|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Should we accept that all scripture is to be accepted as truth?
|
|
|
Willyburger
Ship's barber
# 658
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
For example, the Articles of the Church of England (following 4th century writers such as Rufinus) distinguish between canonical books (inspired and normative for faith) and ecclesiastical books (which though still inspired and edifying are not considered normative).
Allen: Could you elaborate on the concept of "normative" in this context? I've always been fascinated by the extra-canonical writings. I am familiar with the Apocrypha and also have read some of the Gnostic gospels. I am not familiar with CofE but I would like to know more about the Articles in relation to this subject. Are they available online? (off to Google I go) Thanks, Willy
--------------------
Willy, Unix Bigot, Esq.
--
Why is it that every time I go out to buy bookshelves, I come home with more books?
Posts: 835 | From: Arizona, US | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Willyburger
Ship's barber
# 658
|
Posted
Oops, many apologies for the name-mangling, Alan.
--------------------
Willy, Unix Bigot, Esq.
--
Why is it that every time I go out to buy bookshelves, I come home with more books?
Posts: 835 | From: Arizona, US | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Collins:
I have to say that for me the bible is so full of gratituous and bizarre contradictions and absurdities that I don't see how anyone can think any of it is inspired.
It's not hard if you are used to it! Actually, it amazes me too. If Adam and Eve were the only people on earth, how did their son Cain come up with a wife? It is true that there are numerous contradictions. One point, however, is that the Bible claims over and over again to be the inspired Word of God - to be the voice of Jehovah Himself. "Thus saith the Lord" it says on numerous occasions. Other books don't tend to do that. Maybe this fact alone has browbeaten millions into believing it. To me it seems obvious that the Bible is a collection of highly symbolic books, loosely grouped around the history of ancient Israel. In symbolic writings, which are common to all ancient cultures, contradictions in the story don't especially matter. The important thing is the message, and the repeated themes of the stories contain the keys to unraveling the bizarre, gratuitous and contradictory elements that you find. The repetitive themes of the Bible are that people should love and obey God, love one another, be merciful and just, and that if this happens all will be well. If you interpret all the rest of it in the light of these central ideas it comes out pretty well, I think. What I like best about this is that these are exceedingly nice themes. They ring true with me. It seems to me that this is the kind of thing that would come from God.
--------------------
"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 Collins
Shipmate
# 41
|
Posted
Whilst the discussion on the apocrypha is interesting, we are talking about now the OT apocrypha. However there is also a NT apocrypha which is what I mostly had in mind when I raised the subject.
--------------------
John Collins
Posts: 179 | From: Welwyn Garden City, Herts | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
starrina
The rose warrior
# 3549
|
Posted
As a student of biblical studies and hermeneutics I had to grapple with all sorts of strange notions,
for example:
That the bible did not fall out of the ssky,
The Jewish community of the Old & New Testament periods' first language was not English
and perhaps most shockingly of all that there are in fact a variety of texts in the Old Testament (and New come to that), of which historical narrative does not even form a half!!
All of this has a bearing in our interpretation and translation of the Bible because in order to fully grasp the meaning of the Biblical texts we need to know the full range of contexts from which they arose
these include: language,
--------------------
"what have you been doing while Bells has been maturing?"
"Drinking better whiskey."
Posts: 275 | From: the kwoon | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
starrina
The rose warrior
# 3549
|
Posted
these include: language,
history, politics, ethics, etc etc,
To accept these things does not deny the truth of the Scripture for us in our situation but enables to in understanding how the Scriptures affected the people in their original context enables us to use the Bible more effectively in our own lives (in my limited experience)
e.g. does it decrease the authority of the book of the creation narrative that in the Hebrew it is written quite clearly in the form a hymn, to give praise to God as the lord and source of creation??!!!
--------------------
"what have you been doing while Bells has been maturing?"
"Drinking better whiskey."
Posts: 275 | From: the kwoon | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lazarus
Apprentice
# 6121
|
Posted
I believe that what is in the scriptures is the truth.
However, there has been much corruption in 2000 years.
