homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » biblical inerrancy (Page 12)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  ...  42  43  44 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: biblical inerrancy
Ponty'n'pop
Shipmate
# 5198

 - Posted      Profile for Ponty'n'pop   Email Ponty'n'pop   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One further question:

quote:
The text isn't changing. Its set.
What language is it set in?

--------------------
"....creeping around a cow shed at 2 o'clock in the morning. That doesn't sound very wise to me"

Posts: 236 | From: South Wales | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Lep, you wrote
quote:
our differences over error, underneath it all, probably boil down to differences in understanding what it means for Scripture to be God-breathed.

I think that for most of us, you are right.

But I don't think that this necessarily follows:
quote:
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.

Why do I say this. Clearly, at face value, what you say is true. However:

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.

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.

3)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.

Of course, you could argue that, in much the same way as those who do not see the bible as inerrant sometime accuse inerrantists of manipulating the scriptures to fit a pre-determined doctrine, that I am guilty of the same process in reverse. I don't think that it's true, but I accept is a difficult argument to counter.

I think that, for me, inerrancy is problematic because, if we have an inerrant text, we have a self-contradictory text, and that I would have problems with. The Joshua account of the disposession and genocide of the Canaanites is not some minor discrepency that can be ironed out by textual reinterpretation in due course, as Fish Fish seems to believe (hope I'm not putting words in your mouth, FF.) Nor is it a case of "God knows the whole picture, you do not". That would be apalling relativism. 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.


Fish Fish, you wrote:
quote:
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.

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.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Honestly, this business of scripture being hard and fast, as if context has absolutely no bearing, baffles me.
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.
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.
Of course there is more to it than this, and there is a lot of hard study to be done as to what Paul means here, as there were clearly women taking an active part in church life in Paul's churches, and an expectation in 1 Cor 11 that they will be "praying and prophesying". So obviously even the Corinthian context was complicated and mixed, and believing in "perfection" does not stop you appreciating and working this out. In fact, if anything, it makes you more committed to this process, because you are determined not to write one or other reference off as an error.

Everyone can pick one text and show where, on an unconsidered view, the other point of view is wrong. 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?

I hold my hands up as someone who has made this mistake in the other direction before, and want to underline that it did not get us anywhere..

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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

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?

I don't think that Karl or anybody else here is attempting to insult God or blaspheme his character! [Confused]

[ 24. February 2004, 10:52: Message edited by: Papio ]

--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
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

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?

I don't think that Karl or anybody else here is attempting to insult God or blaspheme his character! [Confused]

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.

I am, like FF, convinced of the practical benefits of inerrancy for authority, certainty etc. However the main reason I believe it is because I believe in the character of God and his verbal inspiration of the Bible. That's why I believe in inerrancy, and that's why (re the question I was actually answering) I don't think inerrancy is mentioned plainly. I think it is to be assumed from the character of God and the nature of the Scriptures. Of course if we disagree on either of those (and there are clearly disagreements on both on this thread) we will disagree on this issue. Of course, its a viscious circle, because the only authority I can appeal from my position is the Bible, while others will say "that part you are appealing to is incorrect" but such is the nature of the debate.
So I was not trying to insult you, merely answer the question in hand.
JJ, I am very interested in the ideas in your post, but must actually do some work on my real job now. Maybe later...

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.

--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ponty'n'pop
Shipmate
# 5198

 - Posted      Profile for Ponty'n'pop   Email Ponty'n'pop   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
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.

quote:
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.
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.

quote:
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?

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.

--------------------
"....creeping around a cow shed at 2 o'clock in the morning. That doesn't sound very wise to me"

Posts: 236 | From: South Wales | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.
It wasn't.

--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

Yep - can't deny that!

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.

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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)...

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.

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Belle
Shipmate
# 4792

 - Posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So, it's not so much that it's an inerrant text - more that there is an inerrant interpretation?

--------------------
where am I going... and why am I in this handbasket?

