|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Should we accept that all scripture is to be accepted as truth?
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Oh, dang. Let's see if I can be clear. Unlikely at this time of day....
AFAIK, nobody has a "will to misunderstand" unless by that you mean a "will to WILLFULLY misunderstand," which is a totally different matter. Real misunderstanding is an accident, not intended by anybody in the conversation.
Willful misunderstanding is precisely the kind of attitude that I expect would get you disqualified from ever being picked as a prophet or Gospel writer--if you are the kind of person who's prone that way, why would God bother with you when there's so many others? (note "you" is the generic "you," not personal). It's not so hard to understand. You pick your helpers based on personality. Even on a human level, most bosses won't hire someone who is known to engage in this kind of crap.
So much for that red herring, then. Now about inerrancy and dictation theories.
No, we do not believe that it works that way. Think more of a parent holding the back of a child's bicycle while he learns to ride it. The kid chooses to pedal, chooses to go fast or slow, left or right, etc. etc. etc. The only thing he's NOT free to do is to fall. (and really, what kid WANTS that particular freedom?)
Another analogy, closer to the experience of writing. I consult with students and professors regarding dissertation writing. There is one student I'm working with right now where I'm basically going to be "standing over him" to make sure that he doesn't screw up for the umpteenth time. I'm not telling him what to write in terms of content or even micromanaging the details. What I AM doing is looking over his shoulder and pointing out paragraphs, sections, etc. and saying, "You know, that really isn't going to fly with your readers. Trust me on that. Why don't you try another approach?"
Does he have the free will to blow me off? Sure he does. But only a fool would do so, when his doctorate's hanging on it.
Will it still be 100% his own work when he gets done? You betcha. Will it be reliable and error-free? Well, yes, insofar as this humble teacher of rhetoric can make it so! Working WITH my student, not against him.
Similarly, if the Lord came to me and, um, suggested I write an update to the New Testament ![[Biased]](wink.gif) , I'd jump at the chance. Particularly if it meant working in close partnership with him. I mean, who wouldn't?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Another analogy, closer to the experience of writing. I consult with students and professors regarding dissertation writing. There is one student I'm working with right now where I'm basically going to be "standing over him" to make sure that he doesn't screw up for the umpteenth time. I'm not telling him what to write in terms of content or even micromanaging the details. What I AM doing is looking over his shoulder and pointing out paragraphs, sections, etc. and saying, "You know, that really isn't going to fly with your readers. Trust me on that. Why don't you try another approach?"...Will it still be 100% his own work when he gets done? You betcha. Will it be reliable and error-free? Well, yes, insofar as this humble teacher of rhetoric can make it so! Working WITH my student, not against him.
When I was teaching, if I did that with students doing coursework and was found out, I'd be sacked.
[code fixed]
[ 21. March 2007, 22:48: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Auuugghhh!!!! I'm not WRITING it for him, Leo, I'm READING it and giving him an honest opinion. The only difference is, I don't have to assign him a grade. People like me are normally referred to as "tutors" or "editors." And everyone involved in the dissertation process knows exactly what I'm doing, from the Dean of the graduate school to the professors, to the office staff, on down. (One was practically crying on the phone with gratitude--and it wasn't the student, believe you me.)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
No, even honest opinions would be regarded as cheating.
Unless, that is, you are in the process of drafting and redrafting.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Drafting and redrafting sounds an apt description for what Lamb Chopped has just described.
It's normal to have supervision for a dissertation - and no-one dictates that all students must be equally supervised. Some students get their PhDs with a few months spent indoors writing up. Others draft and redraft and have lots of coffee with supervisors.
Provided the intensive supervision is developing the skills required to complete the thesis rather than directly completing the thesis, that's OK.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Leo, a huge chunk of the things you're listing cannot rightfully be classed as errors at all....This is not to say that all of your issues can be dismissed so easily. Just to say that you've got a whole boatload of apparent errors that are in fact nothing of the kind, and that are likely to muddy the waters when you're trying to examine something that might really matter. My two cents. LC
How about these then:
One God or many?
