees, or Sirach?
Bible? or not?
And if not, why did Luther (and his followers) get to change the definition of what was and what was not "in the bible", and what was and what was not inerrant?
John, my very simplistic reasoning has always been the belief that God would not withhold any pertinent text from us, and that if it belongs in the Bible then surely it would be in everyone's Bible. I mean no disrespect to those who include the Apocrypha in their teachings, so I hope this doesn't read that way. If it does, I apologize.
quote:That is true of the Sola Scriptura crowd, but both Catholicism and Orthodoxy elevate the writings of the church fathers, the decisions of councils, and the decrees of the Pope to a high level of authority.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Both I suppose. Most Christians would be very wary about holding anything up to be authoritative on the same level as Scripture.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Cheesy, do you mean why accept Swedenborg, or why consider the writings of the early church, and the decisions of the councils, to be fallible?
Assuming the first, I guess that it is because I have read the books and think that they offer explanations of the Bible and Christian doctrine that hang together as a consistent and rational system. I imagine that most of us feel the same way about whatever system we have accepted.
quote:Ummm -- the Apochrypha are OT, not NT, so by definition, like Isaiah and Jeremiah, their authors could not have been apostles. Not sure how your bottom line works with the OT.
Originally posted by Grits:
Well, I suppose the fact that I don't support canonization of any kind (other than the sainthood that all believers receive) makes it easy for me, actually. My thoughts on it all would have to precede Luther by centuries, when the original texts were being pulled together -- the Septuagint, gospels, epistles of Paul, etc.
I suppose it all boils down to authorship. If one feels, as I do, that the only true apostles, the only men who truly received and carried the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit were the original 12 and Paul, that pretty well clenches the texts we'd consider valid. I actually think that is the bottom line for some people; at least, it is for me.
quote:Exactly, which is why I made this statement earlier:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Ummm -- the Apochrypha are OT, not NT, so by definition, like Isaiah and Jeremiah, their authors could not have been apostles. Not sure how your bottom line works with the OT.
quote:I guess I'm just trying to say that I would be much more concerned if Luther had succeeded in throwing out apostle-written, NT texts. But he didn't, and I believe there is much meaning in that.
I know they were also set in OT times, so they would be more non-essential to salvation, anyway, I suppose.
quote:Maybe this would be a good time for me to query what, if any, changes in the plan of salvation would be involved if one did include all these excluded volumes?
Everyone agreed until Luther that Sirach was scripture in the same way Job, Proverbs and Psalms were. Most Christians today still accept that Sirach is scripture in this way. So if Luther could exclude Sirach (not because of authorship, but because of a misunderstanding about the relationship between the Septuagint and the much later masoretic text), who can exclude what for any other reason -- and how binding on Christians are these exclusions. And how can we tell today what might turn out tomorrow not to have been scripture at all -- like those poor deluded christians before Luther who didn't know Sirach wasn't scripture -- or, indeed, all those poor deluded christians after Luther who deny his authority to define scripture and still consider Sirach to be scripture.
quote:[/b]
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:Exactly, which is why I made this statement earlier:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Ummm -- the Apochrypha are OT, not NT, so by definition, like Isaiah and Jeremiah, their authors could not have been apostles. Not sure how your bottom line works with the OT.
quote:
I know they were also set in OT times, so they would be more non-essential to salvation, anyway, I suppose.
quote:One would then be inclined to ask what would be lost of God's plan of salvation if one decided to rule out parts of Exodus (chapter 33 I think it is comes to mind), or some of Proverbs (the ones that comment on how important it is to charge high enough rates of interest to ensure the lender gets a good pay-back) or either (but not both) of Kings (1+2) and Chronicles (1+2), or for that matter any 2 of the minor prophets just about chosen at random -- I'm really not sure how much of God's plan is revealed only in Zephaniah, for example.
quote:Maybe this would be a good time for me to query what, if any, changes in the plan of salvation would be involved if one did include all these excluded volumes?
[qb]Everyone agreed until Luther that Sirach was scripture in the same way Job, Proverbs and Psalms were. Most Christians today still accept that Sirach is scripture in this way. So if Luther could exclude Sirach (not because of authorship, but because of a misunderstanding about the relationship between the Septuagint and the much later masoretic text), who can exclude what for any other reason -- and how binding on Christians are these exclusions. And how can we tell today what might turn out tomorrow not to have been scripture at all -- like those poor deluded christians before Luther who didn't know Sirach wasn't scripture -- or, indeed, all those poor deluded christians after Luther who deny his authority to define scripture and still consider Sirach to be scripture.
quote:Actually, that post was about biblical writing in general, not the Apocrypha specifically.
Originally posted by John Holding:
Fair enough, except that you were the one to introduce the issue of apostolic authorsihip in a discussion about the Apochrypha.
quote:Right... but I didn't say that anything not pertaining to salvation should be excluded. I said that I would be much more concerned if Luther had succeeded in throwing out apostle-written, NT texts. But he didn't, and I believe there is much meaning in that. Don't you think God has had an active hand in preserving the Bible through the generations? I do.
One would then be inclined to ask what would be lost of God's plan of salvation if one decided to rule out parts of Exodus (chapter 33 I think it is comes to mind), or some of Proverbs (the ones that comment on how important it is to charge high enough rates of interest to ensure the lender gets a good pay-back) or either (but not both) of Kings (1+2) and Chronicles (1+2), or for that matter any 2 of the minor prophets just about chosen at random -- I'm really not sure how much of God's plan is revealed only in Zephaniah, for example.
quote:I think I've said almost the same thing many times before. However, that principle can only apply to what one is presented as holy text. The issue of Luther and the omitted texts is centuries old. I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. Apparently, what Luther did wasn't this. I don't believe God would allow a valid portion of His word to be "man-handled" in such a way.
You see the problem is that one one starts excluding bits one doesn't like or doesn't feel necessary (and why are they not necessary, if not to you, perhaps to someone else 500 years ago or in the future), one is setting oneself as the judge and arbiter of what is scripture. Saying to oneself -- that bit matters because I think it reveals something of God's plan, but I think that part doesn't because right now sitting here I don't think it does that -- is in my view making oneself the judge over and of scripture.
quote:I don't believe we're supposed to "play with" the scriptures, but I do believe it has to be a conscious, individual decision and acceptance, based solely on personal revelation by the Holy Spirit. My salvation, nor my reading of the word, is dependent on no one but myself. True understanding can only come through the Spirit, and I believe in direct revelation. I don't believe in earthly "go-betweens". I believe we are all called.
And when one does that, calling scripture "inerrant" is meaningless, and its authority is made nil -- because it ceases to be something apart from the individual and becomes something the individual can play with and use or ignore at will.
quote:I actually think He wanted every individual to do that. I just don't want anyone else making those kind of spiritual decisions for me.
I'm a lot more comfortable with accepting the judgement and experience of the church about what writings were revelations of God's will. Making that kind of decision is, in my view, one of the things Christ wanted the church to do.
quote:Here again, you're actually referring to acceptance by established councils, canons, church fathers, etc. Also, I would have to take exception to the statement that every Christian was reading and following these writings for 1,200 years and allowed Luther to throw them out. There's no way you can make me believe that. People wouldn't stand for that now; I don't believe they would have then -- unless it was meant to be. It's been over 1,200 years since they were omitted. too.
And I really would like an answer to my question about how anyone can have any assurance in what is and what is not scripture if individuals can decide to throw out bits for sincere reasons but based on false information -- or just because the feel like it -- if enough people are willing to take their word for it. It would seem to me that agreeing some bits are not scripture after 1,200 years of them being accepted as such is playing some awefully nasty games -- if true, it means that those who believed for 1,200 years were wrong and cruelly misled. And that's a judgement I'd be loath to make about someone else's faith, when it was based on what everyone knew and agreed at the time.
quote:You assert that the same standards which I place on some who seem to discount portions of the traditional Bible should and/or could also be placed on Luther or any other Christian patriarch who "tampered" with the text. Once again, however, that only holds true if one believes the discarded texts were sacred, and I don't. I know you know the arguments -- They were written in Greek, not Hebrew. They don't claim inspiration. They were never embraced by the Jews. They were not included in the very earliest scriptural collections. They contain unusual tales and principles which contradict other biblical beliefs. That -- along with my belief that God would not have allowed the putting aside of inspired scripture -- is what gives me confidence in my faith in the Bible.
It means that a Roman Catholic, for example, can say the Bible is inerrant, referring to part of Sirach, while you, saying the same thing, mean it is not -- and you believe the epistles are inerrant while someone else may not -- and, indeed, you (and I FWIW) may believe parts of the Gospels are inerrant while others may not. And yet we might all be saying, quite sincerely, that "the bible is inerrant".
quote:With both of you, I'd say I believe in inspired writing and reading, but we probably don't mean the same thing by "inspired." Later on in this discussion, Grits said --
Originally posted by samara:
quote:I can't speak for everyone, but I believe in both. It's just that what most inerrantists mean by inspired writing is not the same as what I mean. So it's hard to communicate at all, sometimes.
Originally posted by Grits:
I still wonder, though. why so many believe in an inspired reading and not an inspired writing.
quote:-- and I thought, that's it, that's the difference. I don't think of "inspiration" as being "intervention." I think of inspiration as being pretty normal, something that happens all the time, whereas I get the idea that Grits' idea of inspiration is a lot more elevated and outside the norm. I think my idea of inspired writing is colored by my idea of inspired reading -- if we can reasonably petition God to inspire us every time we read the Bible, it's a pretty ordinary thing, though of course extremely valuable. But not something unusual. And so I think of inspired writing kind of the same way -- not as something rare, but as something many people can reasonably ask for quite regularly.
Almost every group has some written texts or creed that specifies rules about beliefs, worship, etc. that they tend to turn to even above and beyond the Bible itself. One would have to believe in divine intervention for those writings, as well, I would imagine.
quote:That is a good insight, Ruth. I guess that a lot of us think in terms of things like Moses on Mt. Sinai - discrete, dramatic, miraculous pronouncements.
Originally posted by RuthW:
and I thought, that's it, that's the difference. I don't think of "inspiration" as being "intervention." I think of inspiration as being pretty normal, something that happens all the time, whereas I get the idea that Grits' idea of inspiration is a lot more elevated and outside the norm.
quote:Very subtle, Freddy.
Originally posted by Freddy:
...to other books where the writer appears to be stating his own opinion.
I know that's how many people think of Paul and his writings. I see Paul as an apostle ordained by Christ Himself to continue and spread His mission, and I have to believe that his hand and words were guided as much as those of the gospel recorders.quote:And, of course, more well-known passages like: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty... And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
quote:I don't know about "inerrantist theology", but most of the people I know would not base the accuracy of the scriptures on the writer's actual involvement in the events he recorded. I think they believe the intervention is such that it is more a spiritual retelling than a "statement". I think that's kind of what you're saying here, too.
Originally posted by Psyduck:
A lot of inerrantist theology sounds to me like it was written by cops taking statements, and assessing potential witnesses. I think we need to grasp that the Biblical concept of "witness" is much richer than, and maybe not much to do with, The Bill, or Cagney and Lacey.
quote:They were counted in when the canon was set -- sometime in the 4th century as I recall. Luther read them out in the middle of the 16th century. What do you mean you don't believe they were there? What do you mean, they were omitted 1,200 years ago? Those statements are simply historically not true.
Originally posted by Grits:
I would have to take exception to the statement that every Christian was reading and following these writings for 1,200 years and allowed Luther to throw them out. There's no way you can make me believe that. People wouldn't stand for that now; I don't believe they would have then -- unless it was meant to be. It's been over 1,200 years since they were omitted. too.
quote:Because these assertions have proven to be more than slightly dubious. FOr example, there are Hebrew texts of some of them. FOr another, they were embraced by the Jews of Jesus' time and the church of the same time. The masoretic text to which I think you refer was set several decades after the church began, and was controversial in Judaism for some time. I'm not sure that we should take the judgement of an admittedly anti-Christian Jewish council as definitive of what Christians should believe is scripture, especially when Christians of the time disagreed. FOr a third, some of the canonical OT embraces tales at least as strange and unusual as are found in the OT.
I know you know the arguments -- They were written in Greek, not Hebrew. They don't claim inspiration. They were never embraced by the Jews. They were not included in the very earliest scriptural collections. They contain unusual tales and principles which contradict other biblical beliefs.
quote:The obvious comment is "which bible". The bible of most christians includes them. And the bible of some other christians excludes some of what you (and I) include.
That -- along with my belief that God would not have allowed the putting aside of inspired scripture -- is what gives me confidence in my faith in the Bible.
quote:I think you are right. There was alwqays some dispute over those books (famously Jerome didn't like them at all)
Originally posted by Grits:
I would have to take exception to the statement that every Christian was reading and following these writings for 1,200 years and allowed Luther to throw them out. There's no way you can make me believe that. People wouldn't stand for that now; I don't believe they would have then - unless it was meant to be. It's been over 1,200 years since they were omitted. too. .
quote:And that's exactly my point. I don't think they were part of the very earliest scriptural texts. And those who attempt to follow the pattern of the NT church wouldn't veer off at this point to pick them up, as they would not be under the authority of the canon.
Originally posted by John Holding:
They were counted in when the canon was set -- sometime in the 4th century as I recall.
quote:That is my error. I should have said 400 years ago. I picked up the 1200 figure from the other statement. I'm not sure about your query regarding me not believing they were there.
Luther read them out in the middle of the 16th century. What do you mean you don't believe they were there? What do you mean, they were omitted 1,200 years ago? Those statements are simply historically not true.
quote:Is that true? I'm not doubting you, it's just something I've never thought about. It's just not in my life experience. That makes me wonder again: What difference in the plan of salvation does the inclusion or exclusion of those books make? I have worshipped with literally thousands of people in my life, none of whom have any acquaintance with these texts. What do you think that means to their spiritual condition?
And I would remind you that the vast majority of Christians didn't and don't read them out -- only a few in northern europe did.
quote:Then I guess it all goes back to what one chooses to believe. For every point, there seems to be a counter-point. My "valid" is your "dubious", and so on. But that's OK -- we wouldn't have much to discuss otherwise, eh?
Because these assertions have proven to be more than slightly dubious. FOr example, there are Hebrew texts of some of them. FOr another, they were embraced by the Jews of Jesus' time and the church of the same time. The masoretic text to which I think you refer was set several decades after the church began, and was controversial in Judaism for some time. I'm not sure that we should take the judgement of an admittedly anti-Christian Jewish council as definitive of what Christians should believe is scripture, especially when Christians of the time disagreed. FOr a third, some of the canonical OT embraces tales at least as strange and unusual as are found in the OT.
quote:I see your viewpoint here.
The obvious comment is "which bible". The bible of most christians includes them. And the bible of some other christians excludes some of what you (and I) include.
And the other is that God does seem to allow all sorts of things that appear to my limited eyes to go against the easy way of achieving his will -- I see no reason to suppose that he would have stopped Luther erring in this way, when most christians did not follow Luther in this error.
quote:I suppose an example of this is the geneaologies of Christ in Matthew and Luke which don't marry up and which were probably, in large part, made up.
A lot of inerrantist theology sounds to me like it was written by cops taking statements, and assessing potential witnesses. I think we need to grasp that the Biblical concept of "witness" is much richer than, and maybe not much to do with, The Bill, or Cagney and Lacey.
quote:He didn't need no stinkin' baptismal registers. He was God's own dictophone! And so was Luke! God has spoken. It's up to us to wrestle with the Gospel and push and shove it into a shape that we can sincerely say has no contradictions 'cuz ipso facto God would never contradict himself.
Matthew must have had access to baptismal registers and all those names must have been real people.
quote:And if we're talking about a Virgin Birth, well - what's the point?
I suppose an example of this is the geneaologies of Christ in Matthew and Luke which don't marry up and which were probably, in large part, made up.
quote:...but he still gives the genealogy! Or maybe we should see it as part of one hell of a CV for a childminder...
Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli...
quote:You could do that by telling a story where Alfred is noble and distinguished.
Originally posted by Callan:
But I don't think that ancient genealogies were that scientific. Alfred the Great, for example, claimed to be descended both from Wotan and our Lord's cousin (which means our own dear Queen...), I don't think this was taken terribly literally but it is meant to tell a story about Alfred being noble and distinguished.
quote:There is no of course about it! Propositions are one form words may take. Not the only form, most certainly not the only meaningful form. What kind of claim is this?
Words written meaningfully are, of course, propositions.
) and I find that on the odd occasion I've used "of course" or some such, I seem to have been driven to add a footnote substantiating what I say.
quote:He shoots... HE SCORES!!!
I was a little puzzled by the jump from oracles to propositions.
quote:'Delphic' is, of course(!), a synonym for ambiguous. Apart from the case of King Croesus mentioned above the other famous instance is that of King Laius of Thebes who was warned that his son would murder his father and sleep with his mother. Laius promptly gave orders to have the child exposed, setting in motion the chain of events that would lead to his death and Oedipus' marriage to his mother Jocasta.
And Callan, I was also puzzled by the oracles=revealed truth. I can't think of any cases where oracles are clear propositional statements. It not being my area of study, this could be my ignorance, but it seems very strange.
quote:I think you're probably right Psyduck. Maybe that's why the word "fulfill" is so common in the New Testament.
Originally posted by Psyduck:
[Slap of gauntlet being thrown down.] I don't think it's possible to adopt a propositional view of revelation which doesn't degenerate* into an understanding that ultimately revelation is the Bible and not Jesus Christ.
*assuming that's not where it actually starts!
quote:If Jesus is "the way, the truth, and the life" it seems as if He must "propositional" - although I'm not sure what that means.
Originally posted by samara:
Is it possible for a person to be propositional? I think that's the "and not." On the other hand, it doesn't seem any less likely to me than considering a literary communication propositional.
quote:He is the truth, He bears witness to the truth, the truth sets us free. There is an intimate relationship here between Jesus as the Word and the truth itself that creates and reforms the world.
John 18.37 For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.
quote:Psyduck, you slapped down this "gauntlet" months ago without really explaining your point. You seem to be responding to the Knox article that you linked several posts up.
Originally posted by Psyduck:
[Slap of gauntlet being thrown down.] I don't think it's possible to adopt a propositional view of revelation which doesn't degenerate* into an understanding that ultimately revelation is the Bible and not Jesus Christ.
*assuming that's not where it actually starts!
quote:On the face of it, the Fourth Gospel claims to include the testimony of "the disciple who Jesus loved" and that his testimony is a true witness to what Jesus said and did. The book seems to me to imply that these are divine words, direcxt frm Jesus the Logos incarnate. So the book claims to contain God's word to us.
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
With the exception of the prophets, it seems unlikely that very few would have thought that they were writing divinely inspired words.
quote:I'm not entirely sure the intention of the original authors is all that relevant to the question of inerrancy. It's conceivable that God could speak directly through human authors who are unaware of this happening; they think they're just dashing off a quick note to a friend, yet God could still be using that note as a means of speaking his word. That, of course, doesn't in anyway address the question of whether that message from God (however conveyed through human agents) is necessarily inerrant.
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
One aspect of this which interests me (and which I am not aware has been discussed much) is what the various authors thought that they were doing.
With the exception of the prophets, it seems unlikely that very few would have thought that they were writing divinely inspired words.
quote:That is, of course, very true. However, it strikes me as being rather odd that people should be so "deceived" in this way by God. "You thought that you were writing a letter to friends, but actually you were writing God's infallible words"
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's conceivable that God could speak directly through human authors who are unaware of this happening; they think they're just dashing off a quick note to a friend, yet God could still be using that note as a means of speaking his word.
quote:Of course the writers intentions are part of the overall picture. The distinction I think is with one word added to the last sentance of your first paragraph. "You thought that you were writing a letter to friends, but actually you were also writing God's infallible words" Though, maybe not with the 'infallible' in there - that presupposes something about the nature of the words of God; are they infallible or inerrant? The evangelical would affirm the 'infallible', though not necessarily the 'inerrant'. Other Christians may feel no need for either word to apply to the words of God.
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:That is, of course, very true. However, it strikes me as being rather odd that people should be so "deceived" in this way by God. "You thought that you were writing a letter to friends, but actually you were writing God's infallible words"
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's conceivable that God could speak directly through human authors who are unaware of this happening; they think they're just dashing off a quick note to a friend, yet God could still be using that note as a means of speaking his word.
That seems to me to be taking us dangerously close to the kind of theories about "divine dictation" which Christianity has (on the whole) always steered clear of - where the writers are little more than living pens. Surely the writers' intentions must be part of the overall picture?
quote:Like Baranbas62, I have not reviewed this whole thread. To paraphrase Freddy: that’s the longest thread I’ve ever seen... Indeed, Freddy is one of the few consistent runners on the thread and has made some valiant efforts to resolve the issue; maybe he can summarise!
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm re-opening this thread to provide an opportunity to re-visit this long running topic, in view of discussions in a current Kerygmania thread.
quote:That's a good point. As I think I've already said on this thread (I've certainly said it repeatedly over the years), when I read the 1 Tim verse that says Scripture is "God-breathed" I can't help but draw parallels with the Garden of Eden narrative where God breathes into the clay man to give him life. That is, rather than "God-breathed" being a past event where God inspired someone to put something into writing, "God-breathed" becomes a statement that God has taken existing writings and given them life. It's not just a past event, but an ongoing God-breathing as He speaks into lives today when Scripture is read, expounded on, and practiced.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
the bible expresses its function more in terms of activity, not state (which smacks more of Greek philosophical debates rather than biblical). The bible says more about what is does than about what it is.
quote:Which, it seems to me, is a concise way of saying what I said, and disagrees with what Ed Form was saying.
We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.
quote:Ken,
Originally posted by ken:
CSBI said:
quote:Which, it seems to me, is a concise way of saying what I said, and disagrees with what Ed Form was saying.
We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.
quote:Then we'd have to accept the good Samaritan and the prodigal son as real people. And that people could not only have specks of dust in their eyes, but large roof beams as well.
Originally posted by Nigel M:
This argument appears to be reflected in the Christadelphian statement on the bible, linked to by Barnabas62 in his last post, were it says:
" Christ is linked with the prophet Jonah (in Matthew 12:40, for example) and even with the first man, Adam (1 Corinthians 15:22). If you take the story of Christ as true then you must accept the stories of Jonah and Adam."
quote:What does it mean to encounter God in an interpretation of scripture?
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Barnabas, earlier you were talking about bases for believing in inerrancy and I think you might have missed one.
Is it possible that some people are using direct experience? That is, they believe they have encountered God in inerrancy-based interpretations of scripture more fully than in other modes?
quote:I spent a few happy hours today trying to imagine MT as the fourth member of the trinity, just so I could sleep safe in the knowledge that Frodo did, indeed, lose a finger in real space-time.
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Jesus quoting Jonah no more proves he thinks it's historical than my quoting The Lord of the Rings means I think there really was a guy named Frodo who dropped a ring in a volcano.
quote:Ken, please! Surely the Song of Songs is a picture of Christ and the Church?!
Originally posted by Ken:
Do we have to take the Song of Solomon as a historical account of a particular love affair?
quote:Hey! I quite like this harmonisation-from-different-sources thing after all!
Originally posted by MouseThief, Balaam & Ken:
It's inane.
Just because Jesus said it, it doesn't mean he took it literally.
But tough. That's the way the Bible is.
quote:I'm not entirely sure, I'm kind of groping around the edges of an idea.
Originally posted by MouseThief:
What does it mean to encounter God in an interpretation of scripture?
quote:From personal experience, I believe we can draw a distinction which the Barthian neo-orthodox draw. What God reveals is God, not propositional truth about Himself. The difference may be illustrated by example. Adrian Plass observes that many folks go to church having heard a rumour that God forgives. Reading that in the bible may constitute awareness of a propositional truth. The experience of forgiveness is another matter. The story of the Prodigal Son may become very real and very personal. Literature becomes life.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Barnabas, earlier you were talking about bases for believing in inerrancy and I think you might have missed one.
Is it possible that some people are using direct experience? That is, they believe they have encountered God in inerrancy-based interpretations of scripture more fully than in other modes?
quote:Thanks. It's the only approach that makes sense to me.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Good post, nurks. Very up-front and sincere.
quote:I like that.
Originally posted by nurks:
I believe the Bible inasmuch as it speaks of a good God who will make all things well. Bits that suggest otherwise, I reinterpret or reject.
quote:In particular the phrase "that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed" gives sufficient room to allow a wide range of flaviours of inerrancy, and I would take a small bet that many of the signatories no more believed in the literal Garden of Eden, Jonah being swallowed by a fish etc, than I do.
Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.
quote:This is an excellent comparison. Life is full of similarly apparent contradictions, from Newtonian physics to unconditional love. The Bible's portrayal of God as jealous and violent falls neatly into that category, in my opinion. I believe that understanding this phenomena helps to reconcile many things about religion.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
this startling revelation didn't mean that I branded my grandmother a filthy liar and stopped trusting her.
quote:That seems to me to be a covert abandonment of the doctrine of inerrancy. I think the Bible achieves that measure of focussed truth which God intended us to have. I'm not an inerrantist because of the errors of fact which appear to be compatible with that.
A key statement in the Chicago definition is:
quote:In particular the phrase "that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed" gives sufficient room to allow a wide range of flaviours of inerrancy, and I would take a small bet that many of the signatories no more believed in the literal Garden of Eden, Jonah being swallowed by a fish etc, than I do.
Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.
quote:It not only says that scripture is inspired (naturally it wasn't part of scripture at the time it was written) but also what scripture was inspired for.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 (New International Version - UK)
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
quote:It seems so to me too, Callan. In which case, why not abandon the "i" word completely, and go for something more descriptive of their real beliefs, such as "inspired" or even, a la Bruce, "true". Is it merely a means of preventing those of more fundamentalist persuasion from breaking fellowship with them? If so, is there not a certain amount of duplicity on display here.
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Anteater:
quote:That seems to me to be a covert abandonment of the doctrine of inerrancy. I think the Bible achieves that measure of focussed truth which God intended us to have. I'm not an inerrantist because of the errors of fact which appear to be compatible with that.