Posts: 318 | From: Kent, UK | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle:
So, it's not so much that it's an inerrant text - more that there is an inerrant interpretation?

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.

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stoo

Mighty Pirate
# 254

 - Posted      Profile for Stoo   Email Stoo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
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)...

Yes, but interpreted by other texts, taken in context, etc.
Just curious... each verse is as important as those that come before and after? Is each word as important too?

--------------------
This space left blank

Posts: 5266 | From: the director of "Bikini Traffic School" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Belle
Shipmate
# 4792

 - Posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just to explain my comment... you seem (to me) to be saying that the Bible is perfect, or inerrant, but requires study to understand it properly - whether that is to reconcile apparent inconsistencies or draw the fullest meaning from the text. You seem therefore, to accept the fact that everyone who reads the Bible interprets it - whatever the criteria they use to do so. To me, that implies that you believe the interpretation you subscribe to is inerrant - otherwise there would be no reason to think that 'your' reading of the scriptures was any more likely to be the 'true' reading than anyone else's - whether or not they believed there was an inerrant meaning there to be uncovered.

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.

--------------------
where am I going... and why am I in this handbasket?

Posts: 318 | From: Kent, UK | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

Belle,
you make a good point, but I think it may be the same one made by Alan above. In a sense I agree, discussing inerrancy is really only scratching what the real issue is, about inspiration and authority. It certainly doesn't stand alone as a doctrine.
When discussing this with Alan I pointed out that the interpretations are limited considerably by holding to inerrancy. 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.

I don't think anyone is (I am certainly not) making the claim that inerrancy posits easy answers to every hermenutical question.

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ponty'n'pop
Shipmate
# 5198

 - Posted      Profile for Ponty'n'pop   Email Ponty'n'pop   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
When discussing this with Alan I pointed out that the interpretations are limited considerably by holding to inerrancy.
By limiting possible interpretations, aren't you in danger of missing the correct one?! [Big Grin]

Seriously, interpretations they remain, human interpretations at that, and therefore no more guaranteed to be correct than the interpretation of one who does not hold to inerrancy. Above all else, it is possible that the interpretation which gives rise to the inerrancy claim in the first place may be false. At least, that's how it seems to me.

--------------------
"....creeping around a cow shed at 2 o'clock in the morning. That doesn't sound very wise to me"

Posts: 236 | From: South Wales | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Fish Fish, you wrote
quote:
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.
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.

Lep, you wrote:

quote:
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.

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.

I say this with some reason. I became a Christian in a church that was staunchly conservative Evangelical. The aforementioned assumptions were there in the background, if not often stated. I have to say that, when I read the Bible, these assumptions made no sense whatsoever to me. I just didn't see them in the texts. So, for me, reading the Bible contradicted, rather than fortified those belief sets. What I did find was a book (or rather books) told the story of the centuries of strugle between a God who passionately wanted to reveal Himself to humankind, and those same people who, for the most part, and with some glorious exceptions, through ignorance, predjudice and sometimes downright cussedness, were determined not to hear. And ultimately, that desire on God's part was fulfilled in Jesus.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
AB
Shipmate
# 4060

 - Posted      Profile for AB   Author's homepage   Email AB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Lep,

I wanted to make a point about the character of God argument, which you've used a few times on this and other threads.

I hope I don't misrepresent your position here, but my understanding of it was that God is always truthful, the Bible is God's word, and is thus also true. God is incapable of making mistakes, thus the Bible too is free of mistakes.

It is a compelling argument to be sure, and we should not dismiss it lightly - however, I would like to add a few more coals on the fire, as it were.

I would say another facet of God is that He is a power-sharing God. He wants us to be involved in the process of salvation and redemption. Thus he spoke through Prophets, rather than directly. Thus he gave His Law via Moses, rather than directly. Thus His church was formed to spread the gospel, rather than just He revealing Himself to the world.

I would hope you would agree so far?