The Song of Moses Deut 32:8f ‘he established national boundaries according to the number of divine beings’
Names changed
One Saul’s sons was named Ishba’al in 2 Samuel 2:8- But Abner son of Ner, commander of Saul’s army, had taken Ishbaal son of Saul, and brought him over to Mahanaim. but an editor or the books of Samuel bas changed named ending ‘ba’al’ with the ending ‘bosheth, meaning ‘shame’ 2 Samuel 2: 15 Then there arose and went over by number twelve of Benjamin, which [pertained] to Ishbosheth the son of Saul, and twelve of the servants of David. – some translations have tried to iron these discrepancies out by changing ALL the names – you need to see the Hebrew.
Eunuchs and foreigners
In Deut 31, 1,3 Lev 22:22f they are not allowed to enter the temple. In Isaiah 56:1-8 they are.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No, even honest opinions would be regarded as cheating.
Unless, that is, you are in the process of drafting and redrafting.
Now I'm REALLY confused.
Um, what else is there?
... I guess research, but how you tell if someone's fouling THAT up, well....
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
How about these then:
One God or many?
The Song of Moses Deut 32:8f ‘he established national boundaries according to the number of divine beings’
Names changed
One Saul’s sons was named Ishba’al in 2 Samuel 2:8- But Abner son of Ner, commander of Saul’s army, had taken Ishbaal son of Saul, and brought him over to Mahanaim. but an editor or the books of Samuel bas changed named ending ‘ba’al’ with the ending ‘bosheth, meaning ‘shame’ 2 Samuel 2: 15 Then there arose and went over by number twelve of Benjamin, which [pertained] to Ishbosheth the son of Saul, and twelve of the servants of David. – some translations have tried to iron these discrepancies out by changing ALL the names – you need to see the Hebrew.
Eunuchs and foreigners
In Deut 31, 1,3 Lev 22:22f they are not allowed to enter the temple. In Isaiah 56:1-8 they are.
I'm going to do an extremely brief (for me )reply, and then appeal to a host to let me know where further Q and A of this type ought to be, as I suspect we're derailing the thread. Briefly, then:
1. Divine beings--I'm not looking at the Hebrew at this moment (being in the "put-child-to-bed" mode) but I suspect this is the word "elohim," which need not be reserved solely for the true God. In this case I'd suspect national tutelary angels. Like the ones mentioned in Daniel.
2. "baal" vs. "bosheth"--if I'm understanding your point correctly to be "why the change of names," in this case it's dead simple. "Baal" means "lord" but had gotten so associated with the false god Baal that later pious types refused to use it, even when it was the actual form of the historic name. Thus the substitution of "bosheth," "shame." Which a false god is, of course. Not meant to be a falsification, much more like writing "G-d" when you mean "God"--and probably understood by contemporary readers so.
3. As for the eunuchs--you've put your finger on it, but drawn precisely the wrong conclusion! "In the temple" is said PRECISELY to draw attention to the change from the previous Mosaic strictures--that in the place where eunuchs were most restricted, they will now find their reward. God's point is that the outward, ceremonial restrictions, which have barred otherwise faithful believers from the fullness of God's blessing and service, will be removed; because the heart is what God looks on, not the outward appearance (okay, that didn't come out right, but you know what I mean). God is not disavowing the law, but rather foreshadowing the New Covenant that will both fulfill the old one and at the same time make it obsolete. This is also why Gentiles, etc. are welcome now!
[ 26. March 2007, 00:20: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
This is a blatant attempt to float a new slant. Yes I have read a lot of this thread, but not all, and it's just possible this has been answered, in which case I'll hang my head in shame. So:
Has any inerrantist ever formulated a doctrine of scripture which applies to the Bible I can by at my local shop, as opposed to a hypothetical autograph? I've not seen one. The usual response is: Don't be so damn pedantic! However, it's interesting, and rather limiting, if the doctrine of scripture you hold to, can't be applied to any actually available book. And if it's that easy, why not have statements about actual Bibles in the Declaration of Faith, instead of statements about hypothetical ones?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Has any inerrantist ever formulated a doctrine of scripture which applies to the Bible I can by at my local shop, as opposed to a hypothetical autograph?