Much oft-quoted scripture has been wrongly divided or wrongly interpreted. To compound this error, some scripture has been wrongly translated or the tranlsation has been compromised by the translators under preconcevied notions of what the "real" translation is supposed to be so they have modified accordingly. Even worse, some "original" manuscripts that are the basis for translation have also been corrupted (me thinks deliberately) - a word or phrase here and there, subtley altering the meaning.
In addition, some scripture has been "lost". There are a couple of quotes in scripture referring to The Book of Enoch, for instance, from which we might deduce that The Book of Enoch should be a part of scripture. There are other quotes like the mysterious "It is written 'He shall be called a Nazarene'" and yet no currently known scripture has this quote. A lost old testament book?
Some other books were a part of scripture but have been systematically removed by a corrupt church who couldn't handle the truth of these books and so supressed them.
So many Christians have become brainwashed by this flawed scripture which has given them wrong ideas; furthermore some make an idol of the Bible, the "this is what the bible says so that's it and God doesn't have to speak on it" attitude, not realising that want they think the bible says on such a matter may not be true at all and also forgetting that we are to walk by The Spirit and not turn the bible into a bunch of laws to live by, thus having the same attitude to the New Testament that the pharisees had to the Old, as if Jesus has just given us another set of laws in the New Testament and then left us to it instead of contuing to speak to us directly on specific issues - either with or WITHOUT the help of scripture!
So the REAL scripture is true but the devil has been working hard to so corrupt it over thousands of years that many basic truths have been lost. However, I believe The Lord is in the process of restoring all things to the church, a bride which will be without spot or blemish, before his return. Only Jesus can sort out what is what, what is real and what is not.
Anyone who insists that God is stuck in a static bible of 66 books does not understand the nature of God. God is dynamic and ever-expanding His kingdom. Could such small-minded people handle that idea that in the coming end time revival that [u]new scripture will be written[/u]?
[ 08. October 2004, 06:58: Message edited by: Lazarus ]
Posts: 3 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lazarus:
Much oft-quoted scripture has been wrongly divided or wrongly interpreted.
Yes, of course, which is why we still study the bible and how to interpret it.
What exactly do you mean by "wrongly divided"?
quote:
To compound this error, some scripture has been wrongly translated or the tranlsation has been compromised by the translators under preconcevied notions of what the "real" translation is supposed to be so they have modified accordingly.
That's why its good that there are so many translations so one particular set of translators can;t get away with their own prejudices or biases. Someone else will come along & correct them.
quote:
Even worse, some "original" manuscripts that are the basis for translation have also been corrupted (me thinks deliberately) - a word or phrase here and there, subtley altering the meaning.
Deliberatly? BY who? And how could we tell?
In addition, some scripture has been "lost". There are a couple of quotes in scripture referring to The Book of Enoch, for instance, from which we might deduce that The Book of Enoch should be a part of scripture. There are other quotes like the mysterious "It is written 'He shall be called a Nazarene'" and yet no currently known scripture has this quote. A lost old testament book?
quote:
Some other books were a part of scripture but have been systematically removed by a corrupt church who couldn't handle the truth of these books and so supressed them.
Which corrupt church would that be?
quote:
And which corrupt church would that be?
Could such small-minded people handle that idea that in the coming end time revival that [u]new scripture will be written[/u]?
It's Jesus that makes the Bible special. As Jesus is both God and man, God incarnate, God with us, the eternal creator, all that we can ever know of God comes through him. We can no more learn about God from ourt own efforts than a character in a story can do an experiment on the author (unless the author writes it that way of course). All that can be known of God comes from revelation, Jesus is God's self-revelation to us, the scriptures are a written witness to that revelation and that is why they are important.
So any "new scripture" that ranked in importance with the old could only do so if it was also witness to God's self-revelation to us - in other words to Christ. But when the Lord comes again will we need new scriptures to witness to us? Won't we then be witnesses ourselves?
Habakkuk 2.14 tells us that "the Earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD as the waters cover the sea". Jeremiah 31 says "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbour, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest".