Now I think it is fair to say that this power-sharing plan is something of a risk. God knows our nature, and that we will always muck things up. Indeed both the Bible and history are littered with examples of us mucking up God's plan (countless exiles for rebelling, the crusades etc..)

I would say that this power-sharing facet of the character of God is important. We are fallible, God uses us despite our fallibility.

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?

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

--------------------
"This is all that I've known for certain, that God is love. Even if I have been mistaken on this or that point: God is nevertheless love."
- Søren Kierkegaard

Posts: 513 | From: not so sunny Warwickshire | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

And this couldn't have anything to do with the similarity of their backgrounds, ecclesiastically-wise-speaking? [Roll Eyes]

[ 24. February 2004, 20:19: Message edited by: Mousethief ]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stoo:
Just curious... each verse is as important as those that come before and after? Is each word as important too?

Erm - not each English word as they are always only an approximate translation.

But is each verse as important as another - I guess not - I guess we'd lose a lot if we lost Jesu claiming to be the way truth and life or a passage on the resurrection, but less if we lost the fact that Jesus caught 153 fish.

Not sure the implication of this, and not thought it through - so I reserve the right to backtrack if someone points out my whole argument collapses on this point!!!

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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)

I'm in serious danger of repetative strain injury by typing the same thing so many times! But here goes...

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?

I know I've asked this a thousand times. but I don't recall an answer to this fundamental problem. Sorry if I've missed it!

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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

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.

When I became a Christian I believed very little of the Bible. My conviction of innerancy has developped over time (joining this debate has made me think it all through more deeply that I ever have done - and convinced me more than ever that innernacy makes sense and is right!). It develops, as Lep says, with a greater understanding of the nature of God. So, let them leap on board with Jesus - and the rest may well follow.

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My experience has been the opposite - I was an inerrancist, but gradually realised I could not accept the conclusions of inerrancy - divine approval of Joshua's genocides being just one such conclusion.

But surely you've already appointed yourself as authority anyway? By what authority do you accept the Bible's claims (as you see them) and reject the claims of the Koran or the Vedas?

[ 24. February 2004, 21:47: Message edited by: Karl - Liberal Backslider ]

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512

 - Posted      Profile for Goldfish Stew   Email Goldfish Stew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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?

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.)

The difference in viewpoints on this issue seems to be that you accept a clear line of authority, God at the top, then the Scriptures under God, then the church under the Scriptures under God - something akin to military ranking (is that an accurate surmise?)

I would tend to see it more like all creation (including the Scriptures) under God, and humankind in particular under His authority through whatever means He delegates His authority, which can even be cyclical or reciprocal chains of command, depending on the issue. God's authority came through the words of a donkey at one point, yet I don't think that this means that we should now rank underneath donkeys in the chain of command, although in a way, at that point, Balaam did.

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.

(None of this approach that I have outlined necessarily judges the scriptures as being prone to error, or without error. I agree with Josephine that the distinction is unhelpful.)

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.

--------------------
.

Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
FF, you wrote
quote:
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?

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.

But I disagree with the implied dichotomy between being under the authority of the scriptures, and judging from those scriptures whether they are, in certain instances, wrong.

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.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
JJ, your post had me pondering most of the day yesterday, v interesting. Here's my thoughts:
quote:

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.

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.

quote:

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.

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".

quote:
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.

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.
quote:

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.

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..
AB, you wrote:
quote:

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?

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.

--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.
Where, exactly?

You now have me scared.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
quote:
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.
Where, exactly?

You now have me scared.

Revelation

Ah yes, I meant to say "if you accept Joahnnine authorship of Revelation". Apologies. Its in Rev 2:23.

[ 25. February 2004, 08:52: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
AB
Shipmate
# 4060

 - Posted      Profile for AB   Author's homepage   Email AB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Lep,

quote:
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.
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?