I guess that I missed the part above where an inerrantist said that these were two different things. Did anyone say that?
I think that the Bible has been providentially preserved. Most variant or disputed texts are relatively minor and don't greatly impact biblical teaching.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Most variant or disputed texts are relatively minor and don't greatly impact biblical teaching.
"Most" isn't enough for a claim of inerrancy. Inerrancy says 100% completely all-the-way nothing-left-out perfect (in all matters of blah blah blah). If even one variant impacts an area of faith or history (or whetever else is in the blah blah blah part), then the inerrancy claim is disproved. Absolutist claims are like that -- even the tiniest chink brings them toppling down.
How much better to use the Bible as a resource, rather than a fetish.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Great point, MT. That absolutely explains it.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
This is a blatant attempt to float a new slant. Yes I have read a lot of this thread, but not all, and it's just possible this has been answered, in which case I'll hang my head in shame. So:
Has any inerrantist ever formulated a doctrine of scripture which applies to the Bible I can by at my local shop, as opposed to a hypothetical autograph? I've not seen one. The usual response is: Don't be so damn pedantic! However, it's interesting, and rather limiting, if the doctrine of scripture you hold to, can't be applied to any actually available book. And if it's that easy, why not have statements about actual Bibles in the Declaration of Faith, instead of statements about hypothetical ones?
For clarity.
There are those that believe the Authorized Version (the "St. James" version as some call it) is the inerrant text -- indeed some would claim that, by direction inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the AV translaters provided a text more accurate than the Greek texts they were translating, and than the original texts themselves. No, I'm not kidding. I've read books on sale in reputable Christian bookstores that claim this. Generally by people who don't realize that the AV went through a series of revisions through the 17th-19th centuries, and the original version hasn't actually been available for about 300 years.
You should be able to buy a copy of the latest version of the AV -- not the "New King James" but the version that preceeded it.
I'm not sure this is the kind of inerrant you're looking for, though.
John
[ 19. April 2007, 14:53: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
mild tangent: In our senior History class, there was some discussion of the causes for the translation of the Bible commissioned by King James. There was also some mention of his peculiar upbringing, and his sexual ambivalence.
One of my students was quite active in Baptist youth group/Bible study circles, and encountered a "KJV-inerrantist" of the sort you mention. Wanting to see the reaction, my student mentioned the apparent gayness of the King. The inerrantist was totally stumped, because he could not "move on" to another version of the Bible (since those were not "inerrant"), but he couldn't use that one if a possibly-gay person was involved in the writing process.
Just shows what a weak pack of cards some people use to build their houses, I guess.
Tangent over
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
There are those that believe the Authorized Version (the "St. James" version as some call it) is the inerrant text -- indeed some would claim that, by direction inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the AV translaters provided a text more accurate than the Greek texts they were translating, and than the original texts themselves. No, I'm not kidding.
I confess to believing in a milder version of that idea. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
This is the idea that the Textus Receptus has been providentially preserved and handed down with essential accuracy from the beginning. This text, of course, is the basis of the KJV and NKJV.
While my denomination is not inerrantist, we do believe that every "jot and tittle" of the Bible holds heavenly teachings, so that every word is significant. That said, this does not quite imply that there are no errors - only that any errors that there are must be relatively minor ones.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
KJV
Apprentice
# 12200
|
Posted
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is."
That is why it is so important to know which Bible Version is the true word of God!
WHICH VERSION OF THE BIBLE IS THE REAL WORD OF GOD? www.webaddressdeleted
See my post below...
[ 19. April 2007, 20:18: Message edited by: TonyK ]
Posts: 5 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KJV:
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is."
That is why it is so important to know which Bible Version is the true word of God!
WHICH VERSION OF THE BIBLE IS THE REAL WORD OF GOD? www.web address deleted
It's funny you should say that. Knowing the truth is vital...
T.
See my post below ...
[ 19. April 2007, 20:19: Message edited by: TonyK ]
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
I'm not sure this is the kind of inerrant you're looking for, though.
It's always open to the inerrantists to say the KJV is the inspired text.
But it's interesting that no top-line inerrantist scholars (I'm thinking J. I. Packer and similar, and the Chigago declaration) has ever claimed that, or that any Bible that is sold in your Christian bookshop is the Inerrant Word of God. They thinks it's close - but never say exactly how close. It makes the doctrine sound like a very academic exercise indeed.
To say no doctrine is affected is blah, since the sole biblical statement of the Trinity is highly disputed, and not accepted even by most con evos.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
[Host Mode - ACTIVATE]
KJV
As Teufelchen has correctly observed, you were warned by one of our administrators back in December that:
quote:
this board is not here for you to advertise your website, or post the same blurb over and over. If you want to discuss with others, then do so. Do not post any more advertisements or I will remove your posting privileges.
I have removed the offending link, and will refer your transgression to the appropriate Administrator.
I am not sure that just another apology will suffice - but it is out of my hands!
[Host Mode - DEACTIVATE]
Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KJV:
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is."
That is why it is so important to know which Bible Version is the true word of God!
WHICH VERSION OF THE BIBLE IS THE REAL WORD OF GOD? www.webaddressdeleted
See my post below...
Member Admin Tiara On
There's no such thing as a free lunch. Or a free advertisement.
For repeated breaches of Commandment 9, Don't advertise or spam -
Don't use these boards to advertise your site or product, or to lift email addresses to spam our members your posting privileges have been revoked. Bye.
Member Admin Tiara Off
Tubbs
Member Admin
[ 20. April 2007, 08:41: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
The AV only idea is not fundamentally stupid. Its based on the notion that the Holy Spirit guides and preserves the church.
So when ancient texts disagree, having faith in the Spirit's guidance of the churches, you should prefer the majority reading to rare variants, even if the rare one is older.
So textus receptus, the version actually used and passed on by the churches in ancient times, is claimed to be the best one. This is of course also in agreement with the Orthodox churches as far as the NT goes.
For the OT you get to choose between MT and 70 - the Protestants going for MT, and thus implicitly accepting that the Spirit remained with the Jews, who are not superseded by the Church (the continuing validity of Judaism has been a common idea among Reformed churches in Europe and America - in marked contrast to Lutheran and Roman views)
That gives us our Greek and Hebrew texts. That the AV is the best translation of them into English is a rather bigger leap of faith. But not an obviously absurd one - it is almost certainly the version of the Bible most reproduced in history, so you could easily imagine that the Holy Spirit had taken special care over it, or had chosen to bless it in some way.
I don't think that is true, but I can see why some people do think it.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Ken, I agree with the thinking that you outline here. As Jay Green puts it in his Interlinear, the older texts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus may have been preserved only because they were set aside as not fit to be used and copied from. But who knows.
I also agree that the KJV is by no means necessarily the best translation of that text, has plenty of errors, and so revisions and retranslations are called for from time to time.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
For the OT you get to choose between MT and 70 - the Protestants going for MT, and thus implicitly accepting that the Spirit remained with the Jews, who are not superseded by the Church (the continuing validity of Judaism has been a common idea among Reformed churches in Europe and America - in marked contrast to Lutheran and Roman views)
But wasn't the Vulgate based on the Hebrew as well? (Or at least a Hebrew version...)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Ken: So are you saying that the majority text (and I believe their is no single definitive text, but a family) is what qualifies as the inerrant word of God? I don't know. Maybe you don't believe inerrancy at all.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Ken: So are you saying that the majority text (and I believe their is no single definitive text, but a family) is what qualifies as the inerrant word of God? I don't know. Maybe you don't believe inerrancy at all.
You mean because it is a family of texts, not a single text?
I don't think that "inerrancy" really looks for that kind of precision, despite what the word implies.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beautiful Dreamer
Shipmate
# 10880
|
Posted
Sorry for coming in at the tail end of this, but I cannot accept that all Scripture is entirely true and meant to be taken for all time because there are a lot of things that, if read in the context of the culture and time it was written, fall flat. There are several things (like Paul's admonition that women not speak in church) that seem to be meant for a particular issue at a particular place and time, and not necessarily for everyone.
Also, sorry people, but I do not believe the Bible to be a science text, nor a complete history text. It is a spiritual book, basically a love letter from God to us, a story about how God relates to His people. I believe it inerrant on matters of faith and life, but not on physical science or things of that sort.
--------------------
More where that came from
Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!
Posts: 6028 | From: Outside Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Beautiful Dreamer:
It's a pity this is such a long and daunting thread, 'cause it's an important subject and I keep wanting to come back to it.
I can't see how you can retain inerrancy for "faith and life", after all the issue of women being prevented from teaching in the church is surely a "life" matter, and an important one at that.
Paul argument in Timothy about why women can't teach (Eve was deceived . . so Adam wasn't?) is just plain daft, on a par with David Pawson's statement that woment were allowed to prophesy but not teach, because the prophetic gift by-passes the mind.
I strongly echo the words of CS Lewis in his (to my mind very useful book on the Psalms) that until we can be honest not only about the mistaken but even the evil bits in the bible, we can never really read it for what it is.
PS I recommend that book but have since read it being excoriated by Hebrew scholars, and basically totally ignorant. I think he is reading the Psalms through Western eyes, and probably it isn't all that good as a work of OT Theology, but it's a good read.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
snuggiecute
Apprentice
# 12642
|
Posted
Acts 17:11
Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
John 3:5-6
"I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, who will never leave you. He is the Holy Spirit, who leads into all truth. The world at large cannot receive him, because it isn't looking for him and doesn't recognize him. But you do, because he lives with you now and later will be in you.
John 1:1, 2, 14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
Revelation 19:13
He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."
The words of the Bible are alive, we who read them with understanding from the Holy Spirit should believe them and obey them. The Holy Spirit will testify if they are true or not, and they are true. If someone tells you something they say is from the Bible, search for the passage, take it in context, and the Holy Spirit will give understanding.
Posts: 2 | From: renton wa | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Posted by snuggiecute:
The words of the Bible are alive, we who read them with understanding from the Holy Spirit should believe them and obey them. The Holy Spirit will testify if they are true or not, and they are true. If someone tells you something they say is from the Bible, search for the passage, take it in context, and the Holy Spirit will give understanding.
As I find myself endlessly repeating on my other board...
I don't think that the bible is the "Word of God." Christ was the Word of God. The bible hadn't been put together yet, so none of the writers referred to within the bible could have had any idea of what the bible was going to be.
And some lines in the bible only make sense when you excuse them as being the misguided products of a time and place where people didn't know things that we know now. "Reading in context" in some cases means not believing and refusing to obey them.
I cite 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as one example of such a line.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
Snuggiecute, those words are all from the Bible. How can you use them to demonstrate anything about the truth of the Bible?
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
As I find myself endlessly repeating on my other board...
I don't think that the bible is the "Word of God." Christ was the Word of God. The bible hadn't been put together yet, so none of the writers referred to within the bible could have had any idea of what the bible was going to be.
When you endlessly repeat this, it would be good to account for three things: - First, Christ called what Moses wrote "the word of God."
quote:
Mark 7.13 "...making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down."
John 10:35 "If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)"
- Secondly, Christ also spoke of the "word of God" as if it were defined, identifiable information, such as is found in Scripture:
quote:
Luke 8:11 “Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God."
Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
Luke 11:28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
- Thirdly, Christ was able to do this because this is the way that the Hebrew scriptures were identified, with many prophets beginning their orations by stating "The word of the Lord."
quote:
Hosea 1:1 The word of the LORD that came to Hosea
Joel 1:1 The word of the LORD that came to Joel the son of Pethuel
Micah 4:2 For out of Zion the law shall go forth, And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
Zephaniah 1: 1 The word of the LORD which came to Zephaniah
Haggai 1:3 Then the word of the LORD came by Haggai the prophet
Zechariah 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD against Israel. Thus says the LORD
Malachi 1:1 The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi
So there is nothing inconsistent about identifying Scripture, including the New Testament, with the "word of God" and Christianity has always done this. It is certainly true that Jesus is "the Word of God" but this would not make sense unless the term already had meaning for the authors. Jesus was understood to be the fulfillment of the teachings of Scripture - and in fact the Teacher Himself of Scripture. So He was the Word made flesh.
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
And some lines in the bible only make sense when you excuse them as being the misguided products of a time and place where people didn't know things that we know now. "Reading in context" in some cases means not believing and refusing to obey them.
Another possibility is to reassess the meaning.
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
I cite 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as one example of such a line.
But here you have a good point. Not everyone considers the epistles to be God's word. I think of them as the early doctrine of the primitive church, which I sometimes do not believe.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoker
Shipmate
# 11939
|
Posted
Yes
--------------------
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Would you care to elaborate and justify your answer? Or, is your word simply to be accepted as truth?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoker
Shipmate
# 11939
|
Posted
No
--------------------
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
This is such an informative discussion ...
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
well, he is in a boat all by himself ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
That was one more word than his previous three posts combined. At this rate he might even reach the verbosity of a Mousethief one-liner! We might even learn what "yes" means in the context of the discussion on this thread.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I'm seldom that terse for multiple posts in a row, and my one-worders are pretty rare. Lay off the personal attacks.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
It took him 2.5 years to come up with "Yes"?
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Lay off the personal attacks.
You are, of course, correct. I was out of line mentioning your name at all, and I apologise.
I've also been a bit short with Stoker. And, I apologise for that as well. This is a thread I have contributed to over the years (and other threads on similar subjects) and I feel it's a subject worthy of serious discussion. Really, I'd just like to know what Stoker thinks about the subject, and the discussion we've already had here, and engage in further discussion with someone who may have different opinions to my own.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
It took him 2.5 years to come up with "Yes"?
Some fairy tales have the damsel being nearly that coy.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Powell:
I do not see that we have authority to just pick out those sections that we like,and reject the parts that we may dislike.
What think Ye?
What think ye of the Words of Institution? Metaphor or literally true?
The proud literalists make an exception there quite consistently, in my experience.
The New Testament verses you quote were not scripture at the time they were written, nor was anything else in the New Testament. They could apply only to the "Old Testament". Citing them to authenticate themselves would be a case of what Douglas Hofstadter calls "strange loops:" like the disorientation that would result if you tried to buy at the checkout counter one of those rubber sticks that divide one customer's groceries from another's; or expected the garbage collectors to dispose of your trash can.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I do not see that we have authority to just pick out those sections that we like,and reject the parts that we may dislike.
What think Ye?
Then do you accept the Apocrypha as scripture, as the ancient church did? Or do you reject "the parts you dislike?"
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Then do you accept the Apocrypha as scripture, as the ancient church did? Or do you reject "the parts you dislike?"
We've been here before MT - last time round you explained to me that Protestants, RCs and Orthodox all have different categories for scripture.
If, for example, one group views the Apocrypha as less important than the Gospels then it really comes down to semantics whether you call the Apocrypha scripture or not.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I wasn't asking you, was I?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Apologies - I thought this was a bulletin board.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I wasn't asking you, was I?
Since you mis-attributed someone else's words to me, it's impossible to know whom you were asking. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
It's getting a bit fractious down here. Can people get back on topic? Or if personal bickering is desired, you all know here the Hell board is.
Ta!
Louise
Dead Horses Host
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