A key statement in the Chicago definition is:
quote:In particular the phrase "that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed" gives sufficient room to allow a wide range of flaviours of inerrancy, and I would take a small bet that many of the signatories no more believed in the literal Garden of Eden, Jonah being swallowed by a fish etc, than I do.
Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.
quote:(emphasis mine). ISTM that the truth conveyed by scripture can often be transmitted in spite of or even in the face of the (human) authors' intentions. The book of Ezra springs immediately to mind as a stark reminder of how, even with the best intentions, we can get it wrong.
achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.
quote:While I do take it as axiomatic, it also makes logical sense to me.
Originally posted by anteater:
I'm interested in what leads people to the rather odd view that a particular set of writings is infallibly correct.
Are you able to explain why you believe that? Or is it the case that you just take it as axiomatic?
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Saytr:
I'm interested in what leads people to the rather odd view that a particular set of writings is infallibly correct.
Are you able to explain why you believe that? Or is it the case that you just take it as axiomatic?
quote:"A storm-like atmosphere" is a metaphor, containing a simile. You're not literally reporting on the atmosphere.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Essentially and for practical purposes, metaphor is a direct comparison in which one element of the comparison is used to elucidate meaning. eg a tempestuous exchange (acrimonious.)
Originally posted by Dafyd:
With a metaphor, it's not always straightforward to restate literally.
Simile is the same thing only the comparison is indirect using 'like' or 'as.'eg a storm like atmosphere round the dinner table.
quote:
If it was a person we were talking about I'd agree with you; but consider where does that kind of attitude get you? God is not genocidal. 'Man,' if he did the same thing would be. That kind of category error somehow seeks to judge God on our terms and we simply are not in the position of knowledge or power to do it.
quote:Where does that kind of attitude get me? Is that the right question to ask? I'm sure it leads me to a better place than being cool with mass slaughter of innocents, if nothing else.
Originally posted by JRR Tolkien
'How shall a man judge what to do in such times?'
'As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'
quote:Why would you want to go back? Something that is demonstrably foolish will continue to be foolish, whether you are "back" or not.
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's entirely up to you mate.
And anadromously, how can one be sophisticatedly inerrantist about the God revealed in Jesus ordering the genocide of the Amalekites through His most faithful prophet Samuel?
I used to be able to do it.
Lost the knack.
Is there a way back?
quote:No. Only forwards. But you don't walk alone.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Is there a way back?
quote:Love the Tolkien quote.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
On the Darwin thread, Jamat said:
quote:
If it was a person we were talking about I'd agree with you; but consider where does that kind of attitude get you? God is not genocidal. 'Man,' if he did the same thing would be. That kind of category error somehow seeks to judge God on our terms and we simply are not in the position of knowledge or power to do it.quote:Where does that kind of attitude get me? Is that the right question to ask? I'm sure it leads me to a better place than being cool with mass slaughter of innocents, if nothing else.
Originally posted by JRR Tolkien
'How shall a man judge what to do in such times?'
'As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'
quote:No, you're not right. You're claiming that you can simply discriminate between bits of the Bible that are literal descriptions and bits that are metaphorical descriptions, without reference to independent knowledge (e.g. classical astronomy, modern evolution, basic botany). And in order to do this you have to put forward a theory of metaphor and simile that is not true.
Originally posted by Jamat:
So the point of all this is? Or do you just want me to tell you you are right? You are, but so am I in this instance. Can we leave it there?
quote:Whatever.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:No, you're not right. You're claiming that you can simply discriminate between bits of the Bible that are literal descriptions and bits that are metaphorical descriptions, without reference to independent knowledge (e.g. classical astronomy, modern evolution, basic botany). And in order to do this you have to put forward a theory of metaphor and simile that is not true.
Originally posted by Jamat:
So the point of all this is? Or do you just want me to tell you you are right? You are, but so am I in this instance. Can we leave it there?
quote:Don't we all, inerrantists, errantists, newbies, elders, theologians, atheists....?
Originally posted by Jamat:
Are you not just selectively choosing what you want to justify?
quote:That must be one if the worst teachings I've ever read. Combination of "don't worry your pretty little head about things you cannot understand" and " Yes, he beat other women horrifically, but marry him anyway because they deserved it".
Originally posted by Jamat:
Cary Article if anyone interested.
quote:From your link:
Originally posted by Jamat:
... Are you not just selectively choosing what you want to justify?
quote:So it's all the word of God, with some words being more equal than others. Glad that's settled.
... (re: the Old Testament commandments:)
We read them and believe them to be the Word of God, but we don't try to put all of them into practice.
quote:You may possibly know this but there were
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:From your link:
Originally posted by Jamat:
... Are you not just selectively choosing what you want to justify?
quote:So it's all the word of God, with some words being more equal than others. Glad that's settled.
... (re: the Old Testament commandments:)
We read them and believe them to be the Word of God, but we don't try to put all of them into practice.
quote:God doesn't change, of course.
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Isn't there a big difference between the God of the OT and the God of the NT?
quote:No - and there's more wrath and judgement in the NT than the OT details here
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Isn't there a big difference between the God of the OT and the God of the NT?
quote:You are right Boogie about us. We are terribly subject to fashion, intellectual and otherwise. But God as Leo points out to be God must be consistent despite this. Of course if he is a creation of human subjectivity then all bets on consistency are off. One of the problems for the latter view is what to do with inconvenient texts in scripture since it remains quite stubborn in its assertions. The problem becomes how to make scripture line up with our latest PC version of what God should be like.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:God doesn't change, of course.
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Isn't there a big difference between the God of the OT and the God of the NT?
But our perception of God changes all the time. For example, the prophets and priests in the OT each had very different views of God.
Anything written of God is from human perspective - so we can't expect consistency or inerrancy, either Biblical or otherwise.
We have to use our own wisdom and sense to decide what is right.
quote:Why are you to so determined that figurative and literal are mutually exclusive cast iron categories? That particular bone was never my choice of battle ground. ( sorry for mixing the metaphors.) If you want to look at inconsistencies that's fair enough. What inconsistencies particularly bug you?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
PC version of God. That appears a bit dismissive of the very real inconsistencies in the bible that many sincere Christians struggle with.
If the Bible is literal, God is an insecure, petulant, ineffective bastard. This judgement is rendered by the only resources we puny humans have with which to engage anything.
And, as you have admitted there are parts of the bible which are figurative, you purported approach is not literal. You are very much choosing which bits you like and which you don't.
quote:I think you've got this the wrong way round. If God is a creation of human subjectivity then inconsistency is very easy to deal with. It's simply a case of what each human writer felt a god ought to be like. Then it's easy to dismiss what they say as the spoutings of a bigot on a bad day. (Yes, and bigots often say the same things; modern politics shows how they cling together.)
Originally posted by Jamat:
Of course if he is a creation of human subjectivity then all bets on consistency are off. One of the problems for the latter view is what to do with inconvenient texts in scripture since it remains quite stubborn in its assertions.
quote:But that totally depends on what you mean by inerrancy. Incidentally,if you want to be very afraid of someone's beliefs you'd be better to target the jihadist lot, people with a real track record of intolerance, violence and genocide.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:I think you've got this the wrong way round. If God is a creation of human subjectivity then inconsistency is very easy to deal with. It's simply a case of what each human writer felt a god ought to be like. Then it's easy to dismiss what they say as the spoutings of a bigot on a bad day. (Yes, and bigots often say the same things; modern politics shows how they cling together.)
Originally posted by Jamat:
Of course if he is a creation of human subjectivity then all bets on consistency are off. One of the problems for the latter view is what to do with inconvenient texts in scripture since it remains quite stubborn in its assertions.
It's when you are taking the inerrancy route that you have a problem. Then you have the difficulty of: an apparently genocidal god; that you believe really did order these things; that you still consider worthy of worship; who should be the exemplar of human behaviour; but nevertheless we are expected to believe that you are not a physical threat to the rest of society.
quote:Well, that's silly. Biblical inerrantists believe that genocide, to paraphrase Will Cuppy, was morally acceptable around 1000 BC but not before or since. There are arguments against that (to put it politely) but I don't worry about the likes of Jamat crying havoc and letting slip the Dogs of War. I think that genocide is always and everywhere wrong but if someone tells me that God made an exception to that rule 3000 years ago, I may scratch my head in puzzlement but I feel no need to regard them as a physical threat to society.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:I think you've got this the wrong way round. If God is a creation of human subjectivity then inconsistency is very easy to deal with. It's simply a case of what each human writer felt a god ought to be like. Then it's easy to dismiss what they say as the spoutings of a bigot on a bad day. (Yes, and bigots often say the same things; modern politics shows how they cling together.)
Originally posted by Jamat:
Of course if he is a creation of human subjectivity then all bets on consistency are off. One of the problems for the latter view is what to do with inconvenient texts in scripture since it remains quite stubborn in its assertions.
It's when you are taking the inerrancy route that you have a problem. Then you have the difficulty of: an apparently genocidal god; that you believe really did order these things; that you still consider worthy of worship; who should be the exemplar of human behaviour; but nevertheless we are expected to believe that you are not a physical threat to the rest of society.
quote:Your legendary ramblings are sometimes comprehensible but not on this occasion.
Originally posted by Martin60:
You say they are.
quote:Not at all.
Originally posted by Jamat:
The problem becomes how to make scripture line up with our latest PC version of what God should be like.
quote:We're used to this particular bit of belittling, to be honest. We get it a lot. If it's PC to have issues with genocide, then it seems to me that PC is a damned good thing. What's the alternative? Being cool with mass slaughter? No thanks.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
PC version of God. That appears a bit dismissive of the very real inconsistencies in the bible that many sincere Christians struggle with.
quote:I am not even sure where we could get an inerrant interpretation. Catholics rightly point out that, if you want inerrant interpretation, you have to have an inerrant church teaching authority (a.k.a Pope), and not just an inerrant book. An inerrant book is useless as the source of inerrant truth without an inerrant reader/interpreter.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Boogie is right. The proper question is not whether scripture is inerrant, but which interpretations of it are errant. And I'd suggest that head of the errant list are those which start with the 6 day Creation and move forward from there.
quote:Just so long as you include the real chance that Christians have shown that they can also be just as "intolerant, violent and genocidal", and that within living memory, if not actually at this moment. All they need is for one sect or cult to get a modicum of political power. Not all "jihadis" are Muslim, so stop throwing mud at other people.
But that totally depends on what you mean by inerrancy. Incidentally,if you want to be very afraid of someone's beliefs you'd be better to target the jihadist lot, people with a real track record of intolerance, violence and genocide.
quote:What? personal aspersions? I wish you well Horseman Bree and also Karl who has read 'belittling' into something I said.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Quoth Jamat: [QUOTE] stop throwing mud at other people.
quote:I do not really get the issue as these things are contextual. I wouldn't quibble about the difference between a Mosaic injunction and Jesus' admonition as I think Moses is superseded by him. Nevertheless, there are lots of places we can find inconsistencies. I think the issue is how we deal with them.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Inconsistencies Jamat?
How about Kill your disobedient children v. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?
Or genocide of the infidels v. The Good Samaritan?
quote:For all practical purposes I agree with you Boogie. Most of the time we look at our own moral radar and the scripture and maybe some discussion and we get where we want to go. The problem is when that isn't enough. Many have their traditions to fall back on at this point I suppose.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Not at all.
Originally posted by Jamat:
The problem becomes how to make scripture line up with our latest PC version of what God should be like.
The task is to work out what God is like and what is right from our own judgement and from what other people say. That includes the writers of the Bible.
There are many people we can turn to for help with this, of course - but none of them are infallible or inerrant.
'Tis the nature of life as a human - life is uncertain in every respect. Once we accept that we are half way towards working out how to live our lives.
<speelung>
quote:I still don't understand what your beef is Martin.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Good, so you have no problem with the literal - evolution - and the figurative - Genesis.
quote:That's just silly. There is no inerrancy in any human regardless of your's or their assertion about it.
Originally posted by MSHB:
I am not even sure where we could get an inerrant interpretation. Catholics rightly point out that, if you want inerrant interpretation, you have to have an inerrant church teaching authority (a.k.a Pope), and not just an inerrant book. An inerrant book is useless as the source of inerrant truth without an inerrant reader/interpreter.
If you don't want to submit to a pope and his interpretation, then errancy seems to be the only alternative. Of course, many Protestants prefer to submit to popes, but they call their popes "Pastor".
But yes, some interpretations seem more errant than others, and those interpretations that ignore the possible range of literary types and insist that every passage of the Bible be treated as eye-witness historical record (e.g. Genesis 1-3) are candidates for top place on the errancy list.
quote:What is it then? words of one syllable would help. You already know I believe Adam was real as we need him for Christ to be real. I have no problem with people believing in evolution if they want to. It is the biggest metaphor of the last 2 centuries IMV. Do I have any other problems in your view? if not then cheers and a joyous festive season to you.
Originally posted by Martin60:
I don't have one. You do.
quote:Why is that Martin? I have stated that figurative does not in my view preclude literal. They are not mutually exclusive ( except to some of the iconoclasts round here.)
Originally posted by Martin60:
We don't. You do. So you have to declare the literal truth a lie.
quote:What is the logic behind that statement?
Originally posted by Jamat:
You already know I believe Adam was real as we need him for Christ to be real.
quote:That is a fairly insane, could you unpack it?
Originally posted by Jamat:
I have no problem with people believing in evolution if they want to. It is the biggest metaphor of the last 2 centuries IMV.
quote:Thanks Martin.
Originally posted by Martin60:
'strewth Gee D! I see how you could easily link what I said to your comment, but look up.
quote:Surely it is obvious. Base on NT Pauline theology Christ is both the first man and the last Adam. Unpacking that particular piece of metaphorical, midrashic thinking, Christ is consequently the bridge between the old creation and the new. He is the first of a completely different kind of man the new creation and through faith he includes in himself those who believe. Thus Paul can talk about those in Adam, the old order and those in Christ, the new. Now my view is that Adam has to be a real man for Christ's function as the new man to also be real which is the real reason I don't buy evolution. However, the idea of evolution has actually become a huge cultural metaphor for change. The concept of evolution is linguistically really useful.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:What is the logic behind that statement?
Originally posted by Jamat:
You already know I believe Adam was real as we need him for Christ to be real.
quote:That is a fairly insane, could you unpack it?
Originally posted by Jamat:
I have no problem with people believing in evolution if they want to. It is the biggest metaphor of the last 2 centuries IMV.
quote:Well Martin, IMV if there is a literal story of evolution there can be no literal story of salvation in Christ.
Originally posted by Martin60:
What is the literal story of evolution metaphorical of?
quote:Why didn't I think of that?
Originally posted by L'organist:
Jamat
You need Adam to have been real for Christ to have been real - fine, you're entitled.
But you can't then argue that my goddaughter is in error because she believes in the Tooth Fairy, and needs for TTF to be real for the money to be real.
Thoughts?
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Well Martin, IMV if there is a literal story of evolution there can be no literal story of salvation in Christ.
Originally posted by Martin60:
What is the literal story of evolution metaphorical of?
quote:There you go. Also if evolution is true it is unlikely our stubbornness, pride and cruelty would have been positive traits in natural selection. (Don't worry Martin,your irony is not in vain.)
Originally posted by Martin60:
Not if we evolved surely?! If we evolved then we didn't sin originally. It's not our fault. It's no ones fault. So we don't need Jesus. But we do, so we didn't evolve.
Logic init.
quote:NO shocker, but your words do indicate a lack of understanding of the mechanics of natural selection and the dynamics of human interactions.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:There you go. Also if evolution is true it is unlikely our stubbornness, pride and cruelty would have been positive traits in natural selection. (Don't worry Martin,your irony is not in vain.)
Originally posted by Martin60:
Not if we evolved surely?! If we evolved then we didn't sin originally. It's not our fault. It's no ones fault. So we don't need Jesus. But we do, so we didn't evolve.
Logic init.
quote:You seem to be missing several significant points. Some of them might be:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Also if evolution is true it is unlikely our stubbornness, pride and cruelty would have been positive traits in natural selection.
quote:Do you get even the theory of natural selection?
... if evolution is true it is unlikely our stubbornness, pride and cruelty would have been positive traits in natural selection.
quote:Not sure about that. The stubbornness of people who continually do the same thing and expect different outcomes was somebody's definition of insanity - and not evolutionarily advantageous. And there is a difference between necessary force and gratuitous malice - which is what I think of as cruelty. As for pride, well that's so loaded a word that it could be good bad or indifferent in terms of our survival as a species.
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Jamatquote:Do you get even the theory of natural selection?
... if evolution is true it is unlikely our stubbornness, pride and cruelty would have been positive traits in natural selection.
In a setting where a group (or species) is either under threat or is having to compete for resources, food, etc, with another group or species, then stubbornness is one of the key qualities that is needed: the ability to persist in attempts to secure the scarce, fought-over commodity is going to be vastly preferable to any sense of fairness or willingness to concede to others.
Similarly, pride can also be put to good use in the pursuit of a hard to achieve goal.
As for cruelty, in situations where it may come down to kill-or-be-killed, individuals who are prepared to exert physical pressure, cruelty, perhaps death, are far better equipped to survive than those more inclined to support fair-shares-for-all.
quote:This is followed by Fred Clark developing the idea, in relation to the evangelical need to be sure that everyone is saved by the One True interpretation of the Bible (which happens to be theirs, and history be damned)
Which is this: If your are going to accept the burden of being of Protestant, of living with sola scriptura, then you are going to have to learn to welcome doctrinal diversity.
If you want to be biblical you're going to have to reconcile yourself to pervasive interpretative pluralism. That's life being biblical. Being biblical requires a fair amount of tolerance for doctrinal diversity. Being biblical means creating a big tent.
So if you want to be biblical--if you want to go sola scriptura and drop the magisterium--then you are morally obligated to assume the burden and responsibility of welcoming the doctrinal diversity you will create.
The alternative is to be delusional, pretending that opening the bible brings everyone to a consensus. Unfortunately, that just doesn't happen. And pretending otherwise just sets you up to be judgemental and condemnatory. It tempts you into using the word "biblical" as a weapon.
In the end, if you're going to be biblical you're going to have to learn to be tolerant.
quote:
Their answer is that we have the blessed assurance that the Holy Spirit will guide us in understanding the Bible correctly, if only we devoutly open ourselves to such spiritual guidance. If we turn to the Bible with pure hearts and the best of intentions, then the Spirit will not allow us to go astray.
That sounds lovely, at first. It seems for a moment to be a devout expression of evangelical piety and the kind of intensely personal devotion it can produce. But then, once it sinks in that this idea is a response to the inescapable fact of interpretive pluralism, you begin to realize that it isn’t lovely at all. It’s actually just a sanctimonious euphemism for a really vicious and nasty accusation being made against every other Christian or group of Christians in every other place and time.
Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2015/01/12/interpretive-pluralism-doesnt-require-tolerance-as-long-as-youre-willing- to-accuse-everyone-else-of-wicked-intent/#ixzz3OfEcx6ao
quote:I think that is correct. I think of it as an aid to relationship. One of the problems with creating a systematic theology is the decontextualisation of the Jewishness at the heart of the OT. We see the Greek thinking in the NT but forget about the Jewish story of the OT. One eg is the word logos=Greek 'written word' but the concept behind it isn't Greek at all so in a sense Orfeo's right. So much is lost in translation.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This. If the Bible is God's "word" to us, in any sense, then clearly one thing God isn't that bothered about is a clear, unambiguous, systematic theology.
quote:AKA having your cake and eating it too.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
At the same time, as you can see from Tyndale, there was a full recognition that human language is a rich business involving all kinds of artistic devices like metaphors and other figures of speech, literary conventions of the day, and so forth, which, as Tyndale points out, involves interpretation - of a straightforward commonsense kind.
quote:Or in other words, there's really just one interpretation, and it's yours. The rest deviate from it by not taking it literally.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
'Clear and straightforward' doesn't necessarily mean 'dumb wooden literal', of course. Human language, spoken or written, can have considerable literary artistry and use all kinds of metaphors and other figures of speech, literary devices, and literary conventions of the day. So yes, you'll need to do some 'interpretation'; but that doesn't mean you can make it mean whatever you like. Only a quite limited range of interpretations will be truly plausible and credible, and it's likely they will be pretty much pointing in the same direction, just in varying degrees of how literally you take it.
quote:Wow that's one hell of a Straw Man. I'm thinking you've also got some black-or-white thinking going on here. Either we agree with your interpretation, within certain allowable room for variation, or we think the Bible can mean anything one likes. Do you allow for any other positions?
I recall in the 1960s we would often hear 'liberal' theologians spouting stuff like mousethief's comments above, about how you can make the Bible mean whatever you like.
quote:There's a weasel word in there. Anybody else see it? I don't mean the insult. I mean the weasel word.
Until mousethief proves otherwise by producing a book of credible alternative interpretations of the biblical teaching on sexuality, I'm afraid I'm going to ignore what he wrote as simply a confusing smokescreen avoiding the real issues....
quote:I would be very annoyed of Croesos were illogical. I'd think it was the apocalypse. I often disagree with him, but he is seldom illogical.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Which is also why I was more than a bit annoyed with the illogicality of Croesos' misrepresentation of my attitude to biblical interpretation.
quote:This reasoning is a convenient dodge also as it means you can bypass any author's intention. You are saying there is no escape from contingency,that we must necessarily read via a post modern lens AKA meaning in an objective sense ceases to exist and one "interpretation" has no more authority than another. This in turn gives us the power to make God's word OUR word.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[QUOTE]It is a convenient dodge that allows for a God who conveniently has the same prejudices as the "interpreter
quote:Not simple, not at all. Just pointing out that the post modern view of text is itself an interpretive device that claims the status of a truth story. It enables the reader to say what the text means in a subjective way and it enables the critic of text or particular reading of it to say "Your interpreting, you must be.We all do."
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The "author's intention"? It would more accurately be the authors' intentions. And as the authors were human, one has to look into what preconceptions/intentions the Word was filtered through. If it truly were such a simple thing as you and SL present, there would not be so many variations of interpretation.
quote:Among our many weapons...
Re the Bible, you can really only do two things to counter this. One is to have an accepted interpretive authority like Catholicism does. The other is to have a set of interpretive principles accepted which is pretty well the same thing the issue being who is the authority who sets and polices them.
The last option is to not have a sacred text which is inviolate
by definition. However, to do this is to throw the Bible out and deny its provenance is it not which we do when we say it is in error rather than inerrant?
quote:Isn't the standard Christian belief that Jesus, not the Bible, is God's Word? I'm pretty sure I've also heard a Christian teaching somewhere that God actually gave that Word to the world, making it "ours", in the general sense. So what, exactly, is your objection to this?
Originally posted by Jamat:
This in turn gives us the power to make God's word OUR word.
quote:Among our many weapons...
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:Yes, ""In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God" "I and the Father are one" "If you have seen me you have seen the Father" "God..has in these last days spoken to us in his son."
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Isn't the standard Christian belief that Jesus, not the Bible, is God's Word? I'm pretty sure I've also heard a Christian teaching somewhere that God actually gave that Word to the world, making it "ours", in the general sense. So what, exactly, is your objection to this?
Originally posted by Jamat:
This in turn gives us the power to make God's word OUR word.
quote:Both Jesus and the Bible are the word of God in slightly different senses. Jesus constantly quotes scripture as spoken by God and in Mark 7; 13 he explicitly calls a scripture "the Word of God" when he refers to the 'scribes and Pharisees' as
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Isn't the standard Christian belief that Jesus, not the Bible, is God's Word? I'm pretty sure I've also heard a Christian teaching somewhere that God actually gave that Word to the world, making it "ours", in the general sense. So what, exactly, is your objection to this?
Originally posted by Jamat:
This in turn gives us the power to make God's word OUR word.
quote:In fact there are few references to Jesus as 'the Word of God' and they are mostly from John, who seems to have been making a particular theological point related to a pagan use of 'Logos' to mean something like 'divine reason'.
making void the word of God through your tradition
quote:And Secondly;
quote:Look, guys, whatever may be the case with some modern writings, when you're talking about ancient writings (in this context stuff more than about two centuries old, and especially anything pre-printing), you can take it as pretty certain that things were only written down because they were considered important, and the writers would aim to be as clear and understandable as possible and to minimise possible misunderstanding.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Because there's no such thing as "the biblical teaching on sexuality." The Bible says a lot of things about sexuality, many of them contradictory with one another, or with other things the Bible says about people in general.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Naturally I believe that the biblical teaching on sexuality is the 'TRUTH™'. Why shouldn't I?
What there are, are people's interpretations of the Bible on the topic (topics, really) of sexuality. And you agree with one of them, one of them so self-aggrandizing as to call itself THE Biblical teaching on sexuality.
This is just another example of the problem of people who think they are reading the Bible without an interpretation, that they (and they alone, in some instances) are reading what's REALLY THERE, and not through the lens of this or that. News flash: it's simply not possible. Every statement of "what the Bible says" is an interpretation read through a specific lens or set of lenses. Even on the topic of sexuality.
Remember back then writing materials were a scarce luxury, and your writing implement clumsy and slow by modern standards. I recall as a kid at junior school being taught 'joined-up writing' with an old-fashioned 'dip pen'; that was bad enough, quills and such would be even harder. You don't do that kind of thing just for fun.... Ditto copying; you weren't going to boringly copy stuff unless it was considered worthwhile – or order multiple copies unless you considered the copies worth the considerable scribes' fees.
So one of the 'interpretative lenses' you can apply to old writings is that they are likely to have a fairly clear and straightforward meaning and minimal range of credible alternative meaning. The aim would have been communication, not confusion....