If your answer above is about how we might know the character of God, I may ask how many Biblical characters were able to without the help of the combined Bible, or, in some cases, even the Law.

quote:
...but I would also be wondering what reason I have to trust his promises in the Gospel
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)

I am happy that the Gospels are accurate, because they are a source of wisdom for my life. Because I don't think there are credible historical criticisms of them and because archeology seems to back them up.

AB

--------------------
"This is all that I've known for certain, that God is love. Even if I have been mistaken on this or that point: God is nevertheless love."
- Søren Kierkegaard

Posts: 513 | From: not so sunny Warwickshire | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
quote:
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.
Where, exactly?

You now have me scared.

Revelation

Ah yes, I meant to say "if you accept Joahnnine authorship of Revelation". Apologies. Its in Rev 2:23.

I think that particular passage is open to a non-literal translation, myself.

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.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
quote:
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.
Where, exactly?

You now have me scared.

Revelation

Ah yes, I meant to say "if you accept Joahnnine authorship of Revelation". Apologies. Its in Rev 2:23.

I think that particular passage is open to a non-literal translation, myself.

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.

Thank you for your reply in such non-pejorative, objective terms. Revelation 2 is clearly describing a situation where Jesus "doesn't like" Jezebel. [Roll Eyes] [Disappointed]

As you are well aware there is another thread on literality. We can continue this discussion there if you like. To what end I'm not sure.
In the mean time, with reference to this discussion, I would say, that even if this does mean Jezebel's followers (which I think it might) the principle of what I was originally saying about the OT still applies.

PS In the same way you don't like being called a liar, I don't like being talked to like an idiot. Just so you know.

[ 25. February 2004, 09:37: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

Thank you. Most gracious. I appreciate 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
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
AB,

In principle I do see what you mean, I do, but

1) God makes a big deal about his words showing what he is like, and especially in Deuteronomy, that his words are true and hence the basis of believing that he is faithful, and the basis of believing that his people should be faitful to Him. So answer - God can/could use fallible words to work, but he doesn't, he does it through truth, because it shows what he is like. (That's not just a logical argument, as I said, I think God makes that link repeatedly)

I wonder does your doctrine of errancy extend to our moral behaviour - that we have to be faithful to God, only to a certain extent, and not entirely truthful and faithful in everything we do?

2) Faith, throughout the Bible, is trusting a promise which is extended in words. (from Abraham onwards) We need to have reason to believe that the one speaking those words is trustworthy, and my reason is that he says he is. If he's got some thing wrong, he may have got this wrong.
I don't know about your life, but sometimes I can't see God working at all, I don't understand what he is at. Why believe that God is faithful then? because it is his character...
But if his words cannot be trusted, if he puts "thus says the Lord" to things which he did not actually say and/or mean, well why trust Him when things are difficult...?

Faith is not a blind leap in the dark, it is about trusting a God who can be trusted.

This 2nd point is an argument from experience for the practical effects of inerrancy, and is potentially weakened by that - its not just a case of believing inerrancy because I have to, but I do think what I have described is a practical effect of saying "the Bible is God-breathed but it makes mistakes".

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hi Lep

Warning : Long Post Alert!!!

Good post of 0928!

There's a lot in there, so maybe I'll tacle it bit by bet, and see how far I get before I have to go out.

The first thing that strikes me is that, in trying to point out why I believe inerrancy to be a mistaken doctrine, I'm aware that it could seem to others that I'm debunking the accuracy and reliability of the scriptures per se. This is not the case, and any such inference is due entirely to my ineptitude in expressing myself. In fact I do believe the scriptures to be inspired, reliable and authoritative when taken as a whole, and with appropriate weight given to progressive revelation. I realise this is a different understanding to yours, but I believe it is still a high view of scripture.