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_grip
Apprentice
# 7831
|
Posted
Regarding the Apocrypha and it being relevant, i found great comfort in these words at our Feast of All Saints this past Sunday:
quote:
Let us now praise famous men, and our fathers in their generations. The Lord apportioned to them great glory, his majesty from the beginning. There were those who ruled in their kingdoms, and were men renowned for their power, giving counsel by their understanding, and proclaiming prophecies; leaders of the people in their deliberations and in understanding of learning for the people, wise in their words of instruction; those who composed musical tunes, and set forth verses in writing; rich men furnished with resources, living peaceably in their habitations - all these were honored in their generations, and were the glory of their times. There are some of them who have left a name, so that men declare their praise.
And there are some who have no memorial, who have perished as though they had not lived; they have become as though they had not been born, and so have their children after them. But these were men of mercy, whose righteous deeds have not been forgotten. Their posterity will continue for ever, and their glory will not be blotted out. Their bodies were buried in peace, and their name lives to all generations.
--Ecclesiasticus 44:1-10, 13-14
We are humans who live in community, and no act of mercy - however seemingly small - is insignificant. Would not Jesus say the same thing?
Blessings,
the_grip
[ 09. November 2004, 20:48: Message edited by: the_grip ]
Posts: 48 | From: Dallas, TX, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Posted on a recent thread in Purgatory, but better suited to here:
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
2 Timothy 3:16 says that all scripture is God-breathed.
1 Corinithians 7:10 and 7:12 have Paul interjecting within his own comments to say that it is "I, not the Lord" that is responsible for this advice. Then in verse 25 he says "I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy."
Must we interpret God-breathed as simply some vague notion of inspiration that could be as little as to say that Paul's life was inspired overall, thus anything he thought or said would have been "God-breathed," or is there another way to reconcile these two passages?
-Digory
quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
When Paul talks of Scripture, he means the Old Testament.
Paul was writing letters of advice, most probably in response to letters he received asking for that advice. He was not writing anything he thought would have such a long life as it has, he was simply writing for specific churches in specific circumstances.
In Timothy, Paul is talking about Scripture - the Old Testament. In Corinthians he is writing advice to the church there. Paul could not possible have foreseen that we would view his writings as Scripture as well, each passage you quote is talking about two different things. Therefore trying to reconcile them is completely unnecessary.
quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
It seems unlikely that what Paul meant by "scripture" was what we now hold in our hands as the Old Testament. Certainly it would have included the Law and the Prophets. The Jewish canonicity of other books in Paul's time seems to have been subject to revision.
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
I'm not disagreeing with what PhilA and Hamn'Eggs are saying, but it does seem to me that at some point the Church decided that these epistles (and I don't happen to think II Timothy is Pauline, so I don't see this as a contradiction within a single author, but that's by-the-by) were part of its Scripture, and the Church had to have certain criteria in order to do that.
For me a lot turns on what the word for "inspired" or "God-breathed" (or - since this is Greek, even god-breathed"! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) )might mean, but that, I think, is more properly a Kerygmania question. And there are, it seems to me, loads of proper Purg. questions to be asked on this topic. It's a hostly call, I know.
So
1) Has there been a Kerygmania thread on this recently (I suspect the answer is "Yes!"
and
2) Would it be worth having a parallel one to this one in Kerygmania, or would that just be plain confusing?
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
I'm not disagreeing with what PhilA and Hamn'Eggs are saying, but it does seem to me that at some point the Church decided that these epistles (and I don't happen to think II Timothy is Pauline, so I don't see this as a contradiction within a single author, but that's by-the-by) were part of its Scripture, and the Church had to have certain criteria in order to do that.
I have a couple of question to ask, even though Kerygmania came immediately into my head too.
What particular reasons do you have for not thinking that Paul wrote II Timothy?
Who do you think may have written it?
I hope that is not derailing the original OP....
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Plus one more that snuck in while I was sorting out the above quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Just in case it is a derailment, maybe we'd better start a Kerygmania thread on I and II Tim and Titus and who wrote them. As for a Kerygmania thread on the actual word translated "God-breathed" - same there.
But for the record, the Greek is very unlike Paul's in terms of constructions and grammar, and there are big problems with the vocabulary. Also the theology is very different, and I think that there's a huge amount of internal evidence of development, especially of ecclesiology, that puts the Pastorals a long time after Paul. There's also the problem of fitting them into the scheme of Paul's ministry as reconstructed from elsewhere.