'Clear and straightforward' doesn't necessarily mean 'dumb wooden literal', of course. Human language, spoken or written, can have considerable literary artistry and use all kinds of metaphors and other figures of speech, literary devices, and literary conventions of the day. So yes, you'll need to do some 'interpretation'; but that doesn't mean you can make it mean whatever you like. Only a quite limited range of interpretations will be truly plausible and credible, and it's likely they will be pretty much pointing in the same direction, just in varying degrees of how literally you take it. Other interpretation, no matter how much you might wish them to be true, will be basically incredibly and implausibly strained and stretched if not downright tortured, and rather than adopt and rely on such 'interpretations' it would be more honest to just admit you disagree with the writer.
I recall in the 1960s we would often hear 'liberal' theologians spouting stuff like mousethief's comments above, about how you can make the Bible mean whatever you like. When seriously pressed it generally turned out that the product of such interpretation was so vague as to be useless and basically amounted to making Christianity up to suit themselves while hanging on to enough cosy, vague and sentimental biblical quotes to superficially claim to still be Christian. Often if pressed to interpret specific passages the 'liberals' would have to admit that the actual credible and plausible interpretation was also the traditional/evangelical interpretation, and that the liberals' real problem was not of multiple and confusing and contradictory interpretations, but rather that the credible interpretations were quite straightforward and obvious – and not what the liberals wanted to believe, not in agreement with their wishful thinking.
Until mousethief proves otherwise by producing a book of credible alternative interpretations of the biblical teaching on sexuality, I'm afraid I'm going to ignore what he wrote as simply a confusing smokescreen avoiding the real issues....
quote:So I move from you illogically misrepresenting me in one thread to you illogically misrepresenting me on another... though to be fair, I think Gamaliel has quite a bit to do with this misinterpretation....
by Croesos;
[QUOTE]
The bit about "clear and straightforward" Bible translation was my attempt to twit Steve Langton (who uses the exact phrase "clear and straightforward") on his hobby-horse about the Bible being clear and not needing any kind of interpretation. That if the Bible says "righteous", it means exactly that in the sense the term is understood by modern speakers of idiomatic English.
quote:For full understanding note that in those days the 'literal' sense did not mean 'dumb wooden literalism'. It comes from the then idea of scholars of a 'fourfold sense' in which the 'literal' sense meant something on the lines of 'read the Bible like an ordinary book' as distinct from more exotic senses like the 'allegorical' or 'prophetic'. The Reformers felt that the results of allegorical etc. while exotic, were also often unhelpful and were used to dubiously bolster dodgy Catholic interpretations. In asserting the 'literal' sense they were saying that that 'plain' or 'ordinary book' sense was primary and that the more exotic and spectacular 'senses' should not be allowed to override, obscure or contradict the plain sense.
“Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the scripture hath but one sense, which is the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave, thou canst never err or go out of the way. And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but go out of the way. Nevertheless the scripture uses proverbs, similitudes, riddles or allegories, as all other speeches do; but that which the proverb, similitude, riddle or allegory signifieth, is ever the literal sense, which thou must seek out diligently.”
quote:Well there's a muddle - do you really think I only use the KJV or only English translations? Although I'm not fluent in NT/'koine' Greek, I do in fact use an 'interlinear' Greek/English version which gives me the Greek text with the English word-for-word under the Greek, and I further use a Greek/English dictionary.
That if the Bible says "righteous", it means exactly that in the sense the term is understood by modern speakers of idiomatic English.
quote:I think it's one of my points in the long quotes above that there are really no 'special' rules for biblical interpretation - or insofar as there are, they're pretty much just detailed adjustments of rules used in interpretation generally.
I think there are acknowledged rules that apply but not sure where they originate.
quote:That's probably why hermeneutics is such a complex field of study then.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
[QUOTE] [b]
Interpreting the Bible is basically like interpreting other literature. [/qb]
quote:I'm suggesting that your responses to my efforts have perhaps implied a not entirely accurate impression of what I'm really saying....
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Hey, I'm being blamed for something here ... what 'misinterpretation' is it that I'm supposed to be responsible for?
If there's any misinterpretation going on then I disclaim any responsibility.
Anyone who has Mousethief down on the same page as a 1960s liberal theologian or who thinks that all old and venerable writings are clear and easy to understand because quills and parchment were such a luxury that they weren't going to mess around ... or who thinks that Tyndale's view of the scriptures doesn't need any qualification or 'unpacking' is clearly perfectly capable of misinterpreting things for themselves ...
If it was the case that the ancients only wrote in a clear and understandable style then all we'd have would be 'how to' manuals from Ancient Greece and elsewhere ('How to form a Democracy ...' 'How to form a Quincunx on the battle-field ...') rather than the beguiling and intriguing and infinitely confusing texts that scholars have argued about for centuries.
quote:In the original context of that phrase "the literal sense", it did mean/include allowing for different genres as well as figures of speech, 'riddles' etc. You specifically pick out 'apocalyptic' - ordinary readers are likely to realise they are reading a vision with symbolic elements. Those who don't have generally committed themselves a priori to an idea of 'literal reading' which is actually anything but 'reading the Bible like an ordinary book' - and indeed, with sad irony, is usually not how they themselves would read (or write - see 'Left Behind') ordinary books other than the Bible.
Second, there's the problem that some parts of the Bible are not "ordinary books" to modern readers. Some of them are examples of an extinct literary genre modern readers would have encountered nowhere else. Telling readers with no experience with a particular literary genre to read a book in that genre as they would any other book would seem to be either asking the impossible or setting them up for a series of errors and mistakes.
quote:The original writers and their contemporaneous readers would have shared the same conceits, concepts and understandings that modern readers from existing cultures do not.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Their original readers would have grasped the meaning, or at worst would have seen a fairly narrow range of alternatives.
quote:The Spirit would then be incompetent given the various paths His followers have wandered down.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Christians do recognise the Bible as a collection; we believe we have good reason to regard it as a collection with a considerable 'unifying factor' in the work of the Holy Spirit. Even without that it is clear that there was enough common purpose to make it a unified collection rather than totally disparate; it is at least reasonable to read it as a unified and connected collection and see if it makes sense when you do so.
quote:I think it was actually the weapons and poison gas salesman Donald Rumsfeld.
(Bush the first?)
quote:Yes, it was indeed Donald Rumsfeld.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
quote:I think it was actually the weapons and poison gas salesman Donald Rumsfeld.
Originally posted by mousethief:
lilBuddha knocks it out of the park here. We cannot read the Scriptures the way the original recipients did. We do not have their background information. To quote somebody-or-other (Bush the first?), we don't even know what we don't know.
quote:This reminds me of an incident I witnessed during a history class on the Second World War. One of the students questioned how FDR, Churchill, and Stalin could form an alliance given how different their various perspectives were. The teacher responded that necessity makes strange bedfellows. Another student gave an audible gasp and asked "You mean they were all gay?!?" There followed an explanation of the idiom in question. If idioms aren't universal within the same culture and language, it seems unlikely that they can be easily recognized across gulfs of time, culture, and language.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Even when something seems very clear and obvious, we don't know that it wasn't a figure of speech known to the people of the time, but which has been lost.
quote:Or as someone else once put it, the Bible is not a paper Pope.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Who can distinguish between these interpretations? Refuting them from the Bible itself treads on the toes of petitio principii. Conclusion: the Bible is not self-interpreting.
quote:Oooh, hadn't heard that but it's a good one. Must try to remember and use in future.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Or as someone else once put it, the Bible is not a paper Pope.
quote:From the mouths of stopped clocks....
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Mousethief:quote:I think it was actually the weapons and poison gas salesman Donald Rumsfeld.
(Bush the first?)
quote:I like the 'Filtered Camels' - I prefer the explanation I heard while at Uni from a young Greek Cypriot brought up in the Orthodox Church. Apparently in early texts it's not a 'kamellos/camel' but a 'kamilos/cable' and what Jesus was really saying was that getting a rich man into heaven would be like threading a ship's hawser through a sewing needle. Mousethief may know more about that one.... But the camel is definitely funnier!
And that's not even taking in to account the way the present sometimes invents idioms for the past.
quote:Still the same thing: an impossibility. Instead of this plain reading, Christians will still manage to read a loophole into what is an indictment of wealth.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Apparently in early texts it's not a 'kamellos/camel' but a 'kamilos/cable' and what Jesus was really saying was that getting a rich man into heaven would be like threading a ship's hawser through a sewing needle. Mousethief may know more about that one.... But the camel is definitely funnier!z
quote:And where was I saying it was anything other than an "indictment of wealth"?
Still the same thing: an impossibility. Instead of this plain reading, Christians will still manage to read a loophole into what is an indictment of wealth.
quote:The point is that you "know (I) understand that" precisely because a lot of what I write shows that I don't in fact adopt the simplistic view you keep trying to foist on me.
I know you understand that, but the way you write about such things seems to imply that we somehow approach these texts in glorious isolation.
quote:Essentially I don't think God would instruct us to perform acts of cannibalism, and eating literal flesh and drinking literal blood would appear to be a spiritually irrelevant act.
Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink of his blood, you have no life within you.
quote:The same Jesus who spoke v 17
10 And having called near the multitude, he said to them, `Hear and understand: 11 not that which is coming into the mouth doth defile the man, but that which is coming forth from the mouth, this defileth the man.' 12 Then his disciples having come near, said to him, `Hast thou known that the Pharisees, having heard the word, were stumbled?' 13 And he answering said, `Every plant that my heavenly Father did not plant shall be rooted up; 14 let them alone, guides they are--blind of blind; and if blind may guide blind, both into a ditch shall fall.' 15 And Peter answering said to him, `Explain to us this simile.' 16 And Jesus said, `Are ye also yet without understanding? 17 do ye not understand that all that is going into the mouth doth pass into the belly, and into the drain is cast forth? 18 but the things coming forth from the mouth from the heart do come forth, and these defile the man; 19 for out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, whoredoms, thefts, false witnessings, evil speakings: 20 these are the things defiling the man; but to eat with unwashen hands doth not defile the man.' Matt 15:10-20 (YLT)
quote:is surely unlikely to have made a strong point about any kind of literal eating of his body and drinking his blood.
do ye not understand that all that is going into the mouth doth pass into the belly, and into the drain is cast forth?
quote:Which could hardly more emphatically affirm that a crass 'literal flesh' meaning is wildly inappropriate, and that what's really important is to believe and follow his words, incorporating them into our lives!
the spirit it is that is giving life; the flesh doth not profit anything; the sayings that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life; John 6:63 (YLT)
quote:Because they don't matter. As Christians, the Bible is meant to inform how we live our lives and think about God. Who gives a crap about ferreting out difficult passages of Plato? I mean besides professional philosophers, bless their woolly toes. But Plato is not for us the Sword of Truth. He's not even a pen knife of truth. For living the Christian life, he doesn't matter a jot. Scripture does. So we have to make sure we're interpreting it properly, because it matters.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Precisely because it is a human product, written with an intent of being understood, understanding is not as hard as you're trying to make out, or as improbable as you're trying to make out. I don't hear many people making similar difficulties about Plato, Sophocles, Julius Caesar, and other ancient authors.
quote:So say you and other really-low-candle Protestants. The high-candle churches say this refers to the Eucharist, in which we mystically partake of the flesh of Christ and the blood of Christ, and cross-reference it to Christ's words at the Last Supper, which are so important that (other than "it is better to give than to receive") they are the only words of Christ quoted by St. Paul.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
<mighty snip> what's really important is to believe and follow his words, incorporating them into our lives!
quote:QED!!
mystically
quote:As I pointed out myself in my quote from Tyndale, actually; like Gamaliel you seem determined to foist on me things which are denied by my actual statements.... Just I take a positive view of the possibilities of biblical interpretation, you seem for some reason to be taking an excessively negative view of what that means.
The Bible is not self-interpreting.
quote:I asked you first. Don't dodge.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Mousethief;
quote:As I pointed out myself in my quote from Tyndale, actually; like Gamaliel you seem determined to foist on me things which are denied by my actual statements.... Just I take a positive view of the possibilities of biblical interpretation, you seem for some reason to be taking an excessively negative view of what that means.
The Bible is not self-interpreting.
Question is, what's your alternative? So far you're being destructive - as is Gamaliel - but not offering a solid alternative....
quote:QED my ass. Do you know what "mystical" means? Marriage is both physical and mystical. The fact that it's mystical doesn't make it not physical.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Mousethief;
quote:QED!!
mystically
quote:At what's already late I'm not going to spend a lot of time double-checking what Justin said - but my memory is that he was refuting a popular pagan canard that the Christian communion was an act of literal cannibalism as in they killed some poor bloke and ate him - I'd guess he will have pointed out that it was a symbolic/mystical/'by faith' eating of bread and drinking of wine.
(Oh, and "crass literal flesh / cannibalism" is a straw man that was destroyed by Justin Martyr before 150 CE. You might as well drop it.)
quote:Didn't dodge;
Don't dodge.
quote:And since I didn't dodge, that seems to leave you needing to answer my question. I'm packing in for the night before tiredness results in some unintended cock-up.....
As I pointed out myself in my quote from Tyndale, actually
quote:Really? From my perspective I don't think it's entirely coincidental that no culture has ever developed the idiom "as simple as Plato" to mean something that's easy to understand. I do remember a lot of discussions about how difficult it is to render "τέχνη" into a modern, Western language however.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Precisely because it is a human product, written with an intent of being understood, understanding is not as hard as you're trying to make out, or as improbable as you're trying to make out. I don't hear many people making similar difficulties about Plato, Sophocles, Julius Caesar, and other ancient authors.
quote:Didn't answer.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Mousethief;
quote:Didn't dodge;
Don't dodge.
quote:You'd be correct on the "mystical" part but very wrong about the "symbolic" part.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
At what's already late I'm not going to spend a lot of time double-checking what Justin said - but my memory is that he was refuting a popular pagan canard that the Christian communion was an act of literal cannibalism as in they killed some poor bloke and ate him - I'd guess he will have pointed out that it was a symbolic/mystical/'by faith' eating of bread and drinking of wine.
quote:Meanwhile, the Anglican "by faith" language you've referred reflects Calvin's attempts to describe what happens in the Eucharist; he used language like that in part to specifically refute any idea that the Eucharist was simply symbolic.
For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone.
quote:Well here's how I would do it. I am not theologically learned.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink of his blood, you have no life within you.
How do you interpret this, and on what basis?
quote:I'd slightly query the words 'that I can do'. It is rather the point of the designation 'Communion' that it is a communal act rather than something I can do alone - though in circumstances of abnormal long-term separation from other Christians I suppose I could take the bread and wine alone and derive spiritual comfort from it as communion with Jesus himself. But I think in normal circumstances Communion should be something WE do in community; and yes, without a 'priest' in the RCC/Orthodox sense, but usually led by an 'elder' as a matter of 'good order'.
Incidentally, If I examine church practice in the light of this I find a few things added in. A 'priest' is one of them. I conclude therefore on the basis above that the Lord's supper if you like is a valid, scriptural, repeatable, faith strengthening action that I can do minus such a functionary.
quote:Which is why I quoted it. I don't think the situation is purely symbolic; but I think what makes it more than symbolic is that element of faith on the part of the participants, rather than the result of a quasi-magical act by a 'priest'. It is no less 'real' for being 'by faith' rather than by any attempt to be more literal about it.
Meanwhile, the Anglican "by faith" language you've referred reflects Calvin's attempts to describe what happens in the Eucharist; he used language like that in part to specifically refute any idea that the Eucharist was simply symbolic.
quote:I'm suggesting that the private explanation to the disciples casts a different 'spin' on the apparently very literal statements earlier to his sceptical hearers; and shows that he wasn't in fact 'dumb wooden' literal in those statements.
Whatever Jesus meant by your later quote
quote:No, actually the position was that I wasn't quite sure of MT's position and set the RC position in contrast to seek clarification from MT - in effect, "How is your position like/unlike this other interpretation which I know more about than I know of yours?"
In other words, you were interpreting what MT wrote through the lens of what you understand the RC position to be - rather than what MT was actually getting at.
quote:I wasn't sure of that; MT can presumably confirm. I seem to recall it was one of the Reformation issues that an RC priest could/would celebrate a Mass on his own because of the supposed 'meritorious sacrifice' aspect.
Steve Langton, if I understand it correctly, if an Orthodox priest turns up to celebrate the Eucharist and he's the only one there, he won't celebrate the Eucharist ...
quote:Yes, I understand that, and it demonstrates the point I was making. That we can't help but approach these things via the lenses we are most familiar with. What MT wrote triggered a response gleaned from your previous reading and reflection and you sought clarification of that. Fine. But it does demonstrate the point I was making, that this is how we approach things, not in a 'me and my Bible' kind of way.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Gamaliel;
quote:No, actually the position was that I wasn't quite sure of MT's position and set the RC position in contrast to seek clarification from MT - in effect, "How is your position like/unlike this other interpretation which I know more about than I know of yours?"
In other words, you were interpreting what MT wrote through the lens of what you understand the RC position to be - rather than what MT was actually getting at.
quote:It was—his First Apology. My apologies for not making that clear.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Nick Tamen;
quote:Which is why I quoted it. I don't think the situation is purely symbolic; but I think what makes it more than symbolic is that element of faith on the part of the participants, rather than the result of a quasi-magical act by a 'priest'. It is no less 'real' for being 'by faith' rather than by any attempt to be more literal about it.
Meanwhile, the Anglican "by faith" language you've referred reflects Calvin's attempts to describe what happens in the Eucharist; he used language like that in part to specifically refute any idea that the Eucharist was simply symbolic.
I take it although you didn't specify, the quote is from Justin.
quote:Hmmm!
Finally to answer your most important question, what's the key to knowing which of the myriad interpretations of the Bible is correct? I give you the commonotory of St. Vincent of Lerins: antiquity, universality, consensus. Roughly in that order. By antiquity we mean new shit that contradicts old shit is suspect. By universality we mean old shit that was all over the Christian world, not just in one spot. By consensus, we refer to the consensus of people whose holiness and way of life give them a greater likelihood to know what the shit they're talking about as regards God, and not promulgated by just one guy, or a bunch of ne'er-do-wells.
quote:As in, Orthodox and RCC ideas by which they accepted Constantine/Theodosius is suspect 'new shit' compared to the NT and earlier church teaching to the contrary - the old but not, I submit, 'shit'.
By antiquity we mean new shit that contradicts old shit is suspect.
quote:In other words, if something was universal till now your new shit is suspect. Fair enough. But note that Constantinianism's 'new shit' has the effect of redefining 'the Christian world' from the worldwide community of the born again to 'everybody born and baptised into our Christian state' - who logically may not be 'born again' at all but only nominal. So the resulting churches are operating with a suspect 'new shit' and therefore invalid view of 'the Christian world' which must to say the least compromise their claim of 'universality'.
By universality we mean old shit that was all over the Christian world, not just in one spot.
quote:No problem in respecting obviously holy - though of course still imperfect - people. But again, if they're busy trying to tell me that I should accept stuff which clearly fails the antiquity and universality tests - say, Constantinianism - their authority must again be somewhat qualified. So again I'll certainly respect what they say; but I'll be checking it against the old-definitely-not-shit NT, and if they disagree with it, hard cheddar.
By consensus, we refer to the consensus of people whose holiness and way of life give them a greater likelihood to know what the shit they're talking about as regards God, and not promulgated by just one guy, or a bunch of ne'er-do-wells.
quote:'Communal' is pretty central to Anabaptism as well. So for example we tend to think of the church in terms of 'ekklesia/congregation' rather than 'ekklesia/top-down authoritative institution' - especially such an institution that's coming with enforcement by the state. We'd regard that latter kind of authority as anything but Christian 'communal'.
If you can accept the communal aspects of the 'breaking of bread' / communion / eucharist - as you clearly do - then why does it seem so strange to assert - as I do - that we equally have a communal approach to the interpretation of scripture?
quote:If you think church/state relations 'weren't even an issue' in C1 Palestine, you really don't know what you're talking about, do you?
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You seem unaware, or seem to forget, that I used to belong to a Baptist church, Steve Langton.
So I'm very familiar with the territory.
As I'm very (tiresomely) familiar with your constant harping on and on about Constantine and what you take to be the plain-meaning of scripture when it comes to church/state relations which weren't even an issue when the NT was written.
But we've been over this before. It.ain't.that.simple.
Hence the reason why we're in Dead Horses all over again.
quote:I'll allow you the technicality - the pretty much irrelevant technicality - that you couldn't call the issues 'church and state' until Jesus actually called his followers 'the church/ekklesia/congregation/assembly'. In every other respect, religion and state, the relationship between God's people and the world was an absolutely key issue between Romans and Jews in C1 Palestine. Broader religion/state issues were - as they still are - global.
I'm not saying they weren't an issue. I'm saying they weren't an issue in the way they later became.
quote:What I actually responded was that looking at the text Jesus appeared to be challenging sceptical opponents - they started with a 'Moses gave us manna, what have you done...?' from which Jesus took the bread/flesh theme. And it seems to me from their reaction that they had their ideas shaken up a bit. The private interpretation to the disciples seems to be the key. And should be applied to thinking about the Communion as well - don't get caught up in the flesh issue as those opponents did, or Nicodemus when faced with the idea of being 'born again', think of it spiritually.
MT asked you a very straightforward question—what did Jesus mean in the discourse about eating his flesh? Your response, it seems to me, didn't do much answer the question as it did caricature the belief of other Christians based on your disagreement with that belief.
quote:No, nor does any Roman Catholic I know, nor does any official Catholic teaching I have ever seen teach that. That's why I said you seem to be attacking a caricature of what other churches teach, not engaging with what they actually teach. (And just because a belief lends itself to caricature doesn't make it right to do so, nor does doing so strengthen ones argument.)
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As regards 'magic' - and I think I mostly said 'quasi- magic' anyway - the thing is do you believe people automatically regardless of personal faith 'eat the flesh and drink the blood' just because a 'priest' has spoken a conjuration over it?
quote:What do you think "priest" means? It comes from the Greek word "presbyter" or "elder." The three-fold ministry goes back to the first or very early second century. It way predates The Devil Incarnate™ (aka Constantine).
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
and yes, without a 'priest' in the RCC/Orthodox sense, but usually led by an 'elder' as a matter of 'good order'.
quote:This is true. There must be at least one layperson there.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Steve Langton, if I understand it correctly, if an Orthodox priest turns up to celebrate the Eucharist and he's the only one there, he won't celebrate the Eucharist ...
quote:Would you PLEASE PLEASE FUCKING PLEASE stop using this phrase? Pretty please? Nobody has accused you of this. You have created a straw man that you are flogging like a dead horse until it turns into a red herring. Please stop. For God's sake if not for ours.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
'dumb wooden' literal
quote:And yet you believe Jesus is 100% human and 100% God. Stick to the point.
In any case, as somebody pointed out at the time of the Reformation, Jesus can't be being too literal about the bread and wine being his body and blood when his actual body and blood are also present reclining at the table with the disciples....
quote:This is true. It's also an insulting caricature, and borders on blasphemous in the ears of an Orthodox or Catholic.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen (speaking to Steve Langton):
And as far as I can tell, you're the only one who has talked about "magic" by a priest.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As in, Orthodox and RCC ideas by which they accepted Constantine/Theodosius is suspect 'new shit' compared to the NT and earlier church teaching to the contrary - the old but not, I submit, 'shit'.
So by this standard the Anabaptists are right and the Orthodox and RCC are wrong. I'm quite happy with that....
quote:1. There is no certainty. Certainty is for mathematical proofs and logic textbook problem sets. Outside the halls of academe, certainty is an admirable but unreachable goal. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.
So in fact Vincent doesn't offer any more certainty - and arguably less - than the basic view that Jesus and the apostles in the NT, understood in the usual ways, are what we go by.
quote:Ah, such a lovely drum.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Like the way it talks of universality in 'the Christian world' but don't notice that their adoption of Constantinianism actually shifts the definition of 'the Christian world' in a direction which in all kinds of ways doesn't help their case. And so on....
quote:This is so laughable. Like you guys invented this? It's like those miserable folk song collectors who heard some old Grandma on her Appalachian porch sing some song, then took it back to the city and copyrighted it as if it were their own invention. The more evil ones then go back and sue Grandma for singing it. I don't say you go that far.
most churches seem actually to be tending towards the Anabaptist church and state view simply on rational grounds;
quote:That makes it SO much less insulting.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As regards 'magic' - and I think I mostly said 'quasi- magic' anyway
quote:"Conjuration" -- you're doing it again. Your spite and hatred for people with a traditional view of the Eucharist -- a view which predates The Evil One -- couldn't be plainer. "Conjuration" means an act of "doing magic." If you're going to stop being insulting, you can't bring the insult in through the back door.
- the thing is do you believe people automatically regardless of personal faith 'eat the flesh and drink the blood' just because a 'priest' has spoken a conjuration over it?
quote:Yes. Which is why we don't use it and bristle when people like you do. So cut it out.
Magic is not a good 'model' for how God deals with us
quote:You obviously were not raised Catholic.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:No, nor does any Roman Catholic I know, nor does any official Catholic teaching I have ever seen teach that. That's why I said you seem to be attacking a caricature of what other churches teach, not engaging with what they actually teach. (And just because a belief lends itself to caricature doesn't make it right to do so, nor does doing so strengthen ones argument.)
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As regards 'magic' - and I think I mostly said 'quasi- magic' anyway - the thing is do you believe people automatically regardless of personal faith 'eat the flesh and drink the blood' just because a 'priest' has spoken a conjuration over it?
And in case it's not clear, it's at the "just because a 'priest' has spoken a conjuration over it" that what you say, in my opinion, goes off the rails.
quote:You may not realize this but I'm not a Catholic. We don't believe in the "sacrifice of the mass." You might refer to what I said before about the antiquity of the tripartate order.
Originally posted by Jamat:
@Mousethief. You know quite well that the evolution of the priesthood has moved far from the New Testament concept of eldership. In Catholicism, the priest is far more akin to an Old Testament priest who offers sacrifices on behalf of the people.
quote:Caught that but thanks for pointing it out.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Take note, sensitive folk, I am not deriding Christianity in general.
quote:You'll have to remind me which paragraph of the RCC Catechism says that flippant statements from priests in novels constitute the teaching of their church. Maybe if IngoB were still here he could pick it out for us. It is a big Catechism and I will admit I am mostly ignorant of it. So if you can pick out the paragraph number, which no doubt you know based on your use of this quip, I'd be grateful.
Originally posted by Jamat:
In his novel 'The Power and the Glory', Graeme Greene has his priest protagonist declare, 'I make God and put him in men's mouths'.
quote:No, I was not, but I'm fairly familiar with Catholic teaching on this point and I stand by what I wrote.
Originally posted by Jamat:
You obviously were not raised Catholic.
quote:Quibble—As I understand Catholic teaching, when he says "This is my body," the wafer/bread becomes in fact the Body of Christ. Not quite the same as God is that wafer. But it is not because the priest is doing "magic" and saying magic words. It is because the priest is understood to share in the priesthood of Christ, who offers his Body and Blood.
When the priest says "This is my body.." In the climax of the mass he is literally transubstantiating so God is now literally that wafer.
quote:I'm not sure that a boast by a fictional character really amounts to much here.
In his novel 'The Power and the Glory', Graeme Greene has his priest protagonist declare, 'I make God and put him in men's mouths'.
quote:PM IngoB for that one and good luck.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:You'll have to remind me which paragraph of the RCC Catechism says that flippant statements from priests in novels constitute the teaching of their church. Maybe if IngoB were still here he could pick it out for us. It is a big Catechism and I will admit I am mostly ignorant of it. So if you can pick out the paragraph number, which no doubt you know based on your use of this quip, I'd be grateful.
Originally posted by Jamat:
In his novel 'The Power and the Glory', Graeme Greene has his priest protagonist declare, 'I make God and put him in men's mouths'.
quote:Not familiar enough obviously
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
[QB]
[QUOTE] I'm fairly familiar with Catholic teaching on this point
quote:Splitting straws. The priest is the agent of the grace as he is the recipient of Holy Orders. I've never heard that he is in the place of Christ otherwise what is the wafer? No Steve is correct. The church empowers the priest to offer the mass and his utterance over the wafer is the key ingredient.. 'magic words'. That's my understanding but hey, who's infallible?
the priest is understood to share in the priesthood of Christ, who offers his Body and Blood.
quote:Nobody on this page, clearly. According to RCC teaching, the priest serves both as alter Christus (another Christ) and in persona Christi (in the person of Christ).
Originally posted by Jamat:
I've never heard that he is in the place of Christ otherwise what is the wafer? No Steve is correct. The church empowers the priest to offer the mass and his utterance over the wafer is the key ingredient.. 'magic words'. That's my understanding but hey, who's infallible?
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
ETA: Meo deo! What am I doing defending the RCC when we have plenty of good Catholics who can do so, if they would stop defending Trump and get over here?
quote:Ok, I'll give it a try. I'm currently in the "don't know" camp; but I'll rummage in the fundie part of my mental attic.
Originally posted by mousethief:
And *ALL* memoralists might refer to what I said before about the elements of Eucharist being 100% bread and 100% Jesus' body. If you believe Jesus can be 100% God and 100% human, you need to tell me how you slide that knife in there to make one possible and the other impossible. I'll even lend you the knife.
quote:Not at all Nick Tamen but come on! apples with apples.
And splitting straws? No, not at all. Would you say that when Peter healed many who were sick and cast out many demons, he was doing magic with conjuring words?
quote:Love you GK and you know this but here's the response:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re God and human: that's the miracle at the heart of the Incarnation, and we can't understand it in this life.
Re bread and Jesus: It's mistaken and idolatrous to conflate Jesus with a piece of bread and a sip of wine (and drinking is wrong, anyway). Jesus is our High Priest, and we don't need anything else.
quote:The NT does not define any of those things. Thinking it does so is the source of many errors. We need to keep in mind that the NT is not an instruction manual for how to "do" church. It's primarily a record of people's memories of Jesus and the early apostles, a bunch of letters telling fucked-up churches how to un-fuck-up themselves, and the record of an acid trip. At no point does it claim to be a manual for how to do church, nor does it resemble one. The epistles assume a church that is already up and running. They don't create one or give blueprints for creating one.
Originally posted by Jamat:
I am in you debt for the 'Orthodox' gloss. My point in bringing it up was just that what yours or the RC priests do bears little link to the New Testament definition of Elder, Pastor, presbyter or deacon. But let's not beat ourselves up as the same thing could be said of any Archdeacon, Baptist minister, Brethren Elder or Pentecostal pastor.
quote:OK lets say it mentions them.
The NT does not define any of those things. Thinking it does so is the source of many errors.
quote:I don't believe they ever claimed the celibate priesthood was biblically based. It's not part of the definition of priest, but part of keeping the good order of the church. Which is why we have married priests and they do not -- the new rule came after the schism.
Originally posted by Jamat:
Nothing here about celibacy though. The RC got that wrong.
quote:Patronising cant!
Originally posted by mousethief:
This actually points up a huge mistake that Protestants make when arguing with Catholics -- assuming that "that's not in the Bible" is a good argument. The Catholic Church believes that the Holy Spirit is able to guide the Church to things that aren't in the Bible. The inspiration of the Spirit didn't stop at Patmos. It is ongoing.
In effect people who make the "but that's not in the Bible" argument/complaint are guilty of a sort of cessationism.
quote:I'm not huge on the celibacy thing, but how do you defend that statement?
Originally posted by Jamat:
Celibacy is anti biblical.
quote:Good question. As I recall, Paul advised staying single if possible.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:I'm not huge on the celibacy thing, but how do you defend that statement?
Originally posted by Jamat:
Celibacy is anti biblical.
quote:
Yet I would that all men were even as I myself. Howbeit each man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. 1 Corinthians 7:7-9
quote:Yeah,says it all really. Voluntary celibacy? Individual choice but enforced ie you cannot marry? Nah!
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:Good question. As I recall, Paul advised staying single if possible.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:I'm not huge on the celibacy thing, but how do you defend that statement?
Originally posted by Jamat:
Celibacy is anti biblical.
quote:
Yet I would that all men were even as I myself. Howbeit each man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. 1 Corinthians 7:7-9
quote:You're the one who flat out said celibacy is unbiblical without mentioning qualifications.
Yeah,says it all really. Voluntary celibacy? Individual choice but enforced ie you cannot marry? Nah!
What's to defend?
quote:Really?
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Jamat:quote:You're the one who flat out said celibacy is unbiblical without mentioning qualifications.
Yeah,says it all really. Voluntary celibacy? Individual choice but enforced ie you cannot marry? Nah!
What's to defend?
quote:You left out 1 Corinthians 7
Originally posted by Jamat:
Nothing here about celibacy though. The RC got that wrong.
quote:It is apples with apples, Jamat. Was he doing magic or was he acting in the name of Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit? And if it was the latter, but the priest at Mass is doing magic, then what is your criteria for distinguishing magic from acting in the name of Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit?
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Not at all Nick Tamen but come on! apples with apples.
And splitting straws? No, not at all. Would you say that when Peter healed many who were sick and cast out many demons, he was doing magic with conjuring words?
quote:Though to be fair, it is hardly alone in that regard.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The point is that there is a lot of poor catechesis in the RC Church.
quote:A bit like Narnia's "Deep Magic" perhaps?
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
This doesn't simply apply at the 'popular devotional' level but even someone very erudite and sophisticated like IngoB would talk about the Mass as if it were 'magic'. Indeed, I remember a lengthy thread at one time where IngoB was arguing that the RCC was capable of performing 'true' magic and that all other attempts and magical practices - wheresoe'er they be found - were somehow poor imitations.
quote:Huh? We're not talking about text, we're talking about your LACK of text. But you're right, there is no discussion here. Just not in the way you think.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Really?
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Jamat:quote:You're the one who flat out said celibacy is unbiblical without mentioning qualifications.
Yeah,says it all really. Voluntary celibacy? Individual choice but enforced ie you cannot marry? Nah!
What's to defend?
Text minus context =pretext
No discussion here.
quote:REALLY?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Mostly because I'm morally superior to most intra-Christian pilgrims.
quote:You didn't know that? How could he not be morally superior with that post count?
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:REALLY?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Mostly because I'm morally superior to most intra-Christian pilgrims.
quote:That encapsulates what the kind of priggish superiority that totally rubs fur the wrong way.
I don't think I've seen MT bad-mouth Episcopalians but I've certainly seen him bad-mouth more fundie forms of Western Christianity - but then, I do that too ...
quote:I will send you the bill for a new irony meter, as mine is now well and truly broken.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:That encapsulates what the kind of priggish superiority that totally rubs fur the wrong way.
I don't think I've seen MT bad-mouth Episcopalians but I've certainly seen him bad-mouth more fundie forms of Western Christianity - but then, I do that too ...
"Hey, bud you're just so wrong but I've been there and now I'm much more nuanced" kind of attitude. "There, there little bro, you'll make it one day to the insightful heights of post evangelical insight."
Stuff that for a game of cowboys!
As for the Catholic church, A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. That particular leopard will not and has not changed in any essential.
quote:I'm not sure if you might be referring here to a passing comment I made about Buddhism; if so, that was in fact a comment not intended to denigrate Buddhists at all, but to make the point that it is not only in Christianity and Islam that the attempt to have a 'religious state' can end up in warfare and similar problems.
On a recent thread elsewhere we had a denigration of Buddhists.I know little really about Buddhists. I can easily accept that certain representatives of the Buddhist faith can appear to act in an unscrupulous manner,because I have often seen those who claim to represent the Christian faith act similarly. I would,however, not try to believe that there is something intrinsically evil with the Buddhist faith,no more than I would do so for the Christian faith in its different and differing manifestations.
quote:Actually as I pointed out earlier I'm not talking about 'biblical inerrancy' but biblical interpretation. I don't regard 'biblical inerrancy' as a very helpful term, but rather potentially confusing, though I'm in broad agreement with JI Packer's views on it. Trouble is, I had to pick up this conversation in this thread due to a hostly decision; I understand that decision and accept it - but it's still not a useful term....
But we're talking about biblical inerrancy here
quote:Once again, not really accurate. As explained in the quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that Forthview helpfully supplied in the post just before yours, the mass is understood to be a re-presentation of the one sacrifice on Calvary. It is understood to be a memorial in which that one past event is made a present reality—which incidentally, is exactly what is meant both by the Hebrew concept of memorial in the OT and by the Greek word used in the Gospels (and Paul) that we translate as "remembrance."
Originally posted by Jamat:
The mass claims to be a re-enactment of Christ's sacrifice on calvary. What happened to the scriptural statement in Hebrews that he died once for all, never to die again? No need to re-enact anything.
quote:Exactly what I said or is there a difference between representation and re-enactment?
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Once again, not really accurate. As explained in the quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that Forthview helpfully supplied in the post just before yours, the mass is understood to be a re-presentation of the one sacrifice on Calvary. It is understood to be a memorial in which that one past event is made a present reality—which incidentally, is exactly what is meant both by the Hebrew concept of memorial in the OT and by the Greek word used in the Gospels (and Paul) that we translate as "remembrance."
Originally posted by Jamat:
The mass claims to be a re-enactment of Christ's sacrifice on calvary. What happened to the scriptural statement in Hebrews that he died once for all, never to die again? No need to re-enact anything.
quote:Always happy to pay other people's bills. been married 40 years.
I will send you the bill for a new irony meter, as mine is now well and truly broken
quote:Perhaps rather than scoff you could explain the disanalogy. Because both are God working miracles through a human.
Originally posted by Jamat:
On the other hand you have a powerful anointing of the Holy Spirit on the apostle Peter to physically heal a man as a testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.
And you want them to be analogous?
Give us all a break!
quote:Great. Tired old clichés and canards? The point Gamaliel is that so much traditional church practice, doctrine and tradition does not stack up against scriptural statements. But of course scriptural statement is not enough right? you need tradition, you need the Sensus Plenii and whatever else new interpretive post-modern new age lectio Davina bull shit, candles, meditation, visualising and whatever else as an aid to understanding and worship. be nice to hear the word repentance once on a while in preaching. Be nice to meet some humility before the Lord. But there is not much of it on display here is there?
Bluntly, if both you and Steve Langton want to avoid being 'patronised' and pilloried, then I suggest you check your facts rather than trotting out tired old clichés and canards.
quote:Not sure what you're getting so exercised about. If scripture is God's word "however you look at it", then all interpretations are validly God's word. Fred Phelps, Pope Francis, those Christian Identity folks, they're all obeying the word of God.
Originally posted by Jamat:
To me, scripture, however you look at it is God's word.
quote:Then why do you not stone your disobedient children, why do you disallow polygamy?
Originally posted by Jamat:
To me, scripture, however you look at it is God's word. Don't try to change and rearrange and discredit it cos it doesn't suit the post modern mind set and still pretend that what you are doing is anywhere close to genuine Christian worship and practice.
quote:Sorry I didn't get round to replying to this earlier...
I am so far from recongising any of this that it is almost impossible to participate. As far as I'm concerned, it's nearly all bibliolatry, in that it replaces the embodied Word with a series of written impressions of the mystery of God built up over thousands of years as a less messy substitute. The written material, in its various genres, traditions and cultures, can only supplement and illuminate the embodied Word and our own experience of embodiedness and encounters with the divine mystery as witnesses to God and God's love. Anything else is trying to create a direct substitute for God.
quote:Quite right. Bloody post modern do-gooders telling us we shouldn't kill disobedient children or stone rape victims to death. And adulteresses.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Then why do you not stone your disobedient children, why do you disallow polygamy?
Originally posted by Jamat:
To me, scripture, however you look at it is God's word. Don't try to change and rearrange and discredit it cos it doesn't suit the post modern mind set and still pretend that what you are doing is anywhere close to genuine Christian worship and practice.
It is patent bullshit that any group "just reads" the bible without change. Everyone sets aside bits of the bible for their convenience or preference. It is massively ridiculous to pretend otherwise.
quote:I'd like to agree; but objectively there's a bit of a problem establishing exactly what the reliable 'traditions' (let alone Traditions) are outside of those we have in Scripture. And even then, they'd have to be compatible with Scripture, wouldn't they? Which one major 'tradition', the state church/Christian country thing, definitely isn't.
Originally posted by mousethief:
On the other hand, Scripture says "hold fast to the traditions that have been passed down to you, whether by word or by letter from us." St. Paul seems to think that Scriptures aren't all there is.
quote:As I've already pointed out, the situation in the Bible develops and changes as God gets more and more knowledge into the heads of obstreporous and rebellious humans.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Then why do you not stone your disobedient children, why do you disallow polygamy?
Originally posted by Jamat:
To me, scripture, however you look at it is God's word. Don't try to change and rearrange and discredit it cos it doesn't suit the post modern mind set and still pretend that what you are doing is anywhere close to genuine Christian worship and practice.
It is patent bullshit that any group "just reads" the bible without change. Everyone sets aside bits of the bible for their convenience or preference. It is massively ridiculous to pretend otherwise.
quote:It definitely is if one reads the bible as you claim to. A good deal of the OT is how God helped found the state of Israel. Of how God is constantly mucking about in state affairs.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And even then, they'd have to be compatible with Scripture, wouldn't they? Which one major 'tradition', the state church/Christian country thing, definitely isn't.
quote:The beauty of the bible. Let me clear the obfuscating language.
I've never objected to going beyond Scripture to meet new situations; it's just that you have to keep an eye on your new developments that they don't end up contradicting Scripture,
quote:Ah. That's all right then, if it's about killing stroppy teenagers rather than younger children. Who on earth could have a problem with that?
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:As I've already pointed out, the situation in the Bible develops and changes as God gets more and more knowledge into the heads of obstreporous and rebellious humans.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Then why do you not stone your disobedient children, why do you disallow polygamy?
Originally posted by Jamat:
To me, scripture, however you look at it is God's word. Don't try to change and rearrange and discredit it cos it doesn't suit the post modern mind set and still pretend that what you are doing is anywhere close to genuine Christian worship and practice.
It is patent bullshit that any group "just reads" the bible without change. Everyone sets aside bits of the bible for their convenience or preference. It is massively ridiculous to pretend otherwise.
As regards stoning disobedient children, as I understand it this is less aimed at 'children' as in school age, more at what we might call stroppy teenagers or even in our terms adults who could still be under parental authority until they set up their own home.
quote:There is no hint of any buying off here.
And in some ways I think it's a thing that's there precisely in the expectation that it will rarely if ever be actually used. Many ancient laws with ferocious sounding death penalties would allow some kind of 'ransom' so they wouldn't always be enforced in full. For instance the old Saxon laws I understand had a death penalty for murder, but also a 'wergild' compensation system which 'bought off' the death sentence.
quote:Ah yes. The Thomas de Torquemada Defence. "We're killing you for your own good."
In addition, once you've realised that we're talking about the older children rather than those 'not of years of discretion/pre-bar-mitzvah/etc', consider that in a harsh world without a welfare state, psychiatrists, approved schools, etc., a really persistently disobedient child could potentially seriously endanger his family in all kinds of ways, from damaging their livelihood to embroiling the family in lethal feuds with neighbours. The situation is not intended to apply to minor family 'rubs', but to something more serious, and as a last resort, not a first.
It still stands not as something Christians would now do, but as a reminder of the importance of respecting parents. Not to mention respecting God who commanded that respect of parents. Also note that the disobedient child is setting himself into ways that may eventually so damage his relationship to God that he becomes one of those of whom Jesus said "And this is the judgement, that they have chosen the darkness". The harsh rule in this life may be saving in the wider perspective.
quote:So you worship God the incompetent? But this is ridiculous regardless. God, from the very beginning, makes rigid proclamations of what humans must do without worrying about what the humans are capable of understanding.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As I've already pointed out, the situation in the Bible develops and changes as God gets more and more knowledge into the heads of obstreporous and rebellious humans.
quote:OMG! Post-modern interpretation!
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As regards stoning disobedient children, as I understand it this is less aimed at 'children' as in school age, more at what we might call stroppy teenagers or even in our terms adults who could still be under parental authority until they set up their own home. And in some ways I think it's a thing that's there precisely in the expectation that it will rarely if ever be actually used.
quote:Yes. But what is interesting is that his disbelief in the state church is apparently not based on the biblical teaching even though a very clear and globally applicable biblical teaching on that is available. Instead it's apparently based on modern secular ideas and the position of a modern secular state.
We've had this out before. As an American, MT doesn't believe in the idea of a State Church. He is not advocating such a thing.
quote:You are confused, perhaps, because you are making an assumption.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
With the further irony in that that one of the major reasons the modern secular state in question has the constitution it does is because of the influence of Protestant Christian nonconformity of a kind which in a church context he rejects
quote:Not quite. In a context where the disobedient child could be a real danger, his death as a last resort is actually beneficial to everybody else. But also the threat of death may stop him from harm to himself or others, including the eternal harm of what he does to himself spiritually by being that kind of person and not repenting of it.
Ah yes. The Thomas de Torquemada Defence. "We're killing you for your own good."
quote:Actually, definitely not just that. Where do you think such an outrageous idea as the Trinity came from, especially in a Jewish context?? It came from what Jesus taught about Himself and about his mission. A mission which only 'works' if Jesus is God incarnate; if he is less then God is not forgiving at his own expense but inflicting the cost of sin unjustly on a third party. The NT writers record this often in ways which are just 'in passing', they are so sure of it. The Trinitarian 'doctrine' thing is just a cack-handed effort to formalise that living and important idea in a rather questionable context of Greek philosophy which is hard to explain and near irrelevant in the modern world.
Sure, of course I believe that we can find support for the Trinity in the NT - but that's because we interpret it in a Trinitarian framework and not in isolation.
quote:Didn't you read what I wrote above? Things like it's almost the point of the rule that you shouldn't need it, that the development of less 'Wild West' society makes the actual death penalty less necessary and more. It's one of the ironies that while living in 'Diaspora' between the 2nd Century and the Zionist movement, Jews developed ideas more like Anabaptism than many Christians who with the NT available really should have known better....
Sure, in mitigation, Steve Langton will see the NT as having replaced/done away with some of these OT strictures ... but what about contemporary Jews who don't go around stoning - or threatening to stone - recalcitrant teenagers?
quote:all one needs be is rational and that throws a monkey into their machinery.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, I'm being deliberately provocative, but someone needs to be here.
quote:No - but I might be making a reasonable dichotomy between Jesus and a 'Church' which by adopting Constantinianism was no longer 'the church' in the necessary sense for the kind of authority needed. Note that the Church is NOT the source of 'the Word' anyway; Spirit-led individuals wrote what would actually strictly speaking still be the word of God even if nobody recognised it.... The Church was not creator but humble conveyor of the message.
You are drawing a false dichotomy between Christ and the Church.
quote:I'm sure that's exactly what I just said, albeit in different words - why are you repeating it back at me as if it contradicted me??
Context again, Steve. The Jews in the Diaspora developed ideas of that kind because they were in exile
quote:You sound positively Pauline!
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To try - fool that I am - to try to point out ...
quote:And written WITHIN that community, albeit by individuals.
The scriptures were written FOR a community - the Church.
quote:No, no, I'd say that's exactly the Tomos de Torquemada defence.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Karl; Liberal Backslider;
quote:Not quite. In a context where the disobedient child could be a real danger, his death as a last resort is actually beneficial to everybody else. But also the threat of death may stop him from harm to himself or others, including the eternal harm of what he does to himself spiritually by being that kind of person and not repenting of it.
Ah yes. The Thomas de Torquemada Defence. "We're killing you for your own good."
quote:"We are the sole true prophets of God and only we speak on His behalf" doesn't seem like it's particularly "humble".
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Note that the Church is NOT the source of 'the Word' anyway; Spirit-led individuals wrote what would actually strictly speaking still be the word of God even if nobody recognised it.... The Church was not creator but humble conveyor of the message.
quote:This is a matter of perspective. There are Churches which claim, against other Christians, that their institution has some special qualification to produce definitive 'THE CHURCH has spoken' interpretations - which in many cases outsiders to that church will look at and think actually the Bible doesn't appear to be saying that when you just read it by ordinary means of interpretation.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:"We are the sole true prophets of God and only we speak on His behalf" doesn't seem like it's particularly "humble".
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Note that the Church is NOT the source of 'the Word' anyway; Spirit-led individuals wrote what would actually strictly speaking still be the word of God even if nobody recognised it.... The Church was not creator but humble conveyor of the message.
quote:I agree.
That's pretty much why the Reformation happened - the interpretations/traditions which the RCC had developed over the years had got considerably out of step with what the Bible actually said and there was a reaction towards a situation where the Bible was conceived as authoritative over the Church rather than what had effectively become the other way round.
Me, I don't claim that kind of authority. I interpret the Bible as best I can, in and with a local congregation, and with help from a wide range of other Christian opinion through books and other sources - but my interpretations are always put in terms of "You can, and I expect you to, check this out in the Bible for yourself".
quote:Anyone who thinks their way of looking at it is the right one had better be prepared to answer that, or be laughed out of town. Even having dismissed the people who don't agree that there is one right interpretation, you are left standing in a crowd of people who agree there is one right interpretation but disagree as to which one of them actually has it. Your interpretation in such company has special status only within the confines of your own cranium.
Originally posted by Jamat:
How would you answer the criticism that I get too. "Well, what makes your way of looking at it the right one?"
quote:"Let me explain why everyone else is terrible and we're so much better" also doesn't seem very humble.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:Yes, we think we've something important to say to the rest of the world; but as you know, the kind of church I belong to doesn't set up a state that forces you to agree with us, or expect privilege over others in the state - we put our case and your joining us or not is voluntary.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:"We are the sole true prophets of God and only we speak on His behalf" doesn't seem like it's particularly "humble".
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Note that the Church is NOT the source of 'the Word' anyway; Spirit-led individuals wrote what would actually strictly speaking still be the word of God even if nobody recognised it.... The Church was not creator but humble conveyor of the message.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
That's pretty much why the Reformation happened - the interpretations/traditions which the RCC had developed over the years had got considerably out of step with what the Bible actually said
quote:And don't you think that a lot of Evangelical churches do exactly that? - possibly as individual churches rather than whole Denominations.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
There are Churches which claim, against other Christians, that their institution has some special qualification to produce definitive 'THE CHURCH has spoken' interpretations.
quote:The main reformers were Catholic priests who were reacting against the mental straitjacket of Rome.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
That's pretty much why the Reformation happened - the interpretations/traditions which the RCC had developed over the years had got considerably out of step with what the Bible actually said
One of the reasons why the reformation happened was that some people believed the RCC got things wrong.
Another is that various leaders saw an opportunity to grab power from Rome.
Not taking sides, but there is no sect that does not interpret, there is no sect that does not do things that are not strictly in the bible.
quote:I guess the two great intellectual barriers for you are what you mention here, evolution (the fact of) and genocidal God (possible myth of) that you mention elsewhere.
Originally posted by Martin60:
It certainly is. They interpret Bronze Age creation myths as literal despite there being nothing but the evidence of the rocks and the mind of evolution. They regard the Bible as a flat cook book where all of it is true and all has to be reconciled with equal weight, despite the obvious progression of ideas which never stopped and never will.
quote:God is good;God is killer. Not a prob. Light years easier than Jesus is really God but he believed myths mistakenly.
Originally posted by Martin60:
What you DON'T believe the Bible? You DON'T believe in the God Jesus believed in? God the Killer? But you do believe the 3.8 Ga of biodiversity was hand crafted by God at the 'kind' level, using magic? Well it's a start.
quote:So, you reject the Pauline doctrine of kenosis, then.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:God is good;God is killer. Not a prob. Light years easier than Jesus is really God but he believed myths mistakenly.
Originally posted by Martin60:
What you DON'T believe the Bible? You DON'T believe in the God Jesus believed in? God the Killer? But you do believe the 3.8 Ga of biodiversity was hand crafted by God at the 'kind' level, using magic? Well it's a start.
quote:Unsure what problem that is and Mousethief, no.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ISTM, this is a real problem for Christians, understanding what it means to be fully human. It has to be more than just mortality, it would be pointless otherwise.
quote:Nonsense. The first is a logical contradiction; murder is bad, good murderer is an oxymoron. And the acts in question ascribed to God (or allegedly commanded by him) in the OT are murder. Not to mention genocide.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:God is good;God is killer. Not a prob. Light years easier than Jesus is really God but he believed myths mistakenly.
Originally posted by Martin60:
What you DON'T believe the Bible? You DON'T believe in the God Jesus believed in? God the Killer? But you do believe the 3.8 Ga of biodiversity was hand crafted by God at the 'kind' level, using magic? Well it's a start.
quote:Make your mind up mate. So what's the satanic lie?
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:God is good;God is killer. Not a prob. Light years easier than Jesus is really God but he believed myths mistakenly.
Originally posted by Martin60:
What you DON'T believe the Bible? You DON'T believe in the God Jesus believed in? God the Killer? But you do believe the 3.8 Ga of biodiversity was hand crafted by God at the 'kind' level, using magic? Well it's a start.
quote:Probably because some things about being human are by nature contradictory to some things about being God. The Omnis are a case in point; Omniscience being the one brought into the spotlight here.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Interesting. Why is it a problem?
quote:Oh I don't know. Something that inevitably happens to every human, and upon which our ecosystem is actually dependent, seems pretty much an inherent part of being human to me.
And strictly speaking, mortality is not a part of human nature, anymore than rosette disease is a part of rose nature. It is an affliction shared with a great many other creatures and is basically accidental to the nature of a human being.
quote:Well, it must be either:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:Make your mind up mate. So what's the satanic lie?
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:God is good;God is killer. Not a prob. Light years easier than Jesus is really God but he believed myths mistakenly.
Originally posted by Martin60:
What you DON'T believe the Bible? You DON'T believe in the God Jesus believed in? God the Killer? But you do believe the 3.8 Ga of biodiversity was hand crafted by God at the 'kind' level, using magic? Well it's a start.
quote:In which case I can only assume Jamat thinks that the idea that Genocide is bad is a Satanic Lie.
Originally posted by Martin60:
But K., Jamat says, "God is good;God is killer. Not a prob. ". He agrees with Jesus.
quote:I wonder why.
Originally posted by Jamat:
Martin and Karl give me a break and don't make this about the poor old Canaanites. Anyone who wants to revisit that will find the usual suspects holding forth on the Death of Darwinism thread Page 38 on this very Dead Horses board.
Love you guys to pieces but not going there here.
quote:But Jesus himself said quite plainly that he wasn't omniscient.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Probably because some things about being human are by nature contradictory to some things about being God. The Omnis are a case in point; Omniscience being the one brought into the spotlight here.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Interesting. Why is it a problem?
quote:You're there. Your Ptolemaic system puts you there.
Originally posted by Jamat:
Martin and Karl give me a break and don't make this about the poor old Canaanites. Anyone who wants to revisit that will find the usual suspects holding forth on the Death of Darwinism thread Page 38 on this very Dead Horses board.
Love you guys to pieces but not going there here.
quote:Why LC?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'd hedge that statement round with a ton of qualifiers, MT...
quote:Your statement here
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Interesting. Why is it a problem?
quote:begins to hint at why.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'd hedge that statement round with a ton of qualifiers, MT...
quote:Death is not an accident or a maybe, it is a design feature and an inevitability. AS such, it is very much part of our nature.
And strictly speaking, mortality is not a part of human nature,
quote:Still not getting it.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Your statement here
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Interesting. Why is it a problem?
quote:begins to hint at why.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'd hedge that statement round with a ton of qualifiers, MT...
If Jesus believed the words of his divinity which he spoke, all is OK. If he knew, then there is no sacrifice. It is pointless.
quote:Death is not an accident or a maybe, it is a design feature and an inevitability. AS such, it is very much part of our nature.
And strictly speaking, mortality is not a part of human nature,
quote:True, but I was making a point about kenosis, and if I didn't use that word in this thread, I did in its sister thread. It is a concept that Jamat's posts seem to deny, or at least give short shrift to. The limitations that the Second Person accepted in becoming incarnate included accepting a curtailment of omniscience.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The reason I said I'd hedge "Jesus said he was not omniscient" with qualifiers is because I believe MT to be referring to the Bible verse when he says "about that day, nobody knows, not the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but only the Father knows." Of course he spoke truly. But I would hesitate to say that his state of ignorance on the subject continues today, which is a leap of illogic that many people make (not MT, but others).
quote:Indeed. As Kallistos Ware said, only God could be the perfect man.
God became a human being--and did a better job of it than we humans do.
quote:And germ theory.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, Jesus knew the universe was billions of years old? Understood evolution, the speed of light and the time-travel paradox?
quote:Well, this is sensible. I will therefore shut up now and let it have the last word.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
{Lowers CS Lewis ex machina.}
CS Lewis said something close to "We don't know the mode of consciousness of the Son of God". (Might be in "God In The Dock" or "Mere Christianity".) Was regarding what Jesus knew.
FWIW.
quote:Mousethief:
Mousethief wrote: ..I was making a point about kenosis, and if I didn't use that word in this thread, I did in its sister thread. It is a concept that Jamat's posts seem to deny, or at least give short shrift to. The limitations that the Second Person accepted in becoming incarnate included accepting a curtailment of omniscience.
This is important as a counter to Jamat's supposal that Christ couldn't possibly have believed something that wasn't true. I think that opinion doesn't give full credit to the kenosis of Christ. It wants to protect him from being really human with all the messiness that entails. Like the pathetic Orfies I once read on a now-defunct board who denied that Jesus ever shat.
But being mistaken isn't the same as being sinful. It is not a sin to believe something untrue, at least if you aren't refusing to consider contrary evidence. But then it's not the incorrect belief that's the problem, but your willfulness.
quote:I presume by your use of the Adjective Ptolemaic that it is a metaphor for a failed cosmology and also by your previous reference to Medo/Persia and their unalterable laws that this is a reference to what you see as Bibliolatry or enslavement to the written word. I may be assuming too much but if not then
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:You're there. Your Ptolemaic system puts you there.
Originally posted by Jamat:
Martin and Karl give me a break and don't make this about the poor old Canaanites. Anyone who wants to revisit that will find the usual suspects holding forth on the Death of Darwinism thread Page 38 on this very Dead Horses board.
Love you guys to pieces but not going there here.
quote:Not sure what to say as I don't understand you.
Originally posted by Martin60:
They can't possibly be wrong as there isn't a they. There is only an it. And it can't possibly be wrong either. A single shave with Occam's razor. There is never any choice in the dialectic of a Ptolemaic theology with a Copernican one (I said Kepler above, doh! It's me age.).
To go beyond that, it is not a Satanic lie to see that the Earth cannot be both globally ... flat and an oblate spheroid, any more than it is a Satanic lie to say that the rocks don't lie and neither does the Rock (for creationism and the Ptolemaic makes Him a Satanic liar). Any more than it is to say that the love that moves the sun and the other stars is not a Bronze Age projection.
How's your evangelism doing?
quote:What truth? You mean there is other truth apart from what is written in the rocks that cannot lie and the editing of stories in the light of increased awareness?
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Not sure what to say as I don't understand you.
Originally posted by Martin60:
They can't possibly be wrong as there isn't a they. There is only an it. And it can't possibly be wrong either. A single shave with Occam's razor. There is never any choice in the dialectic of a Ptolemaic theology with a Copernican one (I said Kepler above, doh! It's me age.).
To go beyond that, it is not a Satanic lie to see that the Earth cannot be both globally ... flat and an oblate spheroid, any more than it is a Satanic lie to say that the rocks don't lie and neither does the Rock (for creationism and the Ptolemaic makes Him a Satanic liar). Any more than it is to say that the love that moves the sun and the other stars is not a Bronze Age projection.
How's your evangelism doing?
quote:Occam's razor is about simplicity being the best solution. How relevant?
No.
quote:Are you saying we have one thing, Bible vs another,rocks ?
Completely.
quote:If so you are assuming the fact of something that is contentious.
quote:Regarding Satanic I suppose that is mockery.
I'm aware of none in rational discourse.
quote:However, the father of lies is pretty good at laying false trails.
It is a mirror.
quote:To say truth is unknowable and history and previous knowledge superseded could be a pretty good way of hiding it.
... we are not ignorant of his designs.
quote:That's Argument from Undesirable Consequences. It's like believing it's impossible for you to be terminally ill because that would mean you're going to die soon.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Yes, I see where you're coming from--though I'm afraid I'm on Jamat's side as far as the concept of Jesus believing something in error. I think that for God to permit such a thing would be to open up the Scripture and thus the Church-at-large to all kinds of doubt and error, along the lines of "Well, maybe Jesus was mistaken about that." Which is why it doesn't ring true to me.
quote:Rats! One of my replies, which are all erroneously quotes, is missing:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:What truth? You mean there is other truth apart from what is written in the rocks that cannot lie and the editing of stories in the light of increased awareness?
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Not sure what to say as I don't understand you.
Originally posted by Martin60:
They can't possibly be wrong as there isn't a they. There is only an it. And it can't possibly be wrong either. A single shave with Occam's razor. There is never any choice in the dialectic of a Ptolemaic theology with a Copernican one (I said Kepler above, doh! It's me age.).
To go beyond that, it is not a Satanic lie to see that the Earth cannot be both globally ... flat and an oblate spheroid, any more than it is a Satanic lie to say that the rocks don't lie and neither does the Rock (for creationism and the Ptolemaic makes Him a Satanic liar). Any more than it is to say that the love that moves the sun and the other stars is not a Bronze Age projection.
How's your evangelism doing?
quote:Occam's razor is about simplicity being the best solution. How relevant?
No.
quote:Are you saying we have one thing, Bible vs another,rocks ?
Completely.
quote:If so you are assuming the fact of something that is contentious.
quote:Regarding Satanic I suppose that is mockery.
I'm aware of none in rational discourse.
quote:However, the father of lies is pretty good at laying false trails.
It is a mirror.
quote:To say truth is unknowable and history and previous knowledge superseded could be a pretty good way of hiding it.
... we are not ignorant of his designs.
Another of his wiles, and I use that metaphorically as even if he is, he is not responsible for it, it's contingent, is to delude us in to making up Ptolemaic cosmologies, Medo-Persian Law. Although come to think of it those constructs are based on his sin.
quote:No, they aren't in any kind of contest. Although there are parallels. Both show evolution.
Are you saying we have one thing, Bible vs another,rocks ?
quote:The difference being? There was a rule. He broke it. The faithful Jews of his day recognized it as such. Considered just as a human, not as the God-man, he broke the law. And how else could the authorities have considered him? (I don't have a quibble with the ox thing.)
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's transcending Mosaic Law, not breaking it.
quote:I don't know what to make of this, as this particular post is one of the clearest and most to-the-point that Martin60 has made in a month at least. Straightforward as an arrow.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Not sure what to say as I don't understand you.
Originally posted by Martin60:
They can't possibly be wrong as there isn't a they. There is only an it. And it can't possibly be wrong either. A single shave with Occam's razor. There is never any choice in the dialectic of a Ptolemaic theology with a Copernican one (I said Kepler above, doh! It's me age.).
To go beyond that, it is not a Satanic lie to see that the Earth cannot be both globally ... flat and an oblate spheroid, any more than it is a Satanic lie to say that the rocks don't lie and neither does the Rock (for creationism and the Ptolemaic makes Him a Satanic liar). Any more than it is to say that the love that moves the sun and the other stars is not a Bronze Age projection.
How's your evangelism doing?
quote:Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but is there a difference between the Law and Mosaic law? Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law, of which he said the two greatest commandments were love God and love neighbor. Is there a difference between that and the 613 Mosaic mitzvot—particularly the legalistic interpretation given those mitzvot by the Pharisees?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The difference being? There was a rule. He broke it. The faithful Jews of his day recognized it as such. Considered just as a human, not as the God-man, he broke the law. And how else could the authorities have considered him? (I don't have a quibble with the ox thing.)
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's transcending Mosaic Law, not breaking it.
quote:Indeed - the rabbis taught that saving life trunps all other commandments.
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's transcending Mosaic Law, not breaking it. And He maintained he was keeping it, pulling an ox from a ditch.
quote:I think that's a very good question.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Perhaps another way of asking the question is did Jesus violate the Law itself, or did he violate the popular (at the time) interpretation and application of the Law, thereby making the point that the popular interpretation and application was wrong?
quote:The rocks ? Obviously to you that's a shut door but there are no certainties remember. The stories? Best attested historicity of any docs. Editing very minor. Just look at Dead Sea scrolls. I'll hang my hat on those. Evangelism? Not my job to convince and done via heart change. The rich he turns empty away.
What truth? You mean there is other truth apart from what is written in the rocks that cannot lie and the editing of stories
quote:I think that is pretty right. Healing on the Sabbath was not violating Torah only, interestingly, the popular interpretation of which there were myriads of variations. Mousethief is mistaken about that. Most of Jesus' conflicts with the authorities were over his refusal to abide by their additions to Torah. As pointed out, rescuing animals on Shabbat was permitted by Moses so how much more, rescuing a child of God from Satanic power.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but is there a difference between the Law and Mosaic law? Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law, of which he said the two greatest commandments were love God and love neighbor. Is there a difference between that and the 613 Mosaic mitzvot—particularly the legalistic interpretation given those mitzvot by the Pharisees?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The difference being? There was a rule. He broke it. The faithful Jews of his day recognized it as such. Considered just as a human, not as the God-man, he broke the law. And how else could the authorities have considered him? (I don't have a quibble with the ox thing.)
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's transcending Mosaic Law, not breaking it.
Perhaps another way of asking the question is did Jesus violate the Law itself, or did he violate the popular (at the time) interpretation and application of the Law, thereby making the point that the popular interpretation and application was wrong?
quote:We don't know otherwise. In our arrogance we may think we do. The trouble is that PM thinking defines itself as unable to be superseded. Not the case.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Aye. Jesus wasn't mistaken by any criteria of His enculturation even with His divine nature. Which didn't include "I don't know." with regard to what the TaNaKh said. He knew Adam and Eve were real. He knew the Flood happened. He knew the Exodus happened. He knew the Heresy of Peor happened. He knew every horror perpetrated by Himself, by unquestionable faith. He knew that He had to be the penal substitutionary atonement.
We know otherwise now. That doesn't invalidate Him in ANY regard.
quote:Pretty obvious to anyone who actually studies geology for more than 5 mins that there is more sedimentary rock than can be produced in 4,000 years. You don't have to believe all of the complicated scientific dogma to accept that the world is, in fact, old.
Originally posted by Jamat:
The rocks ? Obviously to you that's a shut door but there are no certainties remember.
quote:That's a Josh McDowell phrase which rapidly loses any meaning when you actually look into it. There are a lot of fragments, it is true. But that isn't - in and of itself - evidence of their historicity. One can have a lot of copies of the same fake documents.
The stories? Best attested historicity of any docs. Editing very minor.
quote:Not entirely clear what you mean here. Are you saying that the Dead Sea Scrolls somehow show something about the bible? Suddenly decided that the Book of Jubilees is in the Canon, have you?
Just look at Dead Sea scrolls. I'll hang my hat on those.
quote:As I understand it, one of the points about the DSS was that due to wear and tear and a normal Jewish practice of reverent destruction of worn out scrolls,or something of that kind, by our time there were virtually no known OT manuscripts older than about 1100CE. Before the DSS discovery that had given cause to many people to suggest inaccurate and unreliable transmission.
Are you saying that the Dead Sea Scrolls somehow show something about the bible?
quote:A slight pedantic point: I think you mean "precise", not "accurate".
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Before the DSS discovery that had given cause to many people to suggest inaccurate and unreliable transmission.
The texts of the canonical books in the DSS showed that there had been by normal standards extremely accurate and reliable transmission between the NT era and 1100CE. I think that will be what Jamat is referring to.
quote:heh. All the Dead Sea Scrolls prove is the accuracy of oral tradition. Something only shocking to those ignorant of anthropology.
Originally posted by Jamat:
Just look at Dead Sea scrolls. I'll hang my hat on those.
quote:The DSS's show the accuracy of transmission. They also show antiquity of the Jewish Biblical docs. Was it not the Rabbis who determined the Jewish canon?
Not entirely clear what you mean here. Are you saying that the Dead Sea Scrolls somehow show something about the bible? Suddenly decided that the Book of Jubilees is in the Canon, have you?
quote:What's that got to do with the truth that Jesus wasn't mistaken by any criteria of His enculturation even with His divine nature. Which didn't include "I don't know." with regard to what the TaNaKh said. He knew Adam and Eve were real. He knew the Flood happened. He knew the Exodus happened. He knew the Heresy of Peor happened. He knew every horror perpetrated by Himself, by unquestionable faith. He knew that He had to be the penal substitutionary atonement.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:We don't know otherwise. In our arrogance we may think we do. The trouble is that PM thinking defines itself as unable to be superseded. Not the case.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Aye. Jesus wasn't mistaken by any criteria of His enculturation even with His divine nature. Which didn't include "I don't know." with regard to what the TaNaKh said. He knew Adam and Eve were real. He knew the Flood happened. He knew the Exodus happened. He knew the Heresy of Peor happened. He knew every horror perpetrated by Himself, by unquestionable faith. He knew that He had to be the penal substitutionary atonement.
We know otherwise now. That doesn't invalidate Him in ANY regard.
"Before Abraham was, I AM"
"To assert that the truth is that there is no truth is both self refuting and arbitrary. For if this statement is true, it is not true since there is no truth. Moreover, there is no reason for adopting the postmodern perspective rather than say, the outlooks of western capitalism,male chauvinism,white racism, since post modernism has no more truth than these perspectives." William Lane Craig.
quote:Nothing's more certain than rock.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:The rocks ? Obviously to you that's a shut door but there are no certainties remember. The stories? Best attested historicity of any docs. Editing very minor. Just look at Dead Sea scrolls. I'll hang my hat on those. Evangelism? Not my job to convince and done via heart change. The rich he turns empty away.
What truth? You mean there is other truth apart from what is written in the rocks that cannot lie and the editing of stories
quote:Well I don't think it shows what you think it shows. If it shows anything about the "antiquity of the Jewish Biblical docs", it shows that docs that were valued are not considered by you to be canonical.
Originally posted by Jamat:
The DSS's show the accuracy of transmission. They also show antiquity of the Jewish Biblical docs. Was it not the Rabbis who determined the Jewish canon?
quote:No, he's just using faulty logic. Historicity is not determined by the accuracy - or otherwise - of the many surviving fragments and documents. That's just an illogical claim.
Is Josh McDowell wrong because he's Josh McDowell? He says simply that evidence for an accurate consistent OT text is overwhelming.
quote:This is just rubbish and is akin to saying that the moon is made of cheese. Yes, you might say there is a "case to be made" if you don't want to believe the plain evidence of your eyes and would rather instead believe some other idea because it meets your religious preconceptions. A reasonable person with no preconceptions about the age of the earth could easily look at km long deposits of sedimentary rock and conclude that the world is old. Only by using very tortuous logic and unknown geomorphological processes could one ever get the idea that it was less than 4,000 years old.
The discussion about the rocks in the Scientific dating methods thread is available for review. There is a case to be made for a young earth but no one or almost no one on SOF agrees and as my views are contrary and have not changed in the 4 years since, I see no point in rehashing the discussion so not going there.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
How could the way the truth and life be mistaken about the truth?
quote:And I still trust Him as completely as you do. Nobody here doesn't. Which is what he meant. Never mind ANYTHING else, including Bronze Age nonsense, live in eternal life, the kingdom, like He did then, now.
Originally posted by Martin60:
How could He not be?
quote:The other problem with this argument is the presence of variant versions of certain Hebrew scriptures found at Qumran. If there are different versions of Exodus (or Joshua, or whatever) found, doesn't that argue against "extremely accurate and reliable transmission"?
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The texts of the canonical books in the DSS showed that there had been by normal standards extremely accurate and reliable transmission between the NT era and 1100CE.
quote:What I said was
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The other problem with this argument is the presence of variant versions of certain Hebrew scriptures found at Qumran. If there are different versions of Exodus (or Joshua, or whatever) found, doesn't that argue against "extremely accurate and reliable transmission"?
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The texts of the canonical books in the DSS showed that there had been by normal standards extremely accurate and reliable transmission between the NT era and 1100CE.
quote:That is, compared with what's expected from other documents of the era. That is, the very minor differences between the DSS and the later texts show that the Jews were pretty fussy in how they transmitted important documents, and on the whole the OT documents seem to have survived about 1000 years from the NT era with much less than normal textual glitches of various kinds.
by normal standards extremely accurate and reliable transmission
quote:Maybe the him you trust is a reinvented him, a false him. A speculative him. In which case where is the real him. You cannot possibly know.
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
How could the way the truth and life be mistaken about the truth?quote:And I still trust Him as completely as you do. Nobody here doesn't. Which is what he meant. Never mind ANYTHING else, including Bronze Age nonsense, live in eternal life, the kingdom, like He did then, now.
Originally posted by Martin60:
How could He not be?
quote:Look, if you have a bunch of received docs, the LXX and then in recent times you have a discovery that confirms their accuracy to a vast extent over 95 % I believe others may know better, then logically you can say the docs you had and now have are accurate records ,not necessarily of history but of themselves. This is significant as we can say with certainty, that what, say Isaiah wrote as recorded in the LXX, was what Isaiah said. If you had major variations or redactions in the DSS then you have grounds for doubting what Is recorded in the originals was what he said. The historical content is another matter but you can assume that the facts asserted probably happened such as the conflict between the 2 kingdoms and the sickness of Hezekiah. The DSS do a lot to confirm the OT text. The fact that there are apocryphal docs means diddly squat. So what? The Essenes were a Jewish sect. They probably had lots of weird and wonderful variations on Judaism of their time.
Mr Cheesy wrote:
No, he's just using faulty logic. Historicity is not determined by the accuracy - or otherwise - of the many surviving fragments and documents. That's just an illogical claim.
Unfortunately there is a trend amongst apologists to make grand claims that do not stand up to the most basic of logic.
quote:Yes but Cheesy's point wasn't about "themselves" but about "historicity". So this is irrelevant to the Dairy Product's point.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Look, if you have a bunch of received docs, the LXX and then in recent times you have a discovery that confirms their accuracy to a vast extent over 95 % I believe others may know better, then logically you can say the docs you had and now have are accurate records ,not necessarily of history but of themselves.
Mr Cheesy wrote:
No, he's just using faulty logic. Historicity is not determined by the accuracy - or otherwise - of the many surviving fragments and documents. That's just an illogical claim.
Unfortunately there is a trend amongst apologists to make grand claims that do not stand up to the most basic of logic.
quote:A discovered ancient manuscript and a set of manuscripts said to be copies of copies of copies of a translation of an ancient manuscript agree. Therefore what was written on the manuscript truly records the words of an 8th century Hebrew prophet.
This is significant as we can say with certainty, that what, say Isaiah wrote as recorded in the LXX, was what Isaiah said.
quote:Not about Cheesy's point. About the fact he didn't get mine.
A discovered ancient manuscript and a set of manuscripts said to be copies of copies of copies of a translation of an ancient manuscript agree. Therefore what was written on the manuscript truly records the words of an 8th century Hebrew prophet.
This is utter nonsense. It means what we have in the LXX is what was in the MSS around the time of Qumran. Which is about, what, 200 years after the LXX was translated. Proving nothing at all about what was actually written by an 8th century prophet who may or may not have existed.
quote:We're not talking about scribal errors here.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:What I said was
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The other problem with this argument is the presence of variant versions of certain Hebrew scriptures found at Qumran. If there are different versions of Exodus (or Joshua, or whatever) found, doesn't that argue against "extremely accurate and reliable transmission"?
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The texts of the canonical books in the DSS showed that there had been by normal standards extremely accurate and reliable transmission between the NT era and 1100CE.
quote:That is, compared with what's expected from other documents of the era. That is, the very minor differences between the DSS and the later texts show that the Jews were pretty fussy in how they transmitted important documents, and on the whole the OT documents seem to have survived about 1000 years from the NT era with much less than normal textual glitches of various kinds.
by normal standards extremely accurate and reliable transmission
quote:I didn't say you said it was true. I merely said back to you what you said: you think it shows, and I quote,
Originally posted by Jamat:
ense is your ridiculous pedantic and I suspect deliberate misunderstanding. I did not say the DSS proved what was in Isaiah was true though I think it is but that we can be assured we have an accurate record.
quote:No, we cannot say that with certainty. For reasons I've shown.
This is significant as we can say with certainty, that what, say Isaiah wrote as recorded in the LXX, was what Isaiah said.
quote:Asking for a host ruling on this.
This compelling need to score points is a bit wearying. Time for a surf?
quote:False.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Maybe the him you trust is a reinvented him, a false him. A speculative him. In which case where is the real him. You cannot possibly know.
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
How could the way the truth and life be mistaken about the truth?quote:And I still trust Him as completely as you do. Nobody here doesn't. Which is what he meant. Never mind ANYTHING else, including Bronze Age nonsense, live in eternal life, the kingdom, like He did then, now.
Originally posted by Martin60:
How could He not be?
quote:"The truth or falsity of a statement derives from its relation to the ascertain able facts not from the judgements human beings make.." MJ Adler
True.
quote:"It will be seen that minds do not create truth or falsehood. They create beliefs but when once the beliefs are created, the mind cannot make them true or false..what makes a belief true is a fact and this fact does not in any way involve the mind of the person who has the belief"Bertrand Russell.
True.
quote:Ok, so you have a belief that Jesus was enculturated and consequently immersed in the quirks and traditions of his time.
True.
quote:But we have a series of historical records that are confirmed by human witnesses in scripture, witnesses many of whom died for the truth of what they saw and heard and also by Josephus and even Tacitus as to what he did and what he claimed.
True.
quote:But to you all is trumped by your post modern lens that is an excuse to slide away from historicity.
True.
quote:You don't seem to understand the meaning of historicity.
Originally posted by Jamat:
This is significant as we can say with certainty, that what, say Isaiah wrote as recorded in the LXX, was what Isaiah said. If you had major variations or redactions in the DSS then you have grounds for doubting what Is recorded in the originals was what he said.
quote:You've been around long enough to know that this comment has nudged over the line, from criticism of post to criticism of poster. That's the Commandment 3 dividing line. Back off, or take it to Hell.
Originally posted by Jamat:
This compelling need to score points is a bit wearying. Time for a surf?
quote:Acknowledged. apologies to Musethief.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:You've been around long enough to know that this comment has nudged over the line, from criticism of post to criticism of poster. That's the Commandment 3 dividing line. Back off, or take it to Hell.
Originally posted by Jamat:
This compelling need to score points is a bit wearying. Time for a surf?
Barnabas62
Dead Horses Host
quote:I NEVER suggested WHAT Isaiah wrote was relevant to what I was trying to say.
Mousethief wrote: Proving nothing's at all about what was actually written by an 8th century prophet who may or may not have existed.
quote:So he is to blame when my creative efforts falter?
Originally posted by Jamat:
apologies to Musethief.
quote:Those two seem to have little to do with each other, then. Also they only show accurate of translation for a certain time. Qumran only goes back to the first century CE, NOT the 8th century BCE. It takes a leap of faith to say the writings were preserved between 850BCE and 50 CE just as well as they were preserved between 50 CE and the time of the LXX MS you are comparing it to.
Originally posted by Jamat:
I wrote:
"This is significant as we can say with certainty, that what, say Isaiah wrote as recorded in the LXX, was what Isaiah said."
The point is, and remains about accuracy of transmission.
quote:If your muse packed his bags and left you, it's none of my doing. I only steal rodential muses.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:So he is to blame when my creative efforts falter?
Originally posted by Jamat:
apologies to Musethief.
MUSETHIEEEEF!
quote:AND he's not a biblical scholar - his apologetics is self taught.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:No, he's just using faulty logic. Historicity is not determined by the accuracy - or otherwise - of the many surviving fragments and documents. That's just an illogical claim.
Is Josh McDowell wrong because he's Josh McDowell? He says simply that evidence for an accurate consistent OT text is overwhelming.
quote:So, Steve, thank you for clarifying that which is pretty well all I was trying to say but what do you make of the assertion that we cannot even reliably know Isaiah existed? We use Isaiah hugely in our formulation of the Messianic claims of Jesus and he is widely quoted in the NT. It seems to me that if he did not exist pretty well the whole theological edifice disintegrates. I am aware that some theologians posit 3 Isaiahs from different time periods. I tend to the simpler approach that He lived through a period of change and had a long life.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Ditto with the OT where if anything unusually reliable transmission, by normal standards, is demonstrated by comparing the DSS to the previous earliest known physical samples... which as I said, were centuries later.
I agree myself that it doesn't prove the Scriptures true. But this greater availability of early physical evidence HAS effectively removed, or very greatly reduced, one of the objections raised in the past, so that we can discuss the others....
quote:Why would it disintegrate? It seems to me that it's the prophecies themselves that matter, not whether one person (or three persons) named Isaiah actually existed and wrote them.
Originally posted by Jamat:
. . . but what do you make of the assertion that we cannot even reliably know Isaiah existed? We use Isaiah hugely in our formulation of the Messianic claims of Jesus and he is widely quoted in the NT. It seems to me that if he did not exist pretty well the whole theological edifice disintegrates.
quote:And the importance of the prophecies is not so much the foretelling of events, but in the explication of the concept of God of the post-exilic Jews. The Yahweh that came back from Babylon is not quite the Yahweh that went there.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
It seems to me that it's the prophecies themselves that matter, not whether one person (or three persons) named Isaiah actually existed and wrote them.
quote:How so?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:And the importance of the prophecies is not so much the foretelling of events, but in the explication of the concept of God of the post-exilic Jews. The Yahweh that came back from Babylon is not quite the Yahweh that went there.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
It seems to me that it's the prophecies themselves that matter, not whether one person (or three persons) named Isaiah actually existed and wrote them.
quote:Martin if God could intervene then, why not now?
Originally posted by Martin60:
44-300+ prophesies
Depending On one's view
I used to believe in as fully a Ptolemaic theology as possible,
And now virtually nothing is.
I can't help still believe that God intervened in the development of the culture that Jesus was born in to, that it didn't develop completely randomly, that it was directed in ways to ensure a sufficient milieu for Him, including prophecy.
As none of the myths can be true,
quote:But this has nothing to do with inerrancy at all. Isaiah could have been one or more people. The biblical text may or may not record accurate his/their message.
Originally posted by Jamat:
Nick I agree that however many Isaiah's there may have been this does not affect the book itself.
quote:Prophecy is not myth.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Martin if God could intervene then, why not now?
Originally posted by Martin60:
44-300+ prophesies
Why would He?
All the intervention was for Christ's sake.
Christ is the end of prophecy, the fulfilment of it, no further intervention is required. It's down to us now, we are His arms, feet, mind, wallet; in the Spirit.
Depending On one's view
I used to believe in as fully a Ptolemaic theology as possible,
And now virtually nothing is.
I can't help still believe that God intervened in the development of the culture that Jesus was born in to, that it didn't develop completely randomly, that it was directed in ways to ensure a sufficient milieu for Him, including prophecy.
As none of the myths can be true,
If prophecies are fulfilled in him viz road to Emmaus story then how were they myths unless he was too?
How does God's intervention square with your commitment to evolutionary mechanisms?
quote:This is the nub of the matter isn't it? Wicked liberals, trying to destroy the faith.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Guys, there was a period in the past when the lack of actual physical samples of the ancient texts led to opponents of the faith, whether total non-Christians or 'liberal' theologians in the churches
quote:But you were the one who first used "historicity" in this thread, and you used the DSS as an example:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What I claimed for the DSS was not that they proved the historicity of their content but that they reinforced the reliability and integrity of the received text as Steve showed.
quote:You seem to be lumping the historicity and the editing in together here.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:The rocks ? Obviously to you that's a shut door but there are no certainties remember. The stories? Best attested historicity of any docs. Editing very minor. Just look at Dead Sea scrolls. I'll hang my hat on those.
What truth? You mean there is other truth apart from what is written in the rocks that cannot lie and the editing of stories
quote:No, just a side issue. And I'm not 'the gatekeeper' in the kind of sense you seem to mean. I do, mind you, think there are times when 'liberal' theologians should have the integrity to admit that, whatever the ultimate truth or otherwise of their views, they are taking a stance so far removed from the original beliefs of Christianity that they aren't realistically entitled to the benefits of church membership, let alone leadership, and should leave.
This is the nub of the matter isn't it? Wicked liberals, trying to destroy the faith.
quote:I'm far from convinced that the basis of Church membership (that's capital C Church) is the acceptance of a particular collection of theological propositions. I thought it was about desire to follow Christ.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Karl, Liberal Backslider;
quote:No, just a side issue. And I'm not 'the gatekeeper' in the kind of sense you seem to mean. I do, mind you, think there are times when 'liberal' theologians should have the integrity to admit that, whatever the ultimate truth or otherwise of their views, they are taking a stance so far removed from the original beliefs of Christianity that they aren't realistically entitled to the benefits of church membership, let alone leadership, and should leave.
This is the nub of the matter isn't it? Wicked liberals, trying to destroy the faith.
Like if you want to play rugby, join a rugby club; don't mess up the soccer club by staying there but trying to play to rugby rules....
quote:As it happens, I'm not convinced that it's about a set of theological propositions either. And yes, it is about following Christ. But could I point out that that does mean following Christ, not a figure of the same name but significantly different to the one in the NT. If 'your' Christ is different enough from the NT then you are not following Christ but an idol of your own devising. In a church with, these days, voluntary membership, forcing yourself on a body you disagree with is as unethical as the opposite approach of the Inquisition. I know a lot of 'liberal' theologians who are decidedly illiberal in their attitude to this....
I'm far from convinced that the basis of Church membership (that's capital C Church) is the acceptance of a particular collection of theological propositions. I thought it was about desire to follow Christ. Sorry, I'm not leaving.
quote:You're doing that whole this is what I understand x to mean, you don't understand it to be x but instead y, therefore you're wrong.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As it happens, I'm not convinced that it's about a set of theological propositions either. And yes, it is about following Christ. But could I point out that that does mean following Christ, not a figure of the same name but significantly different to the one in the NT. If 'your' Christ is different enough from the NT then you are not following Christ but an idol of your own devising. In a church with, these days, voluntary membership, forcing yourself on a body you disagree with is as unethical as the opposite approach of the Inquisition.
quote:If you phrased it as you did above, I'm not surprised.
I know a lot of 'liberal' theologians who are decidedly illiberal in their attitude to this....
quote:Except what liberal Christians are trying to do is actually find the Christ of the NT as opposed to church dogma about him. By the same token, liberals could accuse conservatives of following the Christ of church creeds rather than the historical Christ. Probably best to leave people alone, though.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Karl, Liberal Backslider;
quote:As it happens, I'm not convinced that it's about a set of theological propositions either. And yes, it is about following Christ. But could I point out that that does mean following Christ, not a figure of the same name but significantly different to the one in the NT. If 'your' Christ is different enough from the NT then you are not following Christ but an idol of your own devising.
I'm far from convinced that the basis of Church membership (that's capital C Church) is the acceptance of a particular collection of theological propositions. I thought it was about desire to follow Christ. Sorry, I'm not leaving.
quote:Oh please. When we start burning people at the stake in the name of Borg, Spong and Crossan you might possibly have a point. Until then, don't make me laugh.
In a church with, these days, voluntary membership, forcing yourself on a body you disagree with is as unethical as the opposite approach of the Inquisition.
quote:You mean they won't go quietly at the behest of self-appointed gatekeepers of the faith? Surprise bloody surprise.
I know a lot of 'liberal' theologians who are decidedly illiberal in their attitude to this....
quote:I do not know what your cult was and use of Ptolemaic doesn't help. I thought I knew what you meant but obviously not. Your insistent slandering of God's character is sad. I seem unable to communicate here. I did not want to discuss that issue as everything has already been said elsewhere. Maybe you could consider what I asked above which is where does it stop this slander of God's character. He continually takes life, allows disease and refuses to intervene in human conflicts where countless innocents are embroiled. If you take the view that he is in fact real, and I know you don't really, then you've got some big fish to fry here. You already know I reject evolution as inconsistent with a personal God and an unprovable proposition. I also reject the basic tenets of post modernism since they reject all attempts to impose meaning on realities but their own. That is like forcing someone to convert at gunpoint and Martin you refuse to acknowledge views outside that frame instead treating me like a cretin who hasn't yet seen the light. I am still happy to interact but you have to admit old chap that there isn't much common ground.
A Ptolemaic metanarrative requires that above all God be Killer except when incarnate and neither can His followers be. Before that they must stone delinquents, witches, homosexuals and commit genocide.
quote:Liberal is a Woolley if convenient term. The Christ of the Bible could be the Miracle working human teacher of the gospels, the theological Christ of Paul or the being of Revelation 1 and 2. He is also seen as pictures of suffering as well as reigning as King over the earth in the OT prophecies. He is probably known by relational experience as much as by intellectual understanding. ISTM that often simpler people emphasise the former, clever educated people as on this forum, the latter.
Except what liberal Christians are trying to do is actually find the Christ of the NT as opposed to church dogma about him. By the same token, liberals could accuse conservatives of following the Christ of church creeds rather than the historical Christ. Probably best to leave people alone, though.
quote:My cult was like yours, but I don't know how much worse your theology is, whether you're damnationist too.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:I do not know what your cult was and use of Ptolemaic doesn't help. I thought I knew what you meant but obviously not. Your insistent slandering of God's character is sad. I seem unable to communicate here. I did not want to discuss that issue as everything has already been said elsewhere. Maybe you could consider what I asked above which is where does it stop this slander of God's character. He continually takes life, allows disease and refuses to intervene in human conflicts where countless innocents are embroiled. If you take the view that he is in fact real, and I know you don't really, then you've got some big fish to fry here. You already know I reject evolution as inconsistent with a personal God and an unprovable proposition. I also reject the basic tenets of post modernism since they reject all attempts to impose meaning on realities but their own. That is like forcing someone to convert at gunpoint and Martin you refuse to acknowledge views outside that frame instead treating me like a cretin who hasn't yet seen the light. I am still happy to interact but you have to admit old chap that there isn't much common ground.
A Ptolemaic metanarrative requires that above all God be Killer except when incarnate and neither can His followers be. Before that they must stone delinquents, witches, homosexuals and commit genocide.
quote:I love your description of the world. But postmodernism isn't so much a "fact" as a framework. Blue spectacles, to kype from Lewis. It is something to look through, not to look at. There are other frameworks. Which one(s) work better depends on who's looking and what they're looking at.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Evolution and postmodernism are facts in the real world, the rational world, the world of the senses, the world of rock and mind and stories.
quote:As per...
Originally posted by Egeria:
Master pomo prose (see Judith Butler for example) and you too may win a bad writing context.
quote:So no one? You continually insist on Jesus being the only thing that makes sense but Jesus of the scriptures was a damnationist right?
You infer wrongly about my reasoning, either deliberately or because you don't have that capacity. Nobody else here has any problem with the logic of what I say.
quote:To me, that isn't the question at all it is What is the purpose of me?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is quite simple Jamat. What is the purpose of Christianity?
If it is Jesus' message then everything should be evaluated based on that. Genocide and stoning people does not fit that message. As no Christian follows the Bible as literal in its entirety, what you use to render the judgement as to which bit is accurate should be measured by what is most important.
quote:That's why I didn't want to go there but since we're here babies are killed wantonly every day! It's called abortion. If you are a Christian you believe that human spirits live forever including aborted babies, including Caananite babies. The end is not yet when anyone shuffles off the mortal coil. Let's say you are God and you know a person will grow up to a future without him. Maybe you take that kid pre-emptively. I'm not God, but I believe as I think Moses said, his works are perfect and his ways just. So take your arrogant judgement of him Karl and stick it where the sun don't shine.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Oh it's judgement. All those Canaanitd babies deserved to be put to the sword. That's OK then.
Makes me want to puke, that morally bankrupt utter bullshit.
quote:Joshua 10:40 Yes, he did and he is incapable of evil by definition. This is the maker of the universe.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's not a judgement of him because I don't believe he ordered such an evil thing.
quote:This, besides being a tangent, is just wrong. Unborn fetuses are aborted wantonly every day. Being unborn, they're not babies.
Originally posted by Jamat:
That's why I didn't want to go there but since we're here babies are killed wantonly every day! It's called abortion.
quote:That sounds more like Plato than Christianity. Of course there is a long-established branch of Christianity that does not believe that the damned will live forever. And it is by no means clear what the ancient Israelites believed about the afterlife.
If you are a Christian you believe that human spirits live forever including aborted babies, including Caananite babies.
quote:This is fair - as far as it goes. If you are the deity who holds the keys of life and death in your hand, what is it to you if one person dies now or later?
The end is not yet when anyone shuffles off the mortal coil. Let's say you are God and you know a person will grow up to a future without him. Maybe you take that kid pre-emptively. I'm not God, but I believe as I think Moses said, his works are perfect and his ways just.
quote:Did Moses judge JHWH? When Moses apparently was able to discuss with the deity about the forthcoming plans of judgment, was Moses being arrogant?
So take your arrogant judgement of him Karl and stick it where the sun don't shine.
quote:The problem with this idea is that it is circular; God is good and the root of all goodness. Therefore everything God does is good. Therefore he is incapable of doing anything evil.
Originally posted by Jamat:
Joshua 10:40 Yes, he did and he is incapable of evil by definition.
quote:Tribal foundation myth, much like the story of Brutus fighting Gog and Magog to found the Kingdom of Prydain.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Joshua 10:40 Yes, he did and he is incapable of evil by definition. This is the maker of the universe.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's not a judgement of him because I don't believe he ordered such an evil thing.
I don't like the story either but what other way is there to look at it?
quote:I know others may look at it that way. I don't.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Tribal foundation myth, much like the story of Brutus fighting Gog and Magog to found the Kingdom of Prydain.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Joshua 10:40 Yes, he did and he is incapable of evil by definition. This is the maker of the universe.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's not a judgement of him because I don't believe he ordered such an evil thing.
I don't like the story either but what other way is there to look at it?
quote:I disagree on both points. Only you are using hellish language. And your ideas are inherently simplistic and circular.
Originally posted by Jamat:
Mr Cheesy
I have no wish to indulge in hellish rants. The alternative was to suck up what Karl said. I have done that before. I am neither simplistic or circular in anything I have posted here.
quote:Nope, it is just a fact. Just as up to 50% of fetuses are naturally rejected anyway. Are you going to claim that we should be trying to save those "babies" too? Your definition makes no sense.
I appreciate your points which deserve some thought apart from the one about abortion which is your value judgement.
quote:Giants? Half-giants? This is sounding more like mythology the more you look into it.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:I know others may look at it that way. I don't.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Tribal foundation myth, much like the story of Brutus fighting Gog and Magog to found the Kingdom of Prydain.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Joshua 10:40 Yes, he did and he is incapable of evil by definition. This is the maker of the universe.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's not a judgement of him because I don't believe he ordered such an evil thing.
I don't like the story either but what other way is there to look at it?
One more point, If you read right through Joshua, you discover that the common thread in all the total extermination stories was the sons of Anak. These were Giants. The corruption of the human gene pool could have been a factor here as in the Flood. It is entirely possible that the beings Joshua was ordered to exterminate were hybrids, not totally human and if allowed to remain would have made humanity unredeemable.
quote:So unpacking this, Mr Cheesy
it strikes me that your understanding of the deity is as simplistic and flawed as your understanding of geology, and amounts to "things are the way I say they are. Because I say so". You might despise "intellectualism" but the alternative you are offering is Stupidity
quote:I thought we were discussing God.
Originally posted by Jamat:
So unpacking this, Mr Cheesy
My understanding is simplistic and flawed
You think My explanation of why Joshua may have acted as he did is 'stupid.'
quote:I don't recall being part of that - I avoid those threads mostly because debating with creationists is so painful. I've no knowledge about your previous experiences - if it resulted in you being pound into the dust, no doubt it was because of the weakness of your position.
You are refer back to a previous discussion about geology from years ago where I was pounded into the dust, which is completely irrelevant. Thanks for that vote of confidence.
quote:If you mean that I believe thinking is better than not thinking, and that thinking beyond the narrow confined space of a literalist is better than trying to make ends tie up that obviously don't tie up - then yes. Just as having a nuanced - even basic - understanding of geology is better than having one educated from a book which bears no resemblance to the facts on the ground.
Perhaps you might like to explain a more nuanced approach I might take here since you also think I am anti intellectual you must consider your own view of the OT far superior.
quote:It is pretty obvious that one cannot explain stupid to a person who refuses to accept that his worldview is constrained and instead rubbishes all evidence to the contrary.
I concede to taking a straightforward reading of the Joshua narrative. Please explain how this is 'stupid'. I know lots of folk with similar views.
quote:Of course but had you ever thought of that angle? It only just occurred to me after reading through all the relevant chapters in a sitting.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:Giants? Half-giants? This is sounding more like mythology the more you look into it
quote:I think if you're hearing a voice telling you to murder your own son or a bunch of unbelievers, you need to get yourself to a medical professional.
Originally posted by Jamat:
You only have two options
Trust him or not.
quote:So instead of discussing issues you want to imply personal slurs? Glad we're straight and see ya later.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I thought we were discussing God.
Originally posted by Jamat:
So unpacking this, Mr Cheesy
My understanding is simplistic and flawed
You think My explanation of why Joshua may have acted as he did is 'stupid.'
quote:I don't recall being part of that - I avoid those threads mostly because debating with creationists is so painful. I've no knowledge about your previous experiences - if it resulted in you being pound into the dust, no doubt it was because of the weakness of your position.
You are refer back to a previous discussion about geology from years ago where I was pounded into the dust, which is completely irrelevant. Thanks for that vote of confidence.
quote:If you mean that I believe thinking is better than not thinking, and that thinking beyond the narrow confined space of a literalist is better than trying to make ends tie up that obviously don't tie up - then yes. Just as having a nuanced - even basic - understanding of geology is better than having one educated from a book which bears no resemblance to the facts on the ground.
Perhaps you might like to explain a more nuanced approach I might take here since you also think I am anti intellectual you must consider your own view of the OT far superior.
That's the problem here, your position is absolutely no different to the person who believes that the world is pink. And it isn't worth the effort trying to argue with stupid.
quote:It is pretty obvious that one cannot explain stupid to a person who refuses to accept that his worldview is constrained and instead rubbishes all evidence to the contrary.
I concede to taking a straightforward reading of the Joshua narrative. Please explain how this is 'stupid'. I know lots of folk with similar views.
That's rather like the dwellers of a cave who believe that the shadows they're seeing behind a fire are reality - and when one person escapes to experience actual reality refuse to accept it because they'd rather believe the shadows.
Oh, wait..
quote:Yeah, I guess attacking your view as stupid must be a personal slur, because you said so. Seeya.
Originally posted by Jamat:
So instead of discussing issues you want to imply personal slurs? Glad we're straight and see ya later.
quote:You have no trouble accepting a wooden Ptolemaic God. My basis is Jesus. Alone. What else could it possibly be?
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:So no one? You continually insist on Jesus being the only thing that makes sense but Jesus of the scriptures was a damnationist right?
You infer wrongly about my reasoning, either deliberately or because you don't have that capacity. Nobody else here has any problem with the logic of what I say.
quote:ISTM that you picked out some ideal of tolerance and goodness out of the ether, called it Jesus and made it your personal pet. No different to any other idol.
Empirically no one. No one but you. Because of your wooden literalism.
You have to believe in demon-human hybrids. I forget these corollaries we must have been through through the years of woodenism. A wooden Ptolemaic orrery. I'm surprised your Earth isn't flat, or at least on the back of four elephants on a turtle. Ah, but those hypnopompic fantasies aren't part of the Bible's. So the entire cosmos is 6000 years old. If not, why not? That wood be inconsistent.
quote:Post modernism is not a fact of our modern lives any more than any other ism. It is not a necessary lens to understand reality. You are immersed in where it takes you but that seems to be a bit like a love affair. What happens when the high wears off?
It's the ether of the gospels. Of that man's actions in the gospels. And of course, all theologies are heresy.
quote:All reasoning is based on premises and yours and mine are very different. To accuse anyone of fallacious reasoning is a bit insulting when all it boils down to is disagreement about that.
quote:You obviously are so bitter about your 30 cult years that you think anyone else remotely the same needs to see the light.
quote:If you say you believe in God of course You are not a liar. My question is What God on what basis and that is a genuine enquiry as I have no trouble accepting the Biblical God so being a convinced post modernist who rejects pretty well all meta narratives what is your basis?
Again your mind reading skills aren't up to it. You can't possibly see it.
quote:That is a great post. I hear what you are saying. You seem to have thought a lot about the issue. For me I cannot get by 2 beliefs that most people here do not share.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Jamat
If it is axiomatic that God is Good - and I believe that too - then that must have some impact on the way that we read scripture and also the lessons we draw from it for our own behaviour.
I think you believe that whatever God does must be good, and therefore if the OT shows Him commanding wholesale slaughter, that must in some sense which He understands (and we don't) good.
I've heard the Catholic position (which is both anti-abortion and anti-capital-punishment) summarised this way. Only God gets to kill people. I don't know about that, maybe that is in some sense tenable. But the OT picture has God ordering other human beings to take part in wholesale slaughter of enemies. God in effect saying to His chosen people, not just "you can be murderously violent if I give you permission to be so", but "you must be murderously violent because I have commanded it".
Now that crosses a line for me. I can in no way conceive of such orders as good. And particularly when I read in the NT that we are commanded to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. There is an inescapable contradiction there, which is one of the things which affects the way I look at scripture.
To my mind, there is a demonstrable trajectory in scripture in the way God is perceived by His followers. From a tribal henotheistic God who is above all other Gods and will vanquish them by violence if necessary, to the monotheistic God of the major prophets who wishes His people to be a light to the Gentiles, to the God incarnate in Jesus who encourages us to see Good as a good Father, to love our enemies, and to forgive those who sin against us, to the summary in the letter of John that "God is Love". The agape love which is unselfish, self-giving and forgiving.
The other perceptions were steps along the way to God is Love. When we rationalise those steps because of a our view of the inerrancy of scripture, we rationalise goodness away from God is Love. And we give scope to those who behave hatefully today in the name of God.
I strongly recommend that you read this book.
quote:Martin, no hard feelings but you are sounding a bit like my wife. She asks things like who made God and I just don't know
Originally posted by Martin60:
Empirically no one. No one but you. Because of your wooden literalism.
You have to believe in demon-human hybrids.
And if there is only one 6000 year old universe, how old is God? [/QB]
quote:It is making assumptions about the views of someone you've not met that is really stupid as well as posting patronising asshat stuff that is not relevant. I am happy to defend my reading if you can stop using the pejorative language.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Yeah, I guess attacking your view as stupid must be a personal slur, because you said so. Seeya.
Originally posted by Jamat:
So instead of discussing issues you want to imply personal slurs? Glad we're straight and see ya later.
quote:Friend, I've been around the block here several times. I know you are not stupid, but remain convinced that the view you are expressing is stupid.
Originally posted by Jamat:
It is making assumptions about the views of someone you've not met that is really stupid as well as posting patronising asshat stuff that is not relevant. I am happy to defend my reading if you can stop using the pejorative language.
quote:Ok I hear this but the term literalism is very loaded.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I think if you're hearing a voice telling you to murder your own son or a bunch of unbelievers, you need to get yourself to a medical professional.
Originally posted by Jamat:
You only have two options
Trust him or not.
I I
The real issue here is not what we'd do in the same circumstances but in how we interpret the text. Personally, I rather like Kierkegaard's take on the abomination which is the Abraham/Isaac story. O
Rather than asking whether we too would obey and put Isaac on the pyre, a better question is to think about the value of using logic and the value of the prophetic.
As far as I can see, literalism just gets stuck in the mire, being able to use the stories to stimulate deeper thought is a much more healthy way to use them.
quote:It doesn't matter to me that they're "not true", but I don't accept that useful things are always true. I also don't accept the literalist division between true-helpful and lies-unhelpful.
Originally posted by Jamat:
Ok I hear this but the term literalism is very loaded.
I also use the stories to stimulate thought but how is that important in the question of whether they are true?
quote:Of course Abraham wasn't Abraham at that point in the story and he had no knowledge of the crucifixion (and incidentally I don't accept that it is a type of the crucifixion, it is quite a different thing to any of the theories of the atonement).
If I heard a voice telling me to kill my boy I would know it wasn't God but I am not Abraham and in fact he didn't and the whole story is a type of the crucifixion.
quote:Yes, I think deciding that something is mythical is a part of the interpreting. How can it not be?
If the issue is how we interpret the text and I agree with that, what is interpreting here? Is deciding it is a myth part of interpreting? Or is that more speculating?
quote:Not sure what you mean. The bible is not a coherent whole, it is fairly obvious that one cannot avoid making "assumptions based on stuff outside the text".
In interpreting is it OK to make assumptions based on stuff outside the text?
quote:I've posted the following, from Reformation era translator Tyndale, on other threads previously - apologies to those who've already seen it, but it does seem to answer Jamat's question there.
But why does literalism have to be wooden? And is there any literalism that isn't?
quote:In medieval scholarship they interpreted the Bible by a scheme known as the 'Fourfold Sense' whereby they more or less flatly applied four 'senses' to every text. I always struggle to remember all four and different universities of the time even seem to have used slightly different terms, but three of the 'senses' were the Literal, the Allegorical, and the Prophetic.
“Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the scripture hath but one sense, which is the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave, thou canst never err or go out of the way. And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but go out of the way. Nevertheless the scripture uses proverbs, similitudes, riddles or allegories, as all other speeches do; but that which the proverb, similitude, riddle or allegory signifieth, is ever the literal sense, which thou must seek out diligently.”
quote:None taken mate. That makes you human and likable again by the way. And it's all right. I DO know. Logic is inexorable. You should try it. Then you would know. Your ignorance is due to emotional preference, experiential reasoning: you are emotionally incapable of rational reasoning and you cannot differentiate experiential from rational. That's normal. That's OK. Most people find any analytical, rational reasoning, let alone consistent rational reasoning, impossible. Me included of course. I have no idea how to communicate this to you apart from directly. No idea how to love you in it. Until you show some humanity, which you invariably do. I should love you regardless.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Martin, no hard feelings but you are sounding a bit like my wife. She asks things like who made God and I just don't know
Originally posted by Martin60:
Empirically no one. No one but you. Because of your wooden literalism.
You have to believe in demon-human hybrids.
And if there is only one 6000 year old universe, how old is God?
[/QB]
quote:You answer your helpless question. You are a good man who insists on believing the wrong things wrongly, anti-intellectually. This is entirely due to emotional reasons. Fear is the key.
But why does literalism have to be wooden? And is there any literalism that isn't?
quote:What the demons are now the fourth estate?! In your friend Murdoch's case, may be.
ISTM if you read it as it was written you do see the demon hybrids. I also live in the modern world but the 'angel ' view of Genesis 6 strongly suggests something a bit like that happened and it is reinforced in the book of Jude. The Angels that left their first estate. (Not suggesting anything about the press here)
quote:Well, it doesn't help much - "you have to be brutally slaughtered because your great great great grandfather was the wrong race".
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Of course but had you ever thought of that angle? It only just occurred to me after reading through all the relevant chapters in a sitting.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:Giants? Half-giants? This is sounding more like mythology the more you look into it
quote:Yes, but so what? Unless you can give us arguments for why your interpretation is better. Not arguments for why someone else's interpretation isn't consistent with yours. That doesn't really require arguing for. But what we're seeing here are arguments of the "No it's not. Joshua xx:yy so there" variety.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:I know others may look at it that way. I don't.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Tribal foundation myth, much like the story of Brutus fighting Gog and Magog to found the Kingdom of Prydain.
quote:Wait, what? If you know others may look at it as tribal foundation myth, then why did you ask "but what other way is there to look at it?" (Italics in the quote mine.)
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:I know others may look at it that way. I don't.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Tribal foundation myth, much like the story of Brutus fighting Gog and Magog to found the Kingdom of Prydain.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Joshua 10:40 Yes, he did and he is incapable of evil by definition. This is the maker of the universe.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's not a judgement of him because I don't believe he ordered such an evil thing.
I don't like the story either but what other way is there to look at it?
quote:Yep,If you read it as narrative, what is it saying.
Or were you really asking what other convincing (to you) way there is to look at it?
quote:Agreed
Stories don't have to have literally happened exactly as stated for them to be useful.
quote:A father sacrifices his unique son, WHO IS THE 'SON OF PROMISE.' The son carries the wood. It is a test of faith and obedience. A resurrection is expected (see Hebrews)and there is a substitution (Ram for son)
I don't accept that it is a type of the crucifixion, (Abrahamic story)
quote:Agreed in that you have to decide what you are interpreting unless it is agreed. Definition may not be a factor.
I think deciding that something is mythical is a part of the interpreting. How can it not be?
quote:Disagree. It is IMV coherent as a metanarrative of monotheism. If you affirm the contrary, what is the evidence? You have an explanation of God, creation, fall and redemption.
The bible is not a coherent whole,
quote:Agreed. I was thinking of big picture world view assumptions. 'I' presume evolution for instance, is false.
it is fairly obvious that one cannot avoid making "assumptions based on stuff outside the text".
quote:That is very neat . The presupposition is that the Bible and God can be in opposition which I cannot accept.
ISTM the first argument makes the Bible to be more important than God. We will stretch our beliefs about God to fit the Procrustean bed of the Scriptures. The second argument makes God more important than the Bible
quote:Yep.
can you actually give us an argument for why your interpretive framework is superior?
quote:As a cradle Catholic I found series flaws in that background world view. How does one avoid serious flaws? Whether it is one person falling over a cliff or a couple of billion, it is still a cliff.
Originally posted by mousethief:
So, basically, it's internally consistent, it does everything you want it to, and lots of people agree with you.
I don't think I need to mention how many seriously flawed worldviews there have been with those qualities.
quote:Comfort is over-rated.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
mt--
(From ex-fundie balcony.)
But, when it works for you, it can be very comforting, FWIW.
Which is probably also true of a good many of the other worldviews you alluded to.
quote:This is the whole problem with this idea: New Testament books are not in themselves evidence that something was a foretaste of the atonement.
Originally posted by Jamat:
A father sacrifices his unique son, WHO IS THE 'SON OF PROMISE.' The son carries the wood. It is a test of faith and obedience. A resurrection is expected (see Hebrews)and there is a substitution (Ram for son)
quote:One could only really consider it to be a coherent whole if one has never actually bothered trying to read it. It fails on a microlevel (how many days was Noah on the ark, who was the first farmer (Cain, Abel, Noah?) who were all the people around in the times of Cain and Abel when they're supposed to be the children of Adam and Eve) and it fails on a macrolevel (discontinuities between the prophets and the law, between the OT and the NT).
Disagree. It is IMV coherent as a metanarrative of monotheism. If you affirm the contrary, what is the evidence? You have an explanation of God, creation, fall and redemption.
quote:#facepalm
Agreed. I was thinking of big picture world view assumptions. 'I' presume evolution for instance, is false.
quote:Yes, you said that before. But it's almost besides the point: whether we like it or not, comfort is a big (a) motivator and (b) draw for people. If I find myself within a group with a shared identity that I find comforting, then I (might be) less likely to reject or question the assumptions behind it.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Comfort is over-rated.
We humans like to pick a viewpoint and stick with it. Doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.
quote:Au contraire it succeeds on all levels but I guess that is another story. And yes, I have read it
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
One could only really consider it to be a coherent whole if one has never actually bothered trying to read it. It fails on a microlevel (how many days was Noah on the ark, who was the first farmer (Cain, Abel, Noah?) who were all the people around in the times of Cain and Abel when they're supposed to be the children of Adam and Eve) and it fails on a macerolevel (discontinuities between the prophets and the law,
quote:I see. So you ask for examples of where it doesn't read as a coherent whole and then effectively reply "nope, it works on every level, actually."
Originally posted by Jamat:
Au contraire it succeeds on all levels but I guess that is another story. And yes, I have read it
quote:That reminds me of the old joke, 'there must be a God, because I don't understand how things work'.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Indeed. There's another problem. If your framework tells you evolution is false, then your framework is wonky because we know that evolution is not false, as surely as any other model within science.
quote:Same way we'd expect those from an iconoclastic tradition to accept Orthodox and Catholic practices regarding icons and statues.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Beautiful indeed.
But it does involve acknowledging just how deep the differences run. Biblical inerrancy will always be idolatrous to me. How can that be accommodated?
quote:Before we get to that, however, I'd like to understand how stripping God of mystery, making the bible self-explanatory and self-consistent and treating the bible as the inerrant witness to the nature of God is treated by its exponents as not idolatrous. How is that not making God in the image of what they find in the bible? Or is it simply a matter of that being an accurate description how God is through their eyes, albeit not framed in their words?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Same way we'd expect those from an iconoclastic tradition to accept Orthodox and Catholic practices regarding icons and statues.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Beautiful indeed.
But it does involve acknowledging just how deep the differences run. Biblical inerrancy will always be idolatrous to me. How can that be accommodated?
Same way I expect folk like Jamat to accept what to them might seem an idolatrous attitude towards science and reason.
It's not easy.
quote:I think it's exactly that. To the literalist inerrantist, the only accurate picture of God is that gained from reading the Bible literally. An image of God that differs from that is not an image of the real one and is therefore an idol, understood as any false God.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:Before we get to that, however, I'd like to understand how stripping God of mystery, making the bible self-explanatory and self-consistent and treating the bible as the inerrant witness to the nature of God is treated by its exponents as not idolatrous. How is that not making God in the image of what they find in the bible? Or is it simply a matter of that being an accurate description how God is through their eyes, albeit not framed in their words?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Same way we'd expect those from an iconoclastic tradition to accept Orthodox and Catholic practices regarding icons and statues.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Beautiful indeed.
But it does involve acknowledging just how deep the differences run. Biblical inerrancy will always be idolatrous to me. How can that be accommodated?
Same way I expect folk like Jamat to accept what to them might seem an idolatrous attitude towards science and reason.
It's not easy.
quote:Because if everything is set out there clearly, there's nowhere to go with it. The true Christian has to follow Buddha and sit under a tree and read: perfect reading leads to perfect knowledge of God and, since the text is entirely revelatory and accessible, there is no mystery which is not resolvable by this method.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
TB--
It's not idolatrous to them, because it's the book that *God* gave them--even to the point of dictating it to the writers. It's a user's manual for...everything.
But where do you get the idea that it rids God of mystery? Just the opposite, IMHO.
quote:You tell me. You laid out a hermeneutic which does not preclude serious flaws. We're not talking about the RCC worldview right now, but yours. How do YOU avoid serious flaws?
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:As a cradle Catholic I found series flaws in that background world view. How does one avoid serious flaws?
Originally posted by mousethief:
So, basically, it's internally consistent, it does everything you want it to, and lots of people agree with you.
I don't think I need to mention how many seriously flawed worldviews there have been with those qualities.
quote:I wonder that you should say this, when it was your argument that the large numbers of people who share your understanding of Scripture constitute some kind of witness to it.
Whether it is one person falling over a cliff or a couple of billion, it is still a cliff.
quote:Perhaps your assurance is baseless and wishful thinking.
One thing Catholicism did not offer me was a personal assurance of salvation.
quote:'strewth! I meant banana bus.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Beautiful Baranabas62.
quote:Not completely from the outside. Christianity does not have a monopoly on such behaviour.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Yes, you said that before. But it's almost besides the point: whether we like it or not, comfort is a big (a) motivator and (b) draw for people. If I find myself within a group with a shared identity that I find comforting, then I (might be) less likely to reject or question the assumptions behind it.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Comfort is over-rated.
We humans like to pick a viewpoint and stick with it. Doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.
Saying from the outside in a stern and disapproving way "oh, you know, that's not the kind of thing that you should be doing" might have some intellectual support but is no help in understanding the attraction of those beliefs.
quote:I see. So stating that I think Buddhism is an utterly morally bankrupt idea that everyone just needs to grow up and reject would be absolutely fine in the context of a debate about the finer points of Tibetan Buddhist beliefs, would it? No of course not. In fact repeating the same point multiple times does not move the conversation on and is more likely just to entrench positions.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not completely from the outside. Christianity does not have a monopoly on such behaviour.
And if understanding the why of such behaviour is the entire point, then you brief summation is all that is necessary.
But that isn't the point. There is a purpose to belief and trying to get the important bits as correct as possible is integral to the conversation.
quote:I don' understand, what examples? You gave a couple of ridiculous canards that any serious Biblical scholar can dispense with. It's a bit like the so called Pratt arguments against evolution. I can only assume you haven' t a clue about the Bible.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I see. So you ask for examples of where it doesn't read as a coherent whole and then effectively reply "nope, it works on every level, actually."
Originally posted by Jamat:
Au contraire it succeeds on all levels but I guess that is another story. And yes, I have read it
quote:I've heard Christians sermons that specifically address the comfortable vs calling issue. So those priests/pastors are irrelevant?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I see. So stating that I think Buddhism is an utterly morally bankrupt idea that everyone just needs to grow up and reject would be absolutely fine in the context of a debate about the finer points of Tibetan Buddhist beliefs, would it? No of course not. In fact repeating the same point multiple times does not move the conversation on and is more likely just to entrench positions.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not completely from the outside. Christianity does not have a monopoly on such behaviour.
And if understanding the why of such behaviour is the entire point, then you brief summation is all that is necessary.
But that isn't the point. There is a purpose to belief and trying to get the important bits as correct as possible is integral to the conversation.
Fair enough, perhaps, to make the point. But to repeat it as if nobody is listening and it is something important everyone needs to take on board?
quote:Not a spiritualized Medo-Persian (circumcision of the 'heart'), Ptolemaic one, no.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:I don' understand, what examples? You gave a couple of ridiculous canards that any serious Biblical scholar can dispense with. It's a bit like the so called Pratt arguments against evolution. I can only assume you haven' t a clue about the Bible.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I see. So you ask for examples of where it doesn't read as a coherent whole and then effectively reply "nope, it works on every level, actually."
Originally posted by Jamat:
Au contraire it succeeds on all levels but I guess that is another story. And yes, I have read it
quote:Karl, to me it is a morally bankrupt thought system that sinners use to excuse themselves. Behe, Meyer and Berlinski I find convincing on the subject. It does not explain biogenesis, it's 2 mechanisms are blunt levers. Meyer's 'Signature in the Cell' underlines the complex nature of DNA coding calling the whole thing into question. Anyhow, Berlinski says it better than me.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Indeed. There's another problem. If your framework tells you evolution is false, then your framework is wonky because we know that evolution is not false, as surely as any other model within science.
quote:No he doesn't.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Karl, to me it is a morally bankrupt thought system that sinners use to excuse themselves. Behe, Meyer and Berlinski I find convincing on the subject. It does not explain biogenesis, it's 2 mechanisms are blunt levers. Meyer's 'Signature in the Cell' underlines the complex nature of DNA coding calling the whole thing into question. Anyhow, Berlinski says it better than me.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Indeed. There's another problem. If your framework tells you evolution is false, then your framework is wonky because we know that evolution is not false, as surely as any other model within science.
berlinski
quote:Indeed! The whole idea is one huge category error. Evolution wasn't developed to free people from culpability. It was developed to understand the course of development of the biosphere. I can't imagine why anybody would think the former, if looking fairly and honestly at the reams of historical evidence.
Originally posted by Martin60:
How does the fact of evolution excuse me from being a sinner?
quote:Martin its a faith stance without any moral substance ergo really convenient to escape responsibility if one wants that.
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:No he doesn't.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Karl, to me it is a morally bankrupt thought system that sinners use to excuse themselves. Behe, Meyer and Berlinski I find convincing on the subject. It does not explain biogenesis, it's 2 mechanisms are blunt levers. Meyer's 'Signature in the Cell' underlines the complex nature of DNA coding calling the whole thing into question. Anyhow, Berlinski says it better than me.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Indeed. There's another problem. If your framework tells you evolution is false, then your framework is wonky because we know that evolution is not false, as surely as any other model within science.
berlinski
How does the fact of evolution excuse me from being a sinner? How does the fact of evolution give me eternal life?
And how does Original Sin make me culpable of anything?
quote:Too old to look with intent now
Originally posted by Martin60:
The (nearly) Medo-Persian, Ptolemaic, literalist legalist is perfectly safe as long as he never fails to keep the law and due to the abrogation (hence the nearly) in the narrative he doesn't have to be circumcised, he can eat bacon if he's really liberal and he doesn't have to have ringlets.
He is perfectly safe. Until he looks at another woman of course. Then his fate hangs in the balance until he repents. Phew!
When Armageddon comes to the rest of us he'll be raptured with the handful of true Christians, except his wife it sounds like, or taken to a place of safety and rule those of us who survive with a rod of iron under the returned God the Killer on Steroids.
quote:Well, I do it partly by talking to you and the rest of the people here. I find trying to understand how you all think keeps me grounded.
Originally posted by mousethiefYou tell me. You laid out a hermeneutic which does not preclude serious flaws. We're not talking about the RCC worldview right now, but yours. How do YOU avoid serious flaws
Perhaps your assurance is baseless and wishful thinking.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:'strewth! I meant banana bus.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Beautiful Baranabas62.
You're forgiven. Sometimes I re-read my own posts and wish I'd gone under a bus. On this occasion, not so much.
quote:Well I totally agree with this. Would only say that the Bible exists in the context of our experience. It helps me make sense of where I find myself. Otherwise Ford Prefect makes more sense.
Originally posted by Thunderbunk
To my mind, the incarnate God requires us to follow him by living: no written record is an adequate account of God's mystery. By living in relationship with God and each other we carry on our pilgrimage, and that of the body of Christians, into the reality of God. All witnesses provide useful evidence of where the pilgrimage has been and suggestions as to where it might go, but none adequately define the destination
quote:Not what I meant. Just saying it posits a morally neutral universe. No good and bad or right and wrong. Also think Scientific is a stretch. It is religious. As tenaciously defended as any other faith. It is the only player for those who want to avoid God, morality, responsibility, judgement.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Shock horror! A scientific theory doesn't explain something it doesn't set out to explain! Next you'll be telling me that General Relativity can't tell me anything about magnets.
quote:I see the problem. You think it's a religious position, in which case the amorality would be a serious flaw. When in fact it's a scientific position, and it's not the place of science to tell us right from wrong; that's what religion is for. You conflate the two and you get problems. If you let science be science and not force it to be religion, you won't have to scold it for being bad religion.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Not what I meant. Just saying it posits a morally neutral universe. No good and bad or right and wrong. Also think Scientific is a stretch. It is religious. As tenaciously defended as any other faith. It is the only player for those who want to avoid God, morality, responsibility, judgement.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Shock horror! A scientific theory doesn't explain something it doesn't set out to explain! Next you'll be telling me that General Relativity can't tell me anything about magnets.
quote:This may well be true. ISTM though that the 'inconsistencies,incoherences and contradictions' are very glibly cited and that citing them in a dismissive way is an excuse for not grappling with them.
Barnabas wrote:
What was not fully realised at the time, I think, was the extent to which the "plain meaning" argument exposed scripture to the kind of honest criticism which would spot inconsistencies, incoherencies and contradictions which could simply not be explained away on the basis of "plain meaning". The "paper Pope" came under close scrutiny. The current understanding of biblical inerrancy is actually different from previous understandings about the authority and inspiration of scripture. It is, ironically, a kind of counter-Reformation defence of the authority of the "paper Pope". "The Bible says it, I believe it, that's it" works provided you apply it selectively!
quote:Nevertheless it's what you said. Why on Earth should the Theory of Evolution address the origins of life?
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Not what I meant.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Shock horror! A scientific theory doesn't explain something it doesn't set out to explain! Next you'll be telling me that General Relativity can't tell me anything about magnets.
quote:No, sorry, I wasn't talking about whether there are things that apologists can explain away, I was talking about things that do not read as a contiguous whole in the bible.
Originally posted by Jamat:
I don' understand, what examples? You gave a couple of ridiculous canards that any serious Biblical scholar can dispense with. It's a bit like the so called Pratt arguments against evolution. I can only assume you haven' t a clue about the Bible.
quote:Why would you expect to get morality from a scientific model? Do you ask electromagnetic theory its opinion on racism? Do you look to gravitational theory to give you a perspective on sexual mores?
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Karl, to me it is a morally bankrupt thought system that sinners use to excuse themselves. Behe, Meyer and Berlinski I find convincing on the subject. It does not explain biogenesis, it's 2 mechanisms are blunt levers. Meyer's 'Signature in the Cell' underlines the complex nature of DNA coding calling the whole thing into question. Anyhow, Berlinski says it better than me.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Indeed. There's another problem. If your framework tells you evolution is false, then your framework is wonky because we know that evolution is not false, as surely as any other model within science.
berlinski
quote:There was an analogous storyline in Stargate Atlantis, when Dr Weir was being messed about by nanites. And of course there is the Matrix. "Take the red pill .." is also a rather good analogy.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Barnabas--
Re reality vs. Book:
"Star Trek: TNG" had an episode called "Remember Me". Basically, Dr. Crusher was caught inside a sort of artificial space/time anomaly, and didn't know it. People she knew kept disappearing, and the remaining people didn't remember the missing ones. They think she's crazy. Finally, she and the computer are the only ones left on the ship--and the ship is headed for disaster.
She and the computer have a confab to figure out what's going on. She checks out all sorts of possibilities. Meanwhile, space has shrunk to just outside the ship, and threatens to crush it. And the computer no longer remembers that space was ever any larger.
So she desperately goes over her logic, and has an inspiration: "If there's nothing wrong with me, maybe there's something wrong with the universe!" In her particular situation, she was right--and made it back to her normal reality, just before the artificial one collapsed.
PS Your comment about H2G2 was made on page 42 of this thread, which is an appropriate occurence.
quote:It's also a kind of reverse engineering, I suppose, (which is what you are saying). It reverses the method of empirical observation, in favour of a preconception. Oh damn, it's just what you said.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Evolution is perceived as a threat because it is believed to undermine the doctrines of Creation and Fall. There are parallels with the Copernican revolution and the controversies surrounding Galileo. Amusingly, the best explanation of what was really going on came from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. When reality is in conflict with the book, then the book is right and reality is wrong. It is an authority-based defence of received wisdom.
quote:Whoa, Nelly! I ain't got a shovel that big. Interesting his potential explanation #3 mistakenly believes the length of the day has to do with the earth's revolution around the sun, rather than its rotation about its axis. A scientific error of this sort in an article meaning to explain a scientific error in the Bible really doesn't make me feel confident that his final answer won't be scientifically erroneous.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[Late PS. An example of a typical conservative argument (over the stopped sun) can be found here.]
quote:Longing, loss, eros, even if the machinery isn't up to it, is JUST as bad. It is for me. My mother's hairdresser this morning is jaw dropping on a bad day. She had an off the shoulder down the elevator shaft top on today. 'strewth!
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Too old to look with intent now
Originally posted by Martin60:
The (nearly) Medo-Persian, Ptolemaic, literalist legalist is perfectly safe as long as he never fails to keep the law and due to the abrogation (hence the nearly) in the narrative he doesn't have to be circumcised, he can eat bacon if he's really liberal and he doesn't have to have ringlets.
He is perfectly safe. Until he looks at another woman of course. Then his fate hangs in the balance until he repents. Phew!
When Armageddon comes to the rest of us he'll be raptured with the handful of true Christians, except his wife it sounds like, or taken to a place of safety and rule those of us who survive with a rod of iron under the returned God the Killer on Steroids.
quote:Blindness, is it a gift or a curse?
Originally posted by Martin60:
An accolade I don't deserve and will forever treasure.
quote:May you be greatly blessed! (By the real God)
Originally posted by Martin60:
You tell me.
Ignorance is bliss that's for sure.
quote:I do not think it does. Your inability (and mine)to live up to our best ideals though is not explained by anything else.
Originally posted by Martin60:
And how does Original Sin make me culpable of anything?
quote:We do not need original sin to explain anything. It explains nothing at all. Existing does. The rock clad fact of evolution does.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:I do not think it does. Your inability (and mine)to live up to our best ideals though is not explained by anything else.
Originally posted by Martin60:
And how does Original Sin make me culpable of anything?
Please do not refer again to my wife who will probably be treading on my ashes in forgetfulness. She may well read these posts.(not cross or nothin)
quote:hosting
Originally posted by Martin60:
And I'm sorry my words went home. That you are trapped in this nightmare of projected weakness and ignorance. It's nobody's fault. Although it's God's responsibility and He will fix it. But not in this life. There's nothing can be done as you're too old to change your thinking: it just can't happen past 60, apart from in the odd remarkable epiphany like Aquinas'.
Fear stops you being free in Christ.
So stay away from here. You came to refine your wooden Ptolemaic orrery but it's starting to splinter in your mind's eye.
...
Leave it mate. Get on with being a grandfather. Stop feeding yourself this insane filth.
Because it's ending in tears isn't it?
I should feel worse, but I'm afraid I don't. You are out of your depth here in every way. Be nice to your wife.
The trouble is, it's a compulsion isn't it? I have the other side of that same coin. We'll have to take this to Hell I'm sure. I will if you continue.
quote:Love that word orrery, what does it mean?
Martin 60: You come here to refine your Ptolemaic wooden orrery.
quote:OK lets unpack. Do correct me if I misunderstand:
Martin 60: You confirm the spiritualized temporary abrogation of God's killer instinct in Christ whom He killed instead of us in the ancient Egyptian scales of cosmic justice. Strictly God the Father only killed that once. Jesus did all the killing up to His incarnation and will do one hundred times as much at His return. What's the theology behind the mandatory pacifism that you must logically believe in since the Incarnation? Killing is now so holy since God killed His Son that only God can do it?
quote:No, your discarded God is not mine. You have rejected what you think is a supernatural monstrosity. I think you are mistaken in that.
Martin 60: Your God, Jamat, as was mine,
quote:Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a strong feature of Moore College teaching and of other mainstream churches both here and the US. To my mind, it is totally incompatible with the doctrine of the Trinity, and also with the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
2)"God killed Jesus" is a bit of a mis-statement in terms of orthodox Trinitarian theology. The notion of God as Judge with Jesus as a 'penal substitute' certainly reflects things that happened quite often in ancient legal systems, and so is quite a good image for some aspects of Atonement - but I'd suggest that in the NT it's not the primary imagery.
In the NT I'd see the primary image as one of debt - our sins have damaged God's creation, including other men and ourselves, and the root of sin is an attempt to kind of steal ourselves from God and make ourselves rulers in our lives. The damage this does needs to be paid for and we don't have the resources - so God forgives.
.
God inflicting such harm on an innocent third party would be wildly unjust, even if the third party volunteered, and also it wouldn't be true forgiveness, more like God demanding his 'pound of flesh' but not really caring who pays. This is why 'unitarianism' isn't, in Christian terms, a workable theology. But because God is in fact 'triune', it is God Himself who becomes incarnate in Jesus to foot the bill by SELF-sacrifice. God is Love, and this is how he shows it, in a way that challenges us to understand the situation and repent of the sins that have caused the death of Jesus....
quote:LMGTFY
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Love that word orrery, what does it mean?
Martin 60: You come here to refine your Ptolemaic wooden orrery.
quote:Where? Please quote that big assumption by anyone on this thread, especially me.
The big assumption here
quote:He's revealed everything we need in Jesus.
is that God has not actually revealed anything about himself.
quote:What then what?
Let’s assume that ‘Ptolemy’ was correct, ie his cosmology was not in error, what then?
quote:Ceci n'est pas un Dieu. Infinitely less so than this is not a pipe.
The real Ptolemy was soundly refuted but you have not refuted anything you have rejected despite what you may think. God is God of the Bible.
quote:Which He isn't any more than any object in a story, let alone a fragmented Bronze-Iron Age one.
If he is not
quote:As always, but not a savage Bronze Age one now.
then we have no axioms about which to describe him he is at the mercy of human imagination.
quote:You necessarily do because of your assumption above. A judge who murders twenty million people in history and billions yet to come? What kind of Father is that?
However, I and folk like me do not necessarily use the Bible to create an iconoclastic and faulty systematic theology. It is definitely Biblical that God certainly has 2 sides but if we see him as judge we can also see him as Father, both are in there.
quote:There is no scientific basis for saying that the rocks lie. I couldn't care less on who believes what, that is no authority for me unless it is based on science. You reject science in favour of your Medo-Persian, flat, Ptolemaic cook book interpretation. Fine.
Despite your eternal assertions that the rocks do not lie, you resist all possibility that there is more than one way to look at the rocks, that while many agree with you, huge numbers of people actually reject your assumptions. You persist in asserting that where you were, your so called cult, worshiped a ‘killer’ God, and that anyone with a conservative stance toward the Bible, must do likewise, hence your crusade.
quote:In what way is a postmodern deconstruction of Bronze Age stories 'Ptolemaic'? In what way does it proliferate entities? The mere fact that it has to use the entity of deconstruction to destroy the myriad irreconcilable entities in the stories?
Perhaps I could point out that this web site is a small pool of clever people most of whom have set agendas, their own ‘Ptolemaic’ theologies and limited experiential knowledge of God. It is a happy place for people who mostly agree with each other. There’s nothing wrong with that of course.
quote:You've not made any. None that stand out in the rhetoric. I'm happy to stand corrected.
You have never answered or tried to answer questions or issues about post modernism preferring a polemic about the killer God.
quote:Where?
I made a request of you which you have ignored.
quote:Make it for the first time? Please do. What is it?
Could I make this again? (still not cross.)
quote:That's a shame. This needs clear air.
No need to call me to hell and if you do I will ignore.
quote:I'm reinventing nothing. I'm getting to the truth as the rocks do. It's an analogous exercise. No you couldn't possibly.
A view like yours which tries to reinvent what you walked away from, in an acceptable form, is not something I could see as a possibility.
quote:That's inconsistent and requires a Ptolemaic epicycle or two.
quote:OK lets unpack. Do correct me if I misunderstand:
Martin 60: You confirm the spiritualized temporary abrogation of God's killer instinct in Christ whom He killed instead of us in the ancient Egyptian scales of cosmic justice. Strictly God the Father only killed that once. Jesus did all the killing up to His incarnation and will do one hundred times as much at His return. What's the theology behind the mandatory pacifism that you must logically believe in since the Incarnation? Killing is now so holy since God killed His Son that only God can do it?
Christ was a real human guy not spiritualised.
There is no temporary abrogation. God's nature is consistent. What changes is the way he deals with us after Christ came.
quote:The concept of an afterlife where deeds are weighed in the balance is entirely pagan and the Hebrews had no option but to imbibe it, along with all earlier cultures, from the ancient Egyptians.
God, according to the apostle John, is love.
There is nothing Egyptian about any of these concepts. The Hebrews’ thinking is not Egyptian. Your assertion here is not justified.
quote:Your Ptolemaic God delights in murder. He pejorates Himself. What has that got to do with Him being creator too? Just draw the necessary epicycle.
The concept of 'God as killer' is yours and your pejorative creation. God is creator of life, John’s gospel says of Jesus, ‘in him was life and that life was the light of man.’
quote:Which case?
Pacifism has nothing to do with the case.
quote:We killed Jesus on God's behalf then. Somebody HAD to die after all. Well, that's one story.
The crucifixion was not about God Killing Jesus. This is not true according to scripture. Jesus voluntarily laid down his life. What the father did was accept this laying down of his perfect son as a sin offering. The reason for this was so that your[s] and my sin should be not charged to us.
quote:In what way?
quote:No, your discarded God is not mine. You have rejected what you think is a supernatural monstrosity. I think you are mistaken in that.
Martin 60: Your God, Jamat, as was mine,
quote:Fortunately, scientific truth is not determined by vote but by adherence to accepted scientific methods.
Originally posted by Jamat:
Despite your eternal assertions that the rocks do not lie, you resist all possibility that there is more than one way to look at the rocks, that while many agree with you, huge numbers of people actually reject your assumptions.
quote:If you are talking about an old versus a young earth, there really are no other ways to look at thousands of meters of sedimentary rock.
Originally posted by Jamat:
Despite your eternal assertions that the rocks do not lie, you resist all possibility that there is more than one way to look at the rocks, that while many agree with you, huge numbers of people actually reject your assumptions.
quote:Which does rather rely on "His Word" being confined to ink on paper.
Originally posted by Martin60:
NO! God lied in the rock so that His Word be true!
quote:The problem with that idea is that there is no meta-narrative or morality you can derive from nature.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which does rather rely on "His Word" being confined to ink on paper.
But, how could that be? His Word that commanded all things to be, that continues to command all things to be, contained in artefacts of human culture? That's like claiming God can be contained in a Temple of human construction.
quote:If accepted as THE image of Atonement, I agree. But the idea of 'substitution' is common in ancient legal systems - more so than in the modern world - and sometimes that gives us a supplementary 'as if...' to illustrate the Atonement. Much less value than sometimes given it, but still of some use....
Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a strong feature of Moore College teaching and of other mainstream churches both here and the US. To my mind, it is totally incompatible with the doctrine of the Trinity, and also with the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.
quote:I never said anything about having to derive a meta-narrative or morality from nature.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:The problem with that idea is that there is no meta-narrative or morality you can derive from nature.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which does rather rely on "His Word" being confined to ink on paper.
But, how could that be? His Word that commanded all things to be, that continues to command all things to be, contained in artefacts of human culture? That's like claiming God can be contained in a Temple of human construction.
quote:That sounds very unlikely given that the main proponents of PSA lived since the Reformation.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
It probably won't surprise you that I feel the pre-eminence of PSA came about partially from looking at things a bit too much from the perspective of kings in 'Christian states' rather than ordinary people in debt....
quote:NO! NO! And THRICE NO! The WORD is the word of the Word! How dare you suggest that the HOLY GOD HOLY BREATHED HOLY SACRED SCRIPTURES are constructed artefacts of human culture?!?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Which does rather rely on "His Word" being confined to ink on paper.
Originally posted by Martin60:
NO! God lied in the rock so that His Word be true!
But, how could that be? His Word that commanded all things to be, that continues to command all things to be, contained in artefacts of human culture? That's like claiming God can be contained in a Temple of human construction.
quote:That would be a total of five NO's, right?
Originally posted by Martin60:
NO! NO! And THRICE NO!
quote:The continued use of ‘Ptolemaic’ suggests that any conservative theology is superseded by present knowledge. This assumption is disputed.
Please quote that big assumption by anyone on this thread, especially me.
quote:That is like saying the dispenser of justice or the one charged with pronouncing sentence, is guilty of the crime he pronounces sentence for. Not true.
You necessarily do (create a faulty iconoclastic systematic theology) because of your assumption above. A judge who murders..
quote:You are reposing a lot of trust in Science then. Science is limited knowledge, a moving target. Your own precious evolutionary assumptions viz, that macro evolution occurred, are not proven, and untestable. Dinos are..how old? Why did Mary Schweitzer fine real blood in a T Rex bone? Dating methods? Why such variations and just using the dates that suit our assumptions? Scientists are humans who tenaciously cling to careers. Berlinski is amusing on this. The penalty for publicly doubting evolution is academic Siberia.
There is no scientific basis for saying that the rocks lie. I couldn't care less on who believes what, that is no authority for me unless it is based on science.
quote:It seems to me you are. Jesus as a cuddle toy is not the Biblical Jesus
I'm reinventing nothing.
quote:Very disputable. I’m reminded of the fate of Korah who went down alive to Sheol. The Jews did have a concept of afterlife that is very evident in the Psalms. To say they got it from paganism is to assert something unproven.
The concept of an afterlife where deeds are weighed in the balance is entirely pagan.
quote:I think we would’ve but the text clearly says he released his own spirit before that happened. Roman hands crucified Jesus but crucifixion did not kill him. Interestingly no one is ever held accountable for the death of Jesus which is probably because he chose where and when to die.
We killed Jesus on God's behalf then.
quote:Because on balance he is far from the monster you caricature. I recently reread the creation story. Nature was very good, Man was provided for as were all living things. There is no need IMV to justify a being who reached out of eternity to provide an undeserved salvation to a humanity who pretty well all deserve judgement. John 3:16.
I think you are mistaken in that.. In what way?
quote:And apart from the Anabaptists most of the Reformers carried on doing the 'Christian state' thing....
That sounds very unlikely given that the main proponents of PSA lived since the Reformation.
quote:Which has absolutely nothing to do with the depth of sedimentary rock. Hint: geology is not based on evolutionary theory. Try again.
Originally posted by Jamat:
]You are reposing a lot of trust in Science then. Science is limited knowledge, a moving target. Your own precious evolutionary assumptions viz, that macro evolution occurred, are not proven, and untestable. Dinos are..how old? Why did Mary Schweitzer fine real blood in a T Rex bone? Dating methods? Why such variations and just using the dates that suit our assumptions? Scientists are humans who tenaciously cling to careers. Berlinski is amusing on this. The penalty for publicly doubting evolution is academic Siberia.
quote:No you're not as you will continue to post incoherent rhetoric on this thread.
Originally posted by Jamat:
@Martin 60:
I am sick of this particular game of whackamole.[ ]After this, I will not be repeating myself. It is obvious that we disagree..peace good Capulet!
quote:
quote:
Martin60: Please quote that big assumption by anyone on this thread, especially me.
quote:How? What present knowledge?
Jamat: The continued use of ‘Ptolemaic’ suggests that any conservative theology is superseded by present knowledge.
quote:A straw one you just made up. How appropriate.
Jamat: This assumption is disputed.
quote:Why are you quoting yourself as if it were me and then disagreeing with yourself?
quote:That is like saying the dispenser of justice or the one charged with pronouncing sentence, is guilty of the crime he pronounces sentence for. Not true.
You necessarily do (create a faulty iconoclastic systematic theology) because of your assumption above. A judge who murders..
quote:No less than you as you show below.
quote:You are reposing a lot of trust in Science then.
There is no scientific basis for saying that the rocks lie. I couldn't care less on who believes what, that is no authority for me unless it is based on science.
quote:Correct.
Science is limited knowledge, a moving target.
quote:The rocks can't lie.
Your own precious evolutionary assumptions viz, that macro evolution occurred, are not proven, and untestable.
quote:Old.
Dinos are..how old?
quote:Science.
Why did Mary Schweitzer fine real blood in a T Rex bone?
quote:What about them?
Dating methods?
quote:What variations?
Why such variations
quote:What dates, what assumptions?
and just using the dates that suit our assumptions?
quote:You gave up yours easily then?
Scientists are humans who tenaciously cling to careers.
quote:Rightfully so. It isn't funny when a scientist finally loses what's left of his broken his mind. Poor guy.
Berlinski is amusing on this. The penalty for publicly doubting evolution is academic Siberia.
quote:Then you seem wrong.
quote:It seems to me you are.
I'm reinventing nothing.
quote:Indeed not, just as He isn't the barely restrained genocidal maniac of all time who can taste it with the blood in His mouth, who can feel the rod of iron in His twitching hand.
Jesus as a cuddle toy is not the Biblical Jesus
quote:How?
quote:Very disputable.
The concept of an afterlife where deeds are weighed in the balance is entirely pagan.
quote:When your God ate him yes. Sorry what's that got to do with the afterlife?
I’m reminded of the fate of Korah who went down alive to Sheol.
quote:Which is what?
The Jews did have a concept of afterlife that is very evident in the Psalms.
quote:It is to assert the obvious. Where else did Jews, Christians and Muslims ALL get the same idea from?
To say they got it from paganism is to assert something unproven.
quote:It clearly shows no such thing.
quote:I think we would’ve but the text clearly says he released his own spirit before that happened.
We killed Jesus on God's behalf then.
quote:Yes obviously the spear thrust finished Him off.
Roman hands crucified Jesus but crucifixion did not kill him.
quote:I thought you were?
Interestingly no one is ever held accountable for the death of Jesus which is probably because he chose where and when to die.
quote:In what way is the ultimate murderer so far, yet alone yet to come a caricature by me? That's your God.
quote:Because on balance he is far from the monster you caricature.
I think you are mistaken in that.. In what way?
quote:No need to justify the greatest act of mass murder in all of myth let alone the vastly greater yet to come? Your view is noted.
I recently reread the creation story. Nature was very good, Man was provided for as were all living things. There is no need IMV to justify a being who reached out of eternity to provide an undeserved salvation to a humanity who pretty well all deserve judgement. John 3:16.
quote:PANTS ON FIRE! It's the ROCKS that lie!
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'd add, btw, on the subject of Dinosaur blood, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Higby_Schweitzer , that she didn't find blood in dinosaur bones. She found the remains of blood cells - proteins. This was surprising, but it wasn't (a) impossible according to the age of the animal, nor (b) blood, not, indeed (c) evidence against the commonly accepted period during which T. rex lived.
What it was, however was evidence for the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, as the sequenced proteins showed close links to those of extant birds.
That some creationist liars have chosen to try to tell you that Schweitzer's work somehow is a problem for mainstream science speaks volumes. You've been lied to by your creationist sources again Jamat - and if memory serves this is why you got your arse handed to you on a plate last time - you tried raising hoary old creationist canards. Why do you not see the pattern here? The lying professional Creationism machine is a lying bunch of lying liars who lie. Consistently, Repeatedly. Depressingly.
quote:She found what shouldn't be there 80mill years later. Iron acts like formaldehyde? So what? If the argument is that iron could have done this then it is circular. Ie We KNOW how old, therefore blah blah. Findings are multiply confirmed since 2005. I'm sure she's right BTW but this is geologic time..quite a stretch.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'd add, btw, on the subject of Dinosaur blood, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Higby_Schweitzer , that she didn't find blood in dinosaur bones. She found the remains of blood cells - proteins. This was surprising, but it wasn't (a) impossible according to the age of the animal, nor (b) blood, not, indeed (c) evidence against the commonly accepted period during which T. rex lived.
What it was, however was evidence for the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, as the sequenced proteins showed close links to those of extant birds.
That some creationist liars have chosen to try to tell you that Schweitzer's work somehow is a problem for mainstream science speaks volumes. You've been lied to by your creationist sources again Jamat - and if memory serves this is why you got your arse handed to you on a plate last time - you tried raising hoary old creationist canards. Why do you not see the pattern here? The lying professional Creationism machine is a lying bunch of lying liars who lie. Consistently, Repeatedly. Depressingly.
quote:You obviously aren't made, you're still here, the greatest scientist of the age using the greatest science text ever written for all time to disprove all subsequent false science.
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:She found what shouldn't be there 80mill years later. Iron acts like formaldehyde? So what? If the argument is that iron could have done this then it is circular. Ie We KNOW how old, therefore blah blah. Findings are multiply confirmed since 2005. I'm sure she's right BTW but this is geologic time..quite a stretch.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'd add, btw, on the subject of Dinosaur blood, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Higby_Schweitzer , that she didn't find blood in dinosaur bones. She found the remains of blood cells - proteins. This was surprising, but it wasn't (a) impossible according to the age of the animal, nor (b) blood, not, indeed (c) evidence against the commonly accepted period during which T. rex lived.
What it was, however was evidence for the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, as the sequenced proteins showed close links to those of extant birds.
That some creationist liars have chosen to try to tell you that Schweitzer's work somehow is a problem for mainstream science speaks volumes. You've been lied to by your creationist sources again Jamat - and if memory serves this is why you got your arse handed to you on a plate last time - you tried raising hoary old creationist canards. Why do you not see the pattern here? The lying professional Creationism machine is a lying bunch of lying liars who lie. Consistently, Repeatedly. Depressingly.
Karl, I respect your view (ie the fact that you hold it not the content of it )and also those of other Christians who believe as you. To me evolution is denied by scripture besides being obvious bullshit and an emperor with no clothes.
I am not BTW, convinced or impressed by creationism as an 'ism'.
@Martin60. Tell it to the hand. I'm done.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The bible is not a science book, nor was it meant to be. It is not a challenge to faith to accept this, but a weakness to reject it.
There is no room, no need for faith whatsoever with flat, cookbook, Ptolemaic woodenism.quote:I'm reminded of what Oscar Hammerstein had Anna tell the King of Siam: "Your Majesty, the Bible was not written by men of science, but by men of faith. It was their explanation of the miracle of creation, which is the same miracle—whether it took six days or many centuries."
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The bible is not a science book, nor was it meant to be. It is not a challenge to faith to accept this, but a weakness to reject it.
quote:Sorry, but I have no clue what that means.
Originally posted by Martin60:
So simple Nick, so simple. And to invert it destroys it. Creates tohu and bohu. Authors confusion.
quote:I remember Dawkins talking about a savage believing that a stream in the forest worked because of a hamadryad (he should have said a naiad, but I'm - wrongly I'm sure - sure he said hamadryad, which is a forest spirit admittedly). The savage is given a full scientific education all the way up to fluid dynamics which he passes with honours. When asked if fluid dynamics now fully explained how a stream in the woods works, the savage replied yes, that's how the naiad did it.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
One thing I find interesting about this particular mindset compared to others is how sticky it is and how it resists efforts to contextualise.
For example, I'm reading a novel where the main character is a Maasai living in the city. I don't know much about Maasai, but according to the novel they have a complex and well-developed mythical worldview including quite an odd (to our ears) Nativity-type birth narrative.
The character in the novel is depicted as being a bit torn by circumstance, but has obviously contextualised his upbringing - so he accepts the stories as being part of his identity without the rigid insistence that Ntemelua really did pop out of his mother's womb with full command of the language and then disappear up a cow's bottom to hide from bandits.
The details about the Maasai may be wrong, I have no idea. But I'm sure there is a truth here about how myths and traditions are held and contextualised in the face of other realities.
quote:Well, you have a list of the usual suspects most of which are not really what they seem when carefully scrutinised. One example is the differing genealogies in Mathew and Luke. Another may be the 14 generations in Matthew 1:17 that turn out to be 13 generations.
Gamaliel wrote on a different thread on July 10:
Here's a question ...
Why DOES the Bible have to be internally consistent?
How does it make it any less the Bible if it isn't?
Why should we expect it to be internally consistent? Because of divine inspiration?
If something is divinely inspired then does it have to be internally consistent at every conceivable point otherwise its divine inspiration can be called into question?
How does that work?
The Bible isn't the Quran or the Book of Mormon. It wasn't 'dictated'. It didn't drop from the sky ready formed.
I can see what Jamat is getting at when he accuses folk here of acting as if they have 'evolved' to a higher plane or level of understanding - but I'm not sure that's what's going on here.
It's more a case of Jamat's overly rigid and inflexibly literalist approach fitting the stereotype to a tee.
Or am I missing something?
quote:It dents its own credibility, no assistance necessary.
Originally posted by Jamat:
I think that if you can dent the Bible by proving it is self-contradictory, then you also dent its credibility so it is important.
quote:I've often thought that those who are interested in inerrancy have a very limited understanding of truth - to the extent that if it was possible to prove the bible incorrect on anything, in any way, that'd prove it wasn't really from God at all. But that seems to downplay the ability of things to be true without (for example) having happened.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
How does that in any way undermine its status as the holy scriptures of the Christian faith?
It only does so if you insist upon it doing so.
quote:Blogger Fred Clark wrote a piece a while back about a classmate's crisis of faith when confronted with artifacts older than the Creationist universe, and touched on a similar theme.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Indeed.
If it can be shown to be inconsistent at one point, however minuscule, then the whole edifice must come crashing down and great would be the fall thereof ...
quote:The rest is worth a read.
The most dangerous thing about fundamentalism is not that it sometimes teaches wacky ideas, like that the world is barely 6,000 years old or that dancing is sinful. The most dangerous thing is that it insists that such ideas are all inviolably necessary components of the faith. Each such idea, every aspect of their faith, is regarded as a keystone without which everything else they believe — the existence of a loving God, the assurance of pardon, the possibility of a moral or meaningful life — crumbles into meaninglessness.
My classmate's church taught him that their supposedly "literal" reading of Genesis 1 was the necessary complement to their "literal" reading of the rest of the Bible, which they regarded as the entire and only basis for their faith. His belief in 6-day, young-earth creationism was not merely some disputable piece of adiaphora, such as …
Well, for such fundamentalists there is no "such as." This is why they cling to every aspect of their belief system with such desperate ferocity. Should even the smallest piece be cast into doubt, they believe, the entire structure would crumble like the walls of Jericho. If dancing is not a sin, or if the authorship of Isaiah turns out to involve more than a single person at one time, or if the moons of Jupiter present a microcosm that suggests a heliocentric solar system, then suddenly nothing is true, their "whole groundwork cracks, and the earth opens to abysses."
This was, roughly, what was going on in my poor classmate's head as he stared at those rocks, which had been carefully put in place by some ancient citizen of Jericho thousands of years before the tiny literal god of the fundies had gotten around to creating the universe.
quote:Especially since all evidence points to this inerrancy/infallibility nonsense is extremely recent.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
or b.) the aim of the game wasn't strict factual accuracy, so the Church Fathers weren't that bothered.
quote:There's a clue for the last one; the older conception seems to see God as the author of good and evil; there's a scene somewhere about God asking for a volunteer lying spirit to go and confuse one of the Kings; details elude me. Hence it's God who decides to bring trouble on Israel and move David to take a census. Chronicles represents a more dualist understanding; God is no longer author of evil and so it's Satan who gets this job in the parallel version in Chronicles.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
To me the interesting question is how the more obvious discrepancies didn't get edited out.
Faced with two competing genealogies of Jesus, the Church Fathers had the option of only selecting one of the gospels as canonical. Or they could have used a harmonised form of the gospels such as the Diatesseron, which omits the genealogies. Or they could have chopped off the verses with the genealogies in (I think there was some awareness of textual variation in gospel manuscripts even at that date).
But they decided to leave both genealogies in place. Which suggests either a.) the elaborate arguments to prove that there isn't a contradiction (e.g. because one genealogy is Mary's) are in fact correct, or b.) the aim of the game wasn't strict factual accuracy, so the Church Fathers weren't that bothered.
And similarly with the differences between Samuel and Chronicles. There must be a reason why, despite already having a comprehensive history of Israel and Judah in Samuel / Kings, the Jews thought 'Ooh, let's add this new-fangled Chronicles to the list as well'.
quote:When I think of what the Bible signifies to me no semantic ideas are complete enough to do it justice anyway. I do not doubt that it deals in facts but our realities go way beyond facts and defy language.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Bible's credibility doesn't depend on its being internally consistent at every conceivable point.
Why should it?
Why should the whole thing unravel if there are different accounts of the same event or if some of the details in the genealogies don't 'match' exactly?
How does that in any way undermine its status as the holy scriptures of the Christian faith?
It only does so if you insist upon it doing so.
quote:Thanks for this! Good reading.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Blogger Fred Clark wrote a piece a while back about a classmate's crisis of faith when confronted with artifacts older than the Creationist universe, and touched on a similar theme.
quote:Indeed - and what interests me also is that having adopted this more dualist view, they kept hold of the non-dualist account as well.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Chronicles represents a more dualist understanding; God is no longer author of evil and so it's Satan who gets this job in the parallel version in Chronicles.
quote:I do not..and your second statement if I read you correctly is suggesting that no hermeneutical system is universally agreed? Well that is not exactly a newsflash.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure. What makes you think I don't have similar reactions, thoughts and impressions when I read the scriptures?
We don't have to have a completely internally-consistent set of scriptures to approach the Bible in the way you've just described.