I take the point about the minor Prophets, and this is powerful evidence to the authenticity of the general thrust of the law, that is, you shouldn't opress the poor or go after foreign gods (do you like the "reduced shakespeare" version of the Torah?) . On the other hand, you dont get many passages in the Prophets condemning Israel for failing to exterminate the Canaanites, which could, concieveably imply... but no, we'd better not go there. [Devil]

With regards to the NT, I think that Jesus was actually far more free in his interpretation of OT scriptures than you seem to imply. It's certainly true he endorsed in actuality some figurative prophecy ("Today, in your hearing, this scripture is fulfilled") and it is also true, as you quoted, that he declared that not a jot or tittle should be altered. But then he went on to do precisely that, "You have heard it said...but I say..". Now of course, you will no doubt describe this as looking beneath the words of the Law to what was always there, but not seen. But it is still a radical revision of the Law. If we obey Jesus command not to retaliate, then we are not being bound by an eye for an eye. I realise there are constructions which have been used by christians down the years to square this particular circle, but I think that progressive revelation is as good a way of understanding what is happening as any other schema. Similarly, Paul was no longer bound by Jewish dietary rules, and had some very dismissive view s on the Law, especially in Galatians where the law, as a principle, is most clearly identified with the Law, as in the Torah. To say "whatever was written in former days was for our benefit", is not to imply that everything that was written was 100% correct. In fact, in the context, Paul was trying to moderate an over zealous interpretation of the OT (see Romans 14). The Romans were missing the point by following the letter of the Law. So far from urging complete obedience to this bit of the Law (the dietary regulations) Paul was pressing for tolerance, for putting others first, in place of slavish obedience (all food is clean, but it is wrong to eat anything that causes another to stumble).

You wrote:
quote:
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.

, ad so, of course, I wouldn't make that riposte!! [Biased] [Big Grin] [Two face]

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?
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.

Oh well, times up. I'll get back to you later, or maybe tomorrow with the rest of my thoughts.

One last thing. I said a little yesterday about my background. On re-reading it, I think the way in which I put it was a little too negative, and this was confirmed to me when you picked up on it in some comments you made. In fact, the church where I became a Christian was a fine church, built of godly men and women who loved the Lord. I was privileged to be a member. Nor was it legalistic, in fact, quite the reverse. The only point I was making was that it seemed many of the doctines were just accepted because they were there, nobody thought to question them. I guess they felt they had more important things to do, like spreading the good news. Just for the record [Biased]

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Talitha
Shipmate
# 5085

 - Posted      Profile for Talitha   Email Talitha   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

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?
Posts: 554 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

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.

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:
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.

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.

Perhaps if we are to treat the Bible as more of a human struggle to reach God, or more possitively than that, as an authoritative but errant text - if we are to treat it in this way, are there passages to tell us this is how to treat it? For I agree with Lep when he says that the Bible doesn't point out errors or appologise for mistakes. So, if we are to treat it as errant - are there any texts which tell us to treat it as you suggest?!

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

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.

The Bible claims to be the self revelation of a perfect God. As Lep has argued, God's nature gives us reason to belive the authority and innerancy of his words in a way that is never claimed for the Constitution.

When we talk about God, and God's word, authority is weakened greatly if we lose his ability to communicate innerantly.

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
p.s. Sorry - I keep forgetting to use the correct phrasiology such as IMHO! Sorry if I am edging on arrogancy again! [Biased] [Hot and Hormonal]

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
quote:
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.

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?
Good question! I think because

a) Context is important if we are going to treat the Bible seriously and not simply "proof text" - it respects the text and writters intention.

b) 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.

Not sure if that makes sense! Sorry if not. I'll try again at midnight when I'm clearer?!! [Frown]

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So all non-inerrantists ignore the context and try to use the Bible to make themselves feel smart?

--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just a quicke before the school run!

FF, you wrote
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.

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.

quote:
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.

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.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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?

Good question! I think because

a) Context is important if we are going to treat the Bible seriously and not simply "proof text" - it respects the text and writters intention.

b) 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.[/QB][/QUOTE]

I see. So when I read the Holy Scriptures and try to understand them with the help of Holy Spirit, I am trying to be clever, and trying to sit over the Bible as its judge.

When you do it, it's different.