That said, I'm perfectly clear that they are Scripture, and I'm not suggesting that we should pay no attention to them - just that they need to be read with discretion.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PhilA
shipocaster
# 8792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
It seems unlikely that what Paul meant by "scripture" was what we now hold in our hands as the Old Testament. Certainly it would have included the Law and the Prophets. The Jewish canonicity of other books in Paul's time seems to have been subject to revision.
The Hebrew Scripture is divided as follows: The Torah,(Law) Nebi'im,Prophets, former and later) and Kethubim (writings). These consist of 24 books, which by different divisions are classed as the 39 books of the Old Testament in the AV.
By the time of Ezra, the Torah was pretty much closed and by 200BC was used exclusively, as shown in the book of Tobit.
Ben Sira also mentions the names of many of the people in the Prophets in such detail that what we have as those books must have been available to him, and this was about 180BC.
A clear landmark in the canon in the prologue of Ben Sira, which was composed by the writers grandson in around 132 BC. He speaks of the three elements of Scripture, but as this point the exact contents are still fluid.
The earliest reference to the three sections of the Hebrew Scripture in complete form is by Rabbi Gamaliel - who is mentioned in Acts5. The conclusion must be then that by NT times, the canon of the Hebrew Scripture was virtually, if not completely closed.
I stand by my comment about Paul's mention of Scripture being our OT.
(so ner. ![[Cool]](cool.gif) )
--------------------
To err is human. To arr takes a pirate.
Posts: 3121 | From: Sofa | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
This "God-breathed" stuff is not without interest,despite the way it has been flogged to death.
I think it was James Barr in his now classical study "Fundamentalism" who pointed out that the Timothy argument is entirely circular. Another way of putting it is "All scripture is inspired and is available ...... because I the author of this letter say so". Which does not make the statement wrong of course.
My second point is a bit of biblical argumentation. Much has been made of the link between "God-breathed" (a reasonable textual interpretation) and "infallible", a classic conservative evangelical tenet and also an unjustifiable assumption. Here is an argument which occurred to me recently. In John's Gospel, the resurrected Jesus breathes on the disciples and gifts them with the Holy Spirit. So, in effect, the disciples also become "God-breathed". Did this make them infallible? Clearly the answer to this is "no".
I think on the whole I'm happy with the view that scripture has both a divine and a human element to it. The obsession with it being non-erroneous is because folks are searching for an infallible objective touchstone for life and hope to find it in words. I find Jesus' injuction "Follow me" both a lot easier to understand and a lot more challenging to put into practice. And my answer to the question "How do you know it was Jesus who said that (in view of your critical view of the text)?" I tend to say "Dont be silly! Of course I accept scripture as authoritative and inspired - and available for instruction, reproof and correction. I'm an evangelical. Just dont expect me to take out either my brains or my heart while I'm working out what that means"
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think on the whole I'm happy with the view that scripture has both a divine and a human element to it. The obsession with it being non-erroneous is because folks are searching for an infallible objective touchstone for life and hope to find it in words. I find Jesus' injuction "Follow me" both a lot easier to understand and a lot more challenging to put into practice. And my answer to the question "How do you know it was Jesus who said that (in view of your critical view of the text)?" I tend to say "Dont be silly! Of course I accept scripture as authoritative and inspired - and available for instruction, reproof and correction. I'm an evangelical. Just dont expect me to take out either my brains or my heart while I'm working out what that means"
Which some would call having one's cake and eating it.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
And, some would say that it's an entirely sensible and reasonable approach to Scripture, with centuries of examples of solid evangelical theologians and teachers (not to forget ordinary Joes in the pews) who took just such an approach.
--------------------
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
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, some would say that it's an entirely sensible and reasonable approach to Scripture, with centuries of examples of solid evangelical theologians and teachers (not to forget ordinary Joes in the pews) who took just such an approach.
Possibly.
Although the reasonableness of...
A:"I don't believe the whole Bible is true"
B:"How do you know this bit is true then"
A:"Oh, it's because I believe that bit"
...escapes me.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Although the reasonableness of...
A:"I don't believe the whole Bible is true"
Well, as I didn't say that, and I don't think Barnabas62 said it either, the whole chain of your questioning of the reasonableness of the argument falls at the first hurdle.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks to Leprechaun and Alan Cresswell. The scriptural inerrancy route is, apprently, very tempting for the reasons Leprechaun gives, but I have personally found it to be a dead end. As I discovered the hard way, it can very easily lead into precisely the sort of burden-laying legalism Jesus condemned so roundly in Matthew 23. I prefer to follow Jesus, who both confirmed the "jot and title" survival of the OT and applied some pretty radical and critical approaches to its meaning (Matthew 5-7 and loads of other places).
I know its hard for some folks to accept but the fundamentalist view of scripture basically does not work for me and many others. So, if that's you, humour me. Try reading a serious commentary on Fundamentalism. James Barr's books are very good. Just look at the evidence and arguments. They won't kill you or your faith but they might help you to have a richer understanding of other areas of Christendom.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, some would say that it's an entirely sensible and reasonable approach to Scripture, with centuries of examples of solid evangelical theologians and teachers (not to forget ordinary Joes in the pews) who took just such an approach.
Possibly.
Although the reasonableness of...
A:"I don't believe the whole Bible is true"
B:"How do you know this bit is true then"
A:"Oh, it's because I believe that bit"
...escapes me.
I think it is quite necessary to question parts of the Bible, as a Christian.
It is clear in the OT, that adulterers should be stoned, without pity. Jesus did not do that.
I believe God is Love, but not in a wishy-washy way, as it is possible for humans to be in the Presence of Love, and hate it, as the brother of the Prodigal son hated his father's love and forgiveness to his prodigal brother.
The problem with infallibility, is that it tends to make people justify genocide, because 'God ordered it.' I think there are plenty of Saints who disagree with that in their writings, seeing such passages in a spiritual way, as attacking our own inner sins, and things like that.
Hermenuetics has forgotten a very important principle, in my opinion, and that is, the meaning of Scripture will be affected by one's own personal sin. Therefore it is better to have the guidance of those who have reached divinisation, or full sanctification, to guide interpretation.
Also, the world, including us is created through the Logos. This is continual creation. Everything, including us, has logoi inside, we are lighted by the Light as we come into the world. This is why Jesus could say, the Kingdom of God is within you, but that is not the whole story. There is sin inside us too.
So, if someone reads something in the Bible that does not match 'God is Love' it is best to keep that on hold, not try and justify it, as some justify God ordering genocide, because they try to keep infallibility intact.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
I'm heading away from claiming to subscribe to the inerrancy of Scripture, for the simple reason that it is so difficult to pin down what it means in such a way that it does justice to the genre, etc.
Instead, I'm now going for the perfection of scripture, which is a much more Biblical concept. It also links neatly into other theology - the Bible is (a record of) God's self-revelation, for his people. God being God, it is therefore to be expected that the Bible is the best that it could possibly be. In other words, any changes to the Bible (as originally given) would make it less good as a (record of the) revelation of God.
And yes, that does imply something not entirely dissimilar to inerrancy.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The great thing about describing Scripture as perfect is that immediately raises the questions "perfect for what purpose?". This opens up the whole "what is Scripture for? how does it fulfil that function? or those functions?" type of discussion.
Inerrancy immediately takes you down a line of "Scripture is True" (true as in not erroneous) and that can easily hide the more important questions of purpose.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
I'm heading away from claiming to subscribe to the inerrancy of Scripture, for the simple reason that it is so difficult to pin down what it means in such a way that it does justice to the genre, etc.
Instead, I'm now going for the perfection of scripture, which is a much more Biblical concept. It also links neatly into other theology - the Bible is (a record of) God's self-revelation, for his people. God being God, it is therefore to be expected that the Bible is the best that it could possibly be. In other words, any changes to the Bible (as originally given) would make it less good as a (record of the) revelation of God.
And yes, that does imply something not entirely dissimilar to inerrancy.
The church isn't perfect as an institution. People aren't perfect. Yet God being God, He brought both into being His way. Our destiny (Romans 12v1) is to be transformed into Jesus likeness, not conformed.
The issue that Christina raises (about our own imperfection) is serious if you want a pefect Bible. Let us say you are right. Then that perfect bible tells you you understand it imperfectly now (1 Corinthians 13 v 12).
The snag with your argument is you move from the idea of a perfect bible to a whole lot of assumptions as to how it is to be both conserved and read. And the assumptions are actually the problem. What God reveals, primarily, is Himself, not infallible information about Himself. And so His revelation takes a number of forms. What makes Christians special is our belief that he has revealed Himself through Jesus (e.g Hebrews 1 v 1-3). Jesus himself is the real revelation - and as John 21 v 25 puts it. "Jesus did many other things as well".
I have spent some forty years loving and getting to know my wife - and some 30 years loving and getting to know Jesus. All I can reasonably say in both cases is that I now know both better and love them more. Their revelation to me of their love for me has always been much more than words.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The church isn't perfect as an institution. People aren't perfect. Yet God being God, He brought both into being His way.
Perfect for what purpose? We are not morally perfect, far from perfect in holiness, power or knowledge, but I think that makes us even better for the purpose of revealing God's glory by being recipients of grace.
quote:
Let us say you are right. Then that perfect bible tells you you understand it imperfectly now (1 Corinthians 13 v 12)/
Completely agreed.
quote:
The snag with your argument is you move from the idea of a perfect bible to a whole lot of assumptions as to how it is to be both conserved and read. And the assumptions are actually the problem. What God reveals, primarily, is Himself, not infallible information about Himself. And so His revelation takes a number of forms. What makes Christians special is our belief that he has revealed Himself through Jesus (e.g Hebrews 1 v 1-3). Jesus himself is the real revelation
Hence my parentheses above.
quote:
- and as John 21 v 25 puts it. "Jesus did many other things as well".
Great verses.
John 20:30-31
"Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, by believing, you may have life in his name"
So the purpose of at least that bit of the Bible is to get us believing that Jesus is the Christ and therefore having life in him, even though it doesn't contain everything.
quote:
I have spent some forty years loving and getting to know my wife - and some 30 years loving and getting to know Jesus. All I can reasonably say in both cases is that I now know both better and love them more. Their revelation to me of their love for me has always been much more than words.
True. Hence part of the reason why the Bible is not just propositional, but also poetic and experiential. The Bible is not an end in itself, it is a means by which to know Jesus. And, as books go, it is perfect.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
The Bible is not an end in itself, it is a means by which to know Jesus. And, as books go, it is perfect.
OK. I found lots of common ground in the rest of your posting and I dont want to make a big thing of remaining differences. In the above quote I like "a means" rather than "the means". It is interesting that the much respected conservative evangelical scholar F F Bruce preferred to see the Bible as "true" rather than "inerrant" (quote from an interview shortly before his death). And I suspect he might also have echoed Alan Cresswell's posting re perfection. My continuing perspective is that, if perfect, it is a very strange form of perfection! But God's thoughts are not my thoughts. Thanks for yours.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
The Bible is not an end in itself, it is a means by which to know Jesus. And, as books go, it is perfect.
If it were perfect, you'd think that everybody who read it became a Christian, but this is not the case. In what way, then, is it perfect -- either as a book, or as a means by which to know Jesus?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matrix
Shipmate
# 3452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
The Bible is not an end in itself, it is a means by which to know Jesus. And, as books go, it is perfect.
If it were perfect, you'd think that everybody who read it became a Christian, but this is not the case. In what way, then, is it perfect -- either as a book, or as a means by which to know Jesus?
I think the issue might not be the perfection of scripture, but the imperfection of our understanding. Hence, people can read it and have differing responses.
M
--------------------
Maybe that's all a family really is; a group of people who miss the same imaginary place. - Garden State
Posts: 3847 | From: The courts of the King | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matrix:
I think the issue might not be the perfection of scripture, but the imperfection of our understanding. Hence, people can read it and have differing responses.
Surely a perfect scripture written by a perfect God would take its audience into account?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
That brings me back to my observation, "perfection" implies a purpose. The perfect shape to fit into a square hole is a square, if you have a round hole then a square is an imperfect shape.
If the purpose of Scripture is to reveal God in such a way that anyone just picking it up and reading it will see God and become a Christian then clearly it's imperfect for that purpose. If it's to reveal God while still allowing the readers free will to choose or reject God then it might be perfect.
Though, personally, I consider the purpose of the Scriptures to be much more complex than that. Yes, Scripture reveals God. Yes, Scripture teaches about God, humanity, creation. I don't think Scripture was intended to be read in isolation, but be read and applied within the community of believers (first the Jews, then also the Church). And more besides. I think some of the purposes of Scripture may be in conflict, some may be impossible given the limited nature of the written medium and the human mind to interpret, and some may need Scripture to be augmented by the teaching of the Church. Some of the purposes of Scripture may have been limited to certain times and places, others may be universal.
I'm not sure one can describe Scripture as we have it as "perfect" for the task(s) God has in mind for it. Certainly, if you believe in an omniscient, omnipotent God I see no reason not to trust that He could have created Scriptures that are as good as can be achieved for His purpose.
--------------------
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
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Matrix:
I think the issue might not be the perfection of scripture, but the imperfection of our understanding. Hence, people can read it and have differing responses.
Surely a perfect scripture written by a perfect God would take its audience into account?
Never mind Scripture, Mousethief, we had the perfect Logos of God ministering, doing healing, teaching, etc and He was killed.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
And there's the whole Isaiah's commission thing where part of the point of God's revelation through Isaiah seems to have been to get some people to repent and harden others.
Interesting that Matt (13:14), Mark (4:12) and Luke (Acts 28:26) all pick up on it as well.
Of course, in preaching and evangelism, we can never know who will accept and who will reject beforehand. But people's rejection is not always because the revelation is not clear enough - some people understand, know and still don't believe.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
In terms of the purpose of Scripture - that is a more complex question. It is multifaceted. Here are some quick thoughts of some of the facets off the top of my head.
- to remind God's people of God's saving actions in history
- to comfort God's people and to give them assurance
- to challenge those who are opposed to God to repent, and condemn them if they do not
- to warn us against making the same mistakes some of our forefathers did
- teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
- to tell Christians how to be the Church
I'm sure there are lots more facets to it, but don't have time to think of them right now...
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Never mind Scripture, Mousethief, we had the perfect Logos of God ministering, doing healing, teaching, etc and He was killed.
Of course that was the Plan....
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Does "Scripture" have to have a "purpose"? Is there one thing, called Scripture, actually there, to have a purpose?
Even if we can isolate the 'purpose' of an individual 'scripture' (say, Matthew's Gospel), is it necessarily the case that knowing that purpose (say, demonstrating to a Jewish-Christian church what they already know - that Jesus is the bearer of the Messianic Torah) exhausts the power of that particular text? Doesn't Matthew's Gospel speak in all sorts of ways to people who know sod all about the Messianic Torah?
Don't 'scriptures' - like all texts - accumulate meaning like snowballs, and sometimes from other texts, scriptural and extra-scriptural? And don't they sometimes have layers of meaning peeled away from them when they are read in new ways? (Luther and Romans)?
Isn't talk of a purpose of scripture really terribly limiting? Doesn't it deliver scripture into our hands, into out power, before we actually encounter it - so that we are in control when the encounter takes place?
Isn't all this talk of "purpose" terribly Enlightenment-modern? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
I don't think it is, since the primary purpose of scripture is the purpose God has for it. It is not us using scripture for our purposes; it is God using scripture for his.
We aim to sit under the authority of the Bible, not over it.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
I don't think it is, since the primary purpose of scripture is the purpose God has for it. It is not us using scripture for our purposes; it is God using scripture for his.
We aim to sit under the authority of the Bible, not over it.
And there it is! For some twenty years I have been observing/participating in these debates and the central issue always turns out ot be the same.
For some people. the Bible cannot be authoritative unless it is perfect, or infallible, or inerrant.
For others, the Bible can be authoritative while demonstrating (to their satisfaction or understanding) that it displays human imperfections in either its transmission or construction. The reason being that God can be trusted to provide authoritative revelation through both imperfect words and imperfect people. He is that sort of God.
For yet others, despairing of the endless disputes between the first two groups, the Bible has ceased to be authoritative because folks cannot agree together what authoritative means, and so what's the point. Let's for example broaden the focus to include crticism of the formation of the Canon, the integrity of the early church and see if we can find truth by other means
We desperately need a more creastive way of looking at the issue of how God communicates truth. Maybe a decent starting point is an initial recognition that folks in all the groups believe they have good reasons for their understandings - and it is better to listen to those reasons than rush to defend one's own position.
I think this is called making every effort to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. (Romans 12:18, Ephesians 4:3). As someone who belongs to group 2 above, I am very happy to confirm that I regard this guidance on behaviour as authoritative and I sit under it.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
I don't think it is, since the primary purpose of scripture is the purpose God has for it. It is not us using scripture for our purposes; it is God using scripture for his.
We aim to sit under the authority of the Bible, not over it.
This makes sense, but I see a fallacy in it too.
Just look around you at all the Christians and churches who aim to sit under the authority of Scripture, what does one observe?
Calvinism
Arminianism
pedo-baptist
believers' baptist
communion as symbolic
consubstantiation
transubstantiation
mystery (Orthodox)
This is just a very small list.
Something else is needed other than an agreement that Scripture is infallible or perfect, for indeed, should I decide that Scripture is perfect, I may well end up believing my interpretation is perfect and that others are wrong (to bolster the Scripture is perfect view)
I think the answer lies in what the Early Church believed.
For example, I cannot believe that the Bread and Wine is merely symbolic, as I used to, because I now know that is not what the Early Church believed.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Never mind Scripture, Mousethief, we had the perfect Logos of God ministering, doing healing, teaching, etc and He was killed.
Of course that was the Plan....
It was also part of the Plan that Christians would suffer also, and still is.
Christians
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matrix
Shipmate
# 3452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Never mind Scripture, Mousethief, we had the perfect Logos of God ministering, doing healing, teaching, etc and He was killed.
Of course that was the Plan....
It was also part of the Plan that Christians would suffer also, and still is.
Christians
Who says it is part of the plan? you're reading a different script from many other Christians.
M
--------------------
Maybe that's all a family really is; a group of people who miss the same imaginary place. - Garden State
Posts: 3847 | From: The courts of the King | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matrix:
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
It was also part of the Plan that Christians would suffer also, and still is.
Who says it is part of the plan? you're reading a different script from many other Christians.
I think Somebody once said, "if you would follow me, TAKE UP YOUR CROSS DAILY...."
Also "Blessed are you when men shall revile you and persecute you and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for my sake."
There are others.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
I don't think it is, since the primary purpose of scripture is the purpose God has for it. It is not us using scripture for our purposes; it is God using scripture for his.
We aim to sit under the authority of the Bible, not over it.
This makes sense, but I see a fallacy in it too. ......
Something else is needed other than an agreement that Scripture is infallible or perfect, for indeed, should I decide that Scripture is perfect, I may well end up believing my interpretation is perfect and that others are wrong (to bolster the Scripture is perfect view)
I think the answer lies in what the Early Church believed.
Christina
A thought from someone whose "been there and done that". I think it all boils down to two basic options.
The Authority of Scripture stands above the Authority of any visible Church
OR
The Authority of Scripture should, for the sake of unity and order, become an aspect of the Doctrine of the Church.
Christendom has actually tried both routes. Pre-Reformation, the visible churches (primarily Catholic and Orthodox) were guardians of scripture and its authoritative interpretation. Tradition, including the creeds and the wise words of the Church Fathers, carried substantial weight in interpretation. (This has been criticised by Protestants as "Scripture plus man-made Tradition", not "Scripture Alone")
Post Reformation, what Protestantism has more than adequately demonstrated is its tendency to divide further. "Scripture alone" as authority proves to be less than stable as a means of preserving church government. Fierce arguments rage over interpretation and Christians end up separated, making the long prayer in John 17 look like a forlorn hope.
Over the years I have concluded that there is an answer which transcends this history. It is biblical, it is traditional, it is easy to articulate. Let us not look for enemies. Let us respect the richness and diversity of what we believe, without striving so hard for formal agreements. And most of all, let us love one another. After the exhaustion of the structural options, it really is all we have left.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
After the exhaustion of the structural options, it really is all we have left.
I think you'll find that not all agree that the "structural options" are exhausted yet.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