Thank you for clarifying that.

FWIW, Fish Fish, adding "IMHO" or "ISTM" to a post that is deeply and inherently disrespectful doesn't make it less disrespectful. I believe you when you say that you aren't intending to insult everyone who disagrees with you, which is why I haven't called you to Hell yet. (That, and the fact that I have other, rather more pressing, matters that require my attention this week.)

Furthermore, what I have seen leads me to believe that you're quite capable of listening to others with respect, and of understanding what they say to you. Given a few more posts like the one I just quoted, though, and I may have to rethink my assessment of your abilities.

Try, just this once, Fish Fish, to hear what I'm saying, not what you've already decided I must mean. I am neither an errantist nor an inerrantist. I believe, as you have said that you believe, that the Bible must be interpreted, in context, to be for us what God intends it to be. I believe, as you have said that you believe, that the Church is part of that context in which it must be interpreted.

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.

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.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Right, this constitution thing.

The reason that it is authoritative while not being inerrant is because everyone agrees to abide by it or is forced to abide by it even where they disgaree with it. The problem is that those who do not take an inerrant view on the Bible do not do the same.
If you are saying that you disgaree with the Bible, but you are willing to abide by what it says ( regarding, eg, God's character as revealed in the Joshua story) then this discussion becomes entirely pointless.

But this is manifestly not the approach of come posters here - the approach is, I'm sure this is mistaken so I do not have to accept it. As such, the authority of the Bible is undermined, and so the analogy (like even the best analogies) does not stretch far enough.

Now, JJ, the progressive revelation point. I suppose you surprised me by how much I agree with you. All I am saying is that revelation is progressive in that it reveals MORE of God, but not that it contradicts what God has said before. If it does we are left with the dilemma of a God who asks us to stake our souls on his honesty an trustworthiness, but who also contradicts himself.
I don't think any of the points you make about the law deny inerrancy. It does not require you to say "the law was mistaken or wrong" to take Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount or Paul's in Romans seriously. I think either Jesus or Paul would have been horrified at that thought, indeed Paul spends much of Romans defending the law as a good thing from God. The law, according to Paul testifies to Christ, so yes revelation is progressive, but not self contradictory. Yes things apply differently now, but that does not mean they were wrong before. You are right to say Paul was trying to modify a wrong interpretation of the law, but I think it is too far to go to draw from this that Paul was contradicting the law, or to use the common currency, denying its absolute inspiration and inerrancy. He was merely pointing out what the law was for.

As for this...
quote:
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.

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.

Anyway, that is slightly off the point. I think what I am saying is that there is no point in saying "I think JJ is truthful, but the things he says aren't true". A truthful person tells the truth. That's what I meant when I said the Bible is only fit for purpose if it is truthful, because God can only be trusted if his words are trustworthy. I can only get to know him if the things he says about himself are true.

Of course I know that you don't doubt this about God, and again I think the issue here is "in what sense are the Bible God's words".

One final thing, and I hope this comes out right.
This
quote:
I don't see how anyone could believe this was commanded by the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

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.
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.

Can I just say thanks as well, to everyone who has posted recently, I feel like we aren't going round in endless circles now, but are reaching the intellectual heart of the argument. Cheerz.

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
So all non-inerrantists ignore the context and try to use the Bible to make themselves feel smart?

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. [Hot and Hormonal]


quote:
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.

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.

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:
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.

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.

Hope thats understandable. [Confused]

(p.s. By saying "I was not claiming you were trying to be clever" I was not therefore claiming you are thick... [Eek!] )

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

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.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512

 - Posted      Profile for Goldfish Stew   Email Goldfish Stew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
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.

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.

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.

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.

--------------------
.

Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
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.

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.
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.

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

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.

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512

 - Posted      Profile for Goldfish Stew   Email Goldfish Stew   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
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.

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?
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kiwigoldfish:
quote:
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.

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?
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)

--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...

Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  ...  42  43  44 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools