|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: biblical inerrancy
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
I'm afraid on this particular text, I entirely disagree. Jesus, if quoting in this way something he knew to be untrue is both
1) allowing us to think the resurrection might not be true
2) is lying when he says that the men of Nineveh will condemn "this generation" because they didn't in reality repent at Jonah's preaching.
His point relies on the story having actually happened.
I don't think the last sentence follows at all. In what way does Jesus resurrection depend on the Jonah account being true. If I tell you that I followed in the footsteps of some fictional character, say, one of the pilgrims in Canterbury Tales, would you be justified in deducing that I am not telling the truth because the person never existed, and therefore had no feet in whose steps I could follow, or would you just think I'd been on a journey from Southwark to the county town of Kent.
The point about how much Jesus, limited (not flawed) by his humanity, knew about things that he would not, as an ordinary, reasonably well educated, first century Jewish man, have otherwise known, is a moot point and discussion of it would also probably derail this thread. However, I don't think it takes away anything from Jesus words whether or not those particular passages from the prophets were historically true. To accept that Jesus was working in such a literal frame of mind would require one to believe that the inhabitants of Nineveh would act as prosecutors and judges over the lives of Jesus' contemporaries, and that, I'm pretty sure, is somewhere that you wouldn't want to go, theologically. So if he was talking in metaphor, why is it necessary that his reference text be anything other than metaphor.
--------------------
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
JJ,
discussion of this text would require its own thread in kerygmania. So I am going to resist the urge to comment on your post on this, apart from registering my disagreement.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I don't think we need a discussion of the text. Just an interpretation which requires the Jonah story to be historically accurate.
--------------------
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:
I don't think we need a discussion of the text. Just an interpretation which requires the Jonah story to be historically accurate.
Very well.
I tried to do a link here to Mattew 12 but it wouldn't work.
Certainly, it seems to me manifestly unlikely that Jesus would tell people that the men of Nineveh would condemn them at the judgement if the men of Nineveh, in his opinion never actually existed. (no matter what your theology of this is, even if it means "when you see the men of Nineveh at the resurrection you will be condemned".)
Similarly, it rather undermines his comparison with himself and the grave if Jonah wasn't actually in the belly of the whale for three days, but that was merely a story, when he seems to be using it as an example of a real miraculous sign analagous to the resurrection, that (in the same way as the resurrection) proves something to be true.
In what way could it possibly be a reference to the resurrection (a real event) if the original event was not real?
In answer to JJ's question, we don't need Jonah to be true to prove the resurrection, but had Jonah not been a true story then how could Jesus have demonstrated his point to the people at the time?
The stuff about "gnosis" and what Jesus knew or didn't know is indeed a moot point, but it may be a discussion we need to have, if you think that Jesus was referring to it as a real event but that he didn't know that it was actually a fiction.
Again, though, aside from the textual discussion, I do not see why you don't believe in a God who communicates consistently. I'm sorry in advance if this is offensive, but while I can understand your hesitations about the Joshua passage, I cannot understand them here. We believe in a trustworthy God, who can do miracles, Jesus refers to this story in a sense that in no way doubts its' reliability- WHY cast doubt on its truthfulness, and search out explanations for it otherwise? The Bible is full of God doing unlikely things. The Joshua argument I can understand, and I am thinking about it to post a reply, but this hardly seems worth using as a plank in the argument unless (as JJ said earlier he wasn't) you are LOOKING for errors.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Lep, I'm sorry that a response to, what I consider to be a throwaway example from AB's post has generated such heat. I can sort of see, in retrospect, why my post pressed the wrong buttons, but that was not the intention. In fact, I had assumed, wrongly as it turned out, that it was likely that you believed Jonah to be a parable, rather than a historical text. For that presumption, I unreservedly apologise ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif) . My intention was not to "cast doubt" on this passage.
To me, this particular matter seems to be one of interpreting the genre, rather than of inerrancy per se. That is, I think that I could conceive of someone holding an inerrantist view, who still might not consider Jonah to be a "history". I have certainly heard that view propounded by those whose inerrantist qualifications are otherwise impeccable.
The point I was making was that whether the passage is, or was ever intended to be, historically accurate or not, (a genre question; we both believe it is "true", but disagree as to what "true" implies) I don't see that implies anything about the historicity of the resurrection.
So I don't think it is a totally fair criticism to say that this is a plank in my argument against inerrancy. It was just something that came up, and which I responded to according to my reading of the text.
Nevertheless, I apologise for derailing the thread, (and winding you up!!)
Pax
--------------------
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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Oops, for clarity, I should point out that the "passage" mentioned in paragraph 3 of my last post was, of course, Jonah and not Matthew 12.
(Missed the !!%$@## edit window -- again!!)
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Just because Jonah didn't exist doesn't mean Ninevah didn't exist. David Copperfield wasn't a real person but that doesn't make London fictional.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ann
Curious
# 94
|
Posted
I read somewhere that "in the belly of a fish" was a figure of speech with the same meaning as "on the horns of a dilemma". I can't substantiate this and it could well have been wishful thinking by someone trying to beat the extraordinary out of Scripture. Either way, it doesn't stop Jonah from being commissioned to call the citizens of Ninevah to repentance and being torn between doing God's will and letting a (to him) dispised city perish.
--------------------
Ann
Posts: 3271 | From: IO 91 PI | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
As I was concerned, the thread seems to have gone off on a Jonah tangent. I don't really want to say more on that (apart from to thank JJ for his, once again, very gracious apology)
Can I just clarify, I think there are a number of key issues here:
1) In what sense is the Bible "God's word"?
2) What is truth - what type of "truth" claim does the Bible make? (incl. issues of genre)
3)Is Jesus inconsistent with the God of the Old Testament? (incl. the Joshua stuff...)
Are these the main issues, or have I missed any?
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
3)Is Jesus inconsistent with the God of the Old Testament? (incl. the Joshua stuff...)
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
This is a point I cannot get to. I cannot find a way of seeing genocide as anything other than inherently evil - ergo, God would not command it.
Can I respond to this issue, with something I've been thinking about. I hope this isn't another tangent, but a defence of what seems to be the trickiest part of the Bible. If this is a tangent, then I'm really sorry for raising it again!!!
I guess we'd all agree that God is loving and patient. The assumption is that, because he is loving and patient, he is thus incapable of the actions against nations such as the Amalekites.
But what does it mean for God to be patient? If God's patience never runs out, and if he is never provoked into action by sinful nations, then is God patient at all? If God never loses his patience with a sinful nation, then its not patience - its indifference. Indifference at their sin, their total and constant rebellion against him, their child sacrifice etc.
ISTM that God is not indifferent to these people's sins - "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." as Peter puts it.
But eventually, if after warning and prophets etc, God choses to act against a people who are so abhorant to him, why should that suprise or offend us? For in the end God will judge all people, and perhaps cast people into hell (as Jesus frequenlty affirms). If this is the case, then why is it wrong for God to sometimes bring that judgement forward to judge people on earth.
The OT is full of "natural" disasters being used by God to judge nations, including his own people. Why is it so much worse for him to use his people to be his agents of judgement instead of fire, the weather, locusts etc?
And since Jesus talks of God judging, casting people into hell etc - and since in the end these "genoicde" passages are claiming to be about God's judgment - is the OT at all inconsistent with Jesus message of a patient and loving God who also is a judge?
I'm sure this will be provocative! And again, sorry if its a tangent. Feel free to ignore this, or tell me its a tangent and I'll shut up! But I feel we need to perhaps defend even these most difficult passages if we are to deffend the innerancy of the text.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
1) In what sense is the Bible "God's word"?
In the sense that God speaks through the words on the page as they are read (rarely IME), but more especially when expounded and meditated on (which automatically roles interpretation into the process of hearing God speak).
quote:
2) What is truth - what type of "truth" claim does the Bible make? (incl. issues of genre)
Now, that's a big question. I don't think "truth" and "factual accuracy" are necessarily mutually dependant. A "lie" can speak truth (eg: through parables), and something factually accurate can lie.
quote:
3)Is Jesus inconsistent with the God of the Old Testament? (incl. the Joshua stuff...)
No. Though, he may be inconsistant with some interpretations of the OT.
quote:
Are these the main issues, or have I missed any?
You've probably missed something, but seems a good place to start.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Fish fish - what is so abhorrent is the indiscriminate slaughter.
Were all the children and babies also guilty of the sins of Canaan and deserved death? If not, God ordering such a massacre is being unjust.
Unless you do believe in sentencing babies to death for the sins of their parents?
[Duplicate post deleted]
[ 02. March 2004, 15:50: Message edited by: TonyK ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ponty'n'pop
Shipmate
# 5198
|
Posted
I think Lep's three questions are worth thinking about.....
quote:
1) In what sense is the Bible "God's word"?
A big bit of me wants to reply that it isn't. Arguably, talk of the Bible as God's Word is jargon, and as such it both carries too much baggage and is incomprehensible to the point of serious misunderstanding to all but the initiated. Besides, if we want to be really pedantic, the Bible makes it clear that God's Word - which I sometimes paraphrase as God's Complete Message is given to us in the person of Jesus - the message brought in human form. We continue to seek the message, using holy writing of course, but also using other forms of communication, of which even the Ship of Fools is part. Yes, the Bible is important, but God's Message is bigger than even the Bible.
One final point on this is that if "The Lord is my Shepherd" is "God's Word" rather than a wonderfully human response to God, then, for me, it loses its impact.
quote:
2) What is truth - what type of "truth" claim does the Bible make? (incl. issues of genre)
I'm completely with others who have said here that 'God's truth' is not defined by nor constrained by a requirement that each and every report contained within the Bible is factually accurate. The Bible contains too many different types of writing other than the 'historical' for factual accuracy to be a prerequisite of truth. OK, so it's not always easy to spot the difference between an allegorical story and one which is a historical record (eg the Creation Myth) but that doesn't stop us understanding the Truth (eg that God is Creator) unless of course we get hung up on the factual accuracy stuff.
quote:
3)Is Jesus inconsistent with the God of the Old Testament? (incl. the Joshua stuff...)
Forgive me for my avoiding answering this directly, but I think it's the wrong question. To me, it's not whether Jesus is consistent with God, but rather whether the relationship between God (Father or Son) and the people of God is consistent. It is not, for a very good reason. God in the OT has a relationship with the people which is characterised by rules and regulations. God in Christ moves us to a point where the relationship is founded on love and trust. Does this mean that God is somehow different? No, I don't think so - it means that we're growing up, we're moving on.
We can perhaps recognise this in our family life - when we were children, our parents behaved in a certain way towards us; now that we are adult, our relationship has changed. And just because we now communicate adult to adult, it doesn't mean that anything that was said to us as children somehow demonstrates an inconsistent parent - even if what they said then would have no meaning if it were repeated now.
God and Jesus therefore are consistent (and extend that to the Holy Spirit, of course) but we have moved on, and so too then has the relationship.
--------------------
"....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
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
1) In what sense is the Bible "God's word"?
quote:
A big bit of me wants to reply that it isn't.
Yes, the Bible is important, but God's Message is bigger than even the Bible.
I think this is where we disagree then. I think it is, that it claims in many places to be, and that while there must be much more about God that we don't know from the Bible, it contains all that he needs us to know.
quote:
One final point on this is that if "The Lord is my Shepherd" is "God's Word" rather than a wonderfully human response to God, then, for me, it loses its impact.
While I don't agree with your subjective analysis, (it wouldn't work for me if it was "x") I don't think in this case it really matters. Psalm 23 does express a wonderful human reaction to God. But tha's the great thing about the Bible - it reveals God to us through human agents. I don't think this limits its perfection, but does in God's grace, help it to chime with our experience.
quote:
2) What is truth - what type of "truth" claim does the Bible make? (incl. issues of genre)
quote:
I'm completely with others who have said here that 'God's truth' is not defined by nor constrained by a requirement that each and every report contained within the Bible is factually accurate.
I think you are arguing with a straw man here. No one is saying that truth cannot be communicated through anyhting except factual accuracy. Of course it can always be communicated through poetry, parable etc. What I cannot accept is that the Bible communicates truth through historical error - to use the most common example here, that the Bible is wrong is claiming God commanded Joshua...
quote:
3)Is Jesus inconsistent with the God of the Old Testament? (incl. the Joshua stuff...)
quote:
Forgive me for my avoiding answering this directly, but I think it's the wrong question. To me, it's not whether Jesus is consistent with God, but rather whether the relationship between God (Father or Son) and the people of God is consistent. It is not, for a very good reason. God in the OT has a relationship with the people which is characterised by rules and regulations. God in Christ moves us to a point where the relationship is founded on love and trust. Does this mean that God is somehow different? No, I don't think so - it means that we're growing up, we're moving on.
Again, I'm not sure who you think disagrees with this. Its not me. My contention is that the revelation does indeed progress, but not in such a way as to contradict itself. I'm not sure how your view is relevant to that. (Sorry that sounds rude, its not meant to be, its just what I think!)
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
Fish fish - what is so abhorrent is the indiscriminate slaughter.
Were all the children and babies also guilty of the sins of Canaan and deserved death? If not, God ordering such a massacre is being unjust.
Unless you do believe in sentencing babies to death for the sins of their parents?
A few further thoughts then. Perhaps its like this...
If a nation turns totally against God, to the extent that they are sacrificing children etc, then they are a danger to other countries round them Almost like a cancer if you like. If they are not removed, they could infect the rest of society. God perhaps saw these people passing over a line that he could stomach no more.
As for the indisciminate nature of it all - perhaps we have too "worldy" a view. If any of the people killed deserved God's judgement, then it simple came on them earlier than we would prefer. But if any of them did not deserve judgement, then even though they die they would inherit much more - eternal life. So, even if it seems unjust and unfair to us, God could easily resolve such apparent injustice. So, for myself - I'm 33 - I don't want to die yet - and if I got wiped out cos of the judgment of the UK it would seem a shame to have not lived longer - but "For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain ."
(You felt so strongly that you replied to me twice - do I need to do the same? ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
If a nation turns totally against God, to the extent that they are sacrificing children etc, then they are a danger to other countries round them Almost like a cancer if you like. If they are not removed, they could infect the rest of society. God perhaps saw these people passing over a line that he could stomach no more.
Why did God just go for this nation, then? What about the people populating the British Isles at that point? Child sacrifices weren't as uncommon in antiquity as we like to think. Why did God command the destruction of this nation, but not the others who were sinning just as much (maybe the Israelites could not have been used, but perhaps a well-placed volcano might have done the job?)?
Maybe it was all about oil?
--------------------
This space left blank
Posts: 5266 | From: the director of "Bikini Traffic School" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Lep - Totally agree that the Bible claims itself to be God's word. And even though I am a horrid liberal, I think that the Bible is indeed the word of God.
There is, however, a flaw in your reasoning. Namely: that the Bible claims that the Bible is God's word is inadmissable as evidence. Saying that the Bible is God's word because the Bible says it is seems to be a bit like saying that Little Jonny Smith can't have stolen the apple because Little Jonny Smith says he didn't.
Wouldn't stand up in a court of law, would it?
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
But, in a court of law, the first thing heard is an answer to the question "guilty or not guilty?"
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
Fish fish - what is so abhorrent is the indiscriminate slaughter.
Were all the children and babies also guilty of the sins of Canaan and deserved death? If not, God ordering such a massacre is being unjust.
Unless you do believe in sentencing babies to death for the sins of their parents?
A few further thoughts then. Perhaps its like this...
If a nation turns totally against God, to the extent that they are sacrificing children etc, then they are a danger to other countries round them Almost like a cancer if you like. If they are not removed, they could infect the rest of society. God perhaps saw these people passing over a line that he could stomach no more.
As for the indisciminate nature of it all - perhaps we have too "worldy" a view. If any of the people killed deserved God's judgement, then it simple came on them earlier than we would prefer. But if any of them did not deserve judgement, then even though they die they would inherit much more - eternal life. So, even if it seems unjust and unfair to us, God could easily resolve such apparent injustice. So, for myself - I'm 33 - I don't want to die yet - and if I got wiped out cos of the judgment of the UK it would seem a shame to have not lived longer - but "For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain ."
Sounds like "Kill 'em all - let God sort 'em out".
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Sorry Alan - I am not sure I understand what point you are making? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
My point is that if you want to use the courtroom analogy you need to recognise that the testimony of the accused is part of the evidence that it's perfectly reasonable to submit to the court.
--------------------
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
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Sorry Alan - I am not sure I understand what point you are making?
My point is that if you want to use the courtroom analogy you need to recognise that the testimony of the accused is part of the evidence that it's perfectly reasonable to submit to the court.
Ok, I shouldn't have said it was inadmissable. Should have said it isn't proof. Apologies.
--------------------
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
Apologies for not making myself clearer.
I did not offer the Bible's claim to be the word of God as "proof" that it is. Rather that I have taken that claim to be true (and would be confused as to how I could take any of its claims to be true if not that one), thus I was disagreeing with PnP. As I have said MANY times in this discussion, I can completely understand why people who don't accept that claim do not accept inerrancy. My confusion is about those who say it is God's word and yet it has mistakes. This, it seems to me, inevitably casts a slur on the character of God.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
AB
Shipmate
# 4060
|
Posted
Hi Lep,
Well, for me, I don't really consider it "God's Word" in a literal, "here you go, chap" kinda way. I believe that it is inspired and profitable for me to read, some parts direct from God to a specific people, some advice from Godly leaders to us, and the records of events where God showed himself.
I've never truly been able to reconcile the notion that God 'dictated' the contents - to me that's a slur on God's power-sharing nature, but there you go.
I guess I'd be more convinced if the Bible prophecised it's existence (one day there will be a book...) or described itself in a much more blatant authoritarian way than being useful/profitable but I'm sure Fish Fish will be along any moment now to 'correct' me.
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
|
|
Ponty'n'pop
Shipmate
# 5198
|
Posted
quote:
I did not offer the Bible's claim to be the word of God as "proof" that it is. Rather that I have taken that claim to be true (and would be confused as to how I could take any of its claims to be true if not that one), thus I was disagreeing with PnP. As I have said MANY times in this discussion, I can completely understand why people who don't accept that claim do not accept inerrancy. My confusion is about those who say it is God's word and yet it has mistakes. This, it seems to me, inevitably casts a slur on the character of God.
Lep and I will agree to disagree. For my part, I'll clarify my position (at present) as simply as possible.
a) I believe that the Bible is of God, but mediated through humans and that because of that mistakes were possible (in writing, in selecting contents, in translation....).
b) I believe that the Word of God can be found in the Bible, but that the Bible itself is not the Word of God.
c) I believe that the Bible contains eternal Truth but that all of it being true is not a necessity for that.
Finally, I'd like to know in plain English what exaclty people mean by 'the Word of God'. Lep - do you mean that the words are Gods - all of them?
--------------------
"....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
Warning "Another of those long posts" alert.
quote:
My confusion is about those who say it is God's word and yet it has mistakes. This, it seems to me, inevitably casts a slur on the character of God.
OK, as one of the said people, I'll have a go, at the risk of repeating myself.
1) Like AB, quote:
I believe that it is inspired and profitable for me to read, some parts direct from God to a specific people, some advice from Godly leaders to us, and the records of events where God showed himself.
By this reading of the texts, they are still God's word, still inspired, but nothing is implied as to their inerrancy. I think I would also like to add that there are parts where the Godly and the human input are at odds. In other words, where the human author had one intention and God had another. There are several examples of where Jesus quotes OT scriptures which have, in their context, a clear meaning, which He then radically reinterprets.
2) The more I think about these matters, the more important genre seems to become. The fact is that we come to the Bible with our own understanding of what it means to be, for example history. We assume, because we know what history is, that is, an objective account of real events (crass simplification, I know, but YKWIM) that the Biblical historians had the same perspective. In fact, that concept would have been meaningless to OT writers, because they were writing before such a genre had even been invented (for simplicity's sake, let's say before Herodatus, c.300BC) What theyb were writing was not modern historical narrative, but the story of their people, if you like, myth. Now myth is not, per se "un-historical", it is "a-historical". The purpose is not recounting of actual events in an objective manner, but to tell the bigger story behind those events. Take, for example, "Homer". On one level it is an account of real events, but the purpose is not merely narrative. The writer has an agenda. That agenda is to teach a warrior people the tradgedy, waste and futility of war. Of course, on the surface it is a boys-own adventure story, and to a degree that is indeed what it is. The target audience would not have listened had it been an anti-war rant. But it isn't just modernity reading back enlightenment values into an earlier literature to suggest that "Homer"'s real purpose was subversive of that sort of warrior bravado. Is it not reasonable that the Biblical "historical" books are at least as subtle? And is it not further reasonable that such subtle truth is the "real" truth to which those stories are true? Is that truth diminished by the odd historical inaccuracy, if modernist historical accuracy was neither the aim or the claim?
3) I think that the actual process undergone by the writers as the wrote is an area which we have not yet explored fully. I suspect that the processes are actually as many and varied as the authors themselves, but I'm fairly sure that they were, for the most part, unaware that what they were writing was, in any sense, the Word of God. That does not mean that it is not the Word of God, merely that, when they were writing, they did not know it to be such. The bits where they were aware that they were, in some senses, channels for direct revelation are usaually easy to spot, because they are the most obscure and enigmatic passages. This is not unreasonable, because they are written without commentary, with no attempt to explain. The passages which are the easiest, where the meaning is clearest, are, I would suspect, those where the writer is being used , probably unconsciously, by God through their human intellect. If I were feeling contentious I would say the first type of revelation is the most prone to misinterpretation, the second the most prone to error ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
But either way the presence of a human agent gives rise to the possibility of flaws in the text. Indeed, without special measures from God, the presence of a human agent would compel the presence of flaws. That, as I believe, he doesn't intervene specially to prevent those flaws does not seem to me to reflect badly on God's character. Indeed, if I can say this reverently, it may be that God does not want a perfect, flawless written revelation of himself. After all, he has a perfect, flawless human revelation of himself. Jesus castigates the Pharisees for not going beyond the requirements of the law, not for failing to follow it. "Unless your righteousness exceeds...".
To me this is the practical problem with inerrancy. It has a tendency to lead to a "closed" worldview. This can be an embarrassment to the Church.
On issues of slavery, astronomy, biology, time and time again Biblical truth has been misread, to the great detriment of the Church. If we can all agree on this, then is there not a chance that today's hot potatoes might not be looked back on in the same light in a hundred years time.
I think that, if I were to sum up how I would like to think I read the bible, I would do it by analogy with education. Basically, there are two models of educaton. The teaching model and the learning model. The former is, as it were, a closed model. "This is the information, these are the facts/skills. Aquire them and you will be fully equipped". The latter is more open. "These are the resources. What is most important is to have the skills to access those resources". I think that inerrancy is a driver towards the former, whist a more open view of scripture tends to the latter. Clearly, I would regard myself as being in the second camp, but it is only my understanding, and is given for clarity, not for the purpose of rubbishing the views of those who believe otherwise.
--------------------
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
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoo:
Why did God just go for this nation, then? ...
Well, I don't know. I don't have the mind of God, fortunately. I was just proposing a possible (reasonable?) solution to the "genocide" passages. As for the exact reasons why God chose those nations - perhaps they are not recorded so we aren't tempted to say "Oooh, I wonder what that would be like" and fall ourselves!
But I think you're probably right - Oil justifies all violence.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
There is, however, a flaw in your reasoning. Namely: that the Bible claims that the Bible is God's word is inadmissable as evidence. Saying that the Bible is God's word because the Bible says it is seems to be a bit like saying that Little Jonny Smith can't have stolen the apple because Little Jonny Smith says he didn't.
The trouble with arguing that we are relying on a circular argument is that you too are using a circular argument! It goes a bit like this - "It seems reasonable to me to conclude the Bible has errors because my reason tells me so." Or variations on that idea.
In defence of using a somewhat circular argument for Biblical innerancy - any claim for an absolute and perfect authority has, in the end, to be somewhat circular - otherwise the authority would not be an absolute authority!
--------------------
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
Sorry - having read further down the page, the discussion has passed on from this, and so I've chucked in ahuge red herring and distraction!!! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
JJ, I too don't want to repeat myself, so I'm not going to address some of the points you made, not because I am discounting them, nor because they were not eloquently made, but simply so you don't think I'm dull and only have one thing to say.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Is that truth diminished by the odd historical inaccuracy, if modernist historical accuracy was neither the aim or the claim?
The particular passage in question here (I think) is the Joshua passage where it is recorded that God said something, and it is disputed by "non-inerrantsists" that God said this. No matter what view of the literature you take, God is very clear that people who claim to have words from him but do not are in serious trouble. If this is an historical inaccuracy, then yes I do think it undermines the truth of the text. Maybe I'm just a modernist, but it is clear that the NT writers viewed other events recorded in the historical OT books as real events. I am really honestly only trying to allow the Bible to interpret itself, I have no vested interest in God having ordered the destruction of Jericho.
quote:
But either way the presence of a human agent gives rise to the possibility of flaws in the text. Indeed, without special measures from God, the presence of a human agent would compel the presence of flaws. That, as I believe, he doesn't intervene specially to prevent those flaws does not seem to me to reflect badly on God's character. Indeed, if I can say this reverently, it may be that God does not want a perfect, flawless written revelation of himself. After all, he has a perfect, flawless human revelation of himself.
JJ it seems to me that you make the link here between Jesus and Scripture as revelation without making the necessary theological implication. There was a human agent to God's revelation in Jesus. This revelation was not flawed. It could perfectly possible be the same for scripture (and in fact, as both are variously described as "the word" I think the link becomes even stronger)
quote:
This can be an embarrassment to the Church.
Riiight. Trying not to be offended here.
quote:
On issues of slavery, astronomy, biology, time and time again Biblical truth has been misread, to the great detriment of the Church. If we can all agree on this, then is there not a chance that today's hot potatoes might not be looked back on in the same light in a hundred years time.
I agree. This is an issue of interpretation is it not, rather than inerrancy?
quote:
Basically, there are two models of educaton. The teaching model and the learning model. The former is, as it were, a closed model. "This is the information, these are the facts/skills. Aquire them and you will be fully equipped". The latter is more open. "These are the resources. What is most important is to have the skills to access those resources".
I don't think the former is a practical effect of inerrancy. I think all my view of Scripture is to say you can be fully and accurately resourced, without being misled as to what you need, but does not say that God has everything to say in detail about everything in the Bible. I think, though, that I may not have followed you properly, please tell me if that is the case.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Fish Fish - my reasoning is this. Historians, Geologists and other experts tell me that there are errors in the Bible. I can't see a reason not to believe them. I can read for myself that the Bible contains contradictions and several versions of some passages.
Why is that circular?
Leprechaun - I am definately in the "the Bible contains errors and is still the word of God" camp. I can see why you think my position is untenable if you take a rather literalist view of the phrase "word of God". I don't agree, but I can see your point. What I am struggling to understand is why it causes you so much trouble that some of us here have a much less literalist interpretation.
Why can't the Bible be God's word, mediated through human beings? Why can't God have allowed the writers of the Bible to make mistakes, in the same way God allows contemporary Christians to get things wrong? I don't follow your reasons for rejecting this position.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Fish Fish - my reasoning is this. Historians, Geologists and other experts tell me that there are errors in the Bible. I can't see a reason not to believe them. I can read for myself that the Bible contains contradictions and several versions of some passages.
Why is that circular?
You are doing the same thing you accuse us of - appealing to a higher authority - the experts. But why accept them as experts - because they claim to be? That's circular! Because there is evidence which back's their claim? Again, this is circular, for they have produced that evidence.
In fact your whole basis for arguing is circular. You have reasoned that the experts are reasonable people to listen to. Your reasoning is your authority. Why? Because it seems reasonable to you to make reasoning your authority. This too is a circular argument!
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
So the only way to have a sensible view point is to abandon reason?
Sorry, but 'fraid I gave up that sort of Christianity.
No, I'm not saying that. I'm simply arguing for recognising that the Bible's "self attesting" to being the word of God is not so weak a position as some would assume. It is a sort of circular argument - but one appealing to a greater authority - God and his word.
I'm sorry, this is becoming a major tangent, and I shouldn't have started it. Sorry all!
--------------------
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
I have to go with Papio here. Geologists giving the date of the earth are not arguing in a circle. A bibliolater claiming the Bible is God's Word because it says it is, is.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I have to go with Papio here. Geologists giving the date of the earth are not arguing in a circle. A bibliolater claiming the Bible is God's Word because it says it is, is.
I'm afraid they are arguing in a circular fashion. It goes a bit like this:
Why do you accept the reasoning of the geologists? You have reasoned that the geologists have good reason to say what they say etc. So, logically what you seem to be saying is "My reason is my ultimate authority because it seems reasonable for me to make it so." This is circular.
The geologists are being circular in the same way "It seems reasonable to me to say that these rocks are reasonable evidence..."
By appealing to the Bible as the ultimate authority, I'm not losing reason - but I am relying on a greater authority. That authority is self attesting (circular...) - but is attesting to being God's word and not the reasoning of man, and thus of a different order to the experts you quote.
Sorry - still becoming a tangent!!!
--------------------
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
|
|
AB
Shipmate
# 4060
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
By appealing to the Bible as the ultimate authority, I'm not losing reason - but I am relying on a greater authority. That authority is self attesting (circular...) - but is attesting to being God's word and not the reasoning of man, and thus of a different order to the experts you quote.
Fish Fish,
Why do you then believe the Bible but not, say the Koran, or the Hindu Vedas, or the Buddhist Path to Enlightenment? All of these are self attesting. Why is the Bible God's word, but not the others?
[/devil's advocate]
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
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Leprechaun - I am definately in the "the Bible contains errors and is still the word of God" camp. I can see why you think my position is untenable if you take a rather literalist view of the phrase "word of God". I don't agree, but I can see your point. What I am struggling to understand is why it causes you so much trouble that some of us here have a much less literalist interpretation.
Why can't the Bible be God's word, mediated through human beings? Why can't God have allowed the writers of the Bible to make mistakes, in the same way God allows contemporary Christians to get things wrong? I don't follow your reasons for rejecting this position.
Because God seems to expect his words to be everything we need to get to know Him, to trust him, and expects us to stake our very eternity on his promises. It seems to me both objectively unfair and internally inconsistent with the God of the Bible that he would ask us to do this on promises or revelation that are innaccurate and untrue. The fact is that if there are mistakes in God's revelation of himself, he has no business asking me to entrust everything on those promises, to believe that he is how he says he is, and to give up my life to follow those (according to you, incorrectly passed down) commands.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
FF, you wrote: quote:
By appealing to the Bible as the ultimate authority, I'm not losing reason - but I am relying on a greater authority. That authority is self attesting (circular...) - but is attesting to being God's word and not the reasoning of man, and thus of a different order to the experts you quote.
Not so much of a different order, I think, but of a different nature. Using the geologists example, geologists think what they think because of empirical evidence. They, in effect, apply the scientific method. Conclusions are based on research, evidence, and the testing of hypotheses. Now, I fully accept that when we are dealing with geological time-scales, such evidence is hard to come by, but nevertheless, over time, geological theory has changed in response to the data available. So, I think that it can be shown that this is not a circular argument. It is bolstered by external objective (if not always certain) evidence.
This is a completely different process to the one which you employ with respect to the Bible. Your position is, in effect, a derived from a philosophy which has, as an a priori assumption, that the Bible is what you believe it to be, in the way in which you believe it to be it. There seems to be an unwillingness to accept external "out of loop" evidence. Neither of us, I suspect, are geological scientists, so any evidence I employ would have to be mediated by those who are, but you exclude such information from the argument, viz: quote:
You are doing the same thing you accuse us of - appealing to a higher authority - the experts. But why accept them as experts - because they claim to be?
Of course, just because someone is an expert does not make them right, but if they have come to their conclusions honestly, and with no axe to grind, and if the vast majority of other such honest observers have come to the same conclusion, I think we can fairly say that their position is likely to be an accurate (though not, of course, complete) account of the real nature of things. If it were not so, it would imply that God had skewed the evidence to trip us up, which has implications for God's character far more serious that any abandonment of inerrancy would have.
So I think that there is a circularity of argument here, one which depends not only on the Bible in fact being God's word, a statement with which I would agree, but on that statement having a very specific meaning, an understanding which I don't share.
--------------------
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
|
|
Stoo
Mighty Pirate
# 254
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
By appealing to the Bible as the ultimate authority, I'm not losing reason - but I am relying on a greater authority. That authority is self attesting (circular...) - but is attesting to being God's word and not the reasoning of man, and thus of a different order to the experts you quote.
I've now seen you give this argument several times, and I'm getting rather fed up with it. It's crap, to be honest.
You claim your circular reasoning is better than that of a non-inerrantist because you rely on something that you say claims to be God's word in its entirity and sufficiency, and a non-inerrantist relies on something that doesn't make that claim.
Fine.
I have just found an ancient text sitting on my hard drive:
quote:
This is the word of the LORD:
You should always cook your chicken properly before you eat it. Northerners are inherently better than Southerners and are My Chosen People. Northerners will inherit the Earth.
Is my circular reasoning better if I trust this rather than if I trusted, say, the computer manufacturer (who claims only the reason of man) who told me when my hard drive was made?
The document above claims to be the word of God. It even has a good tester. It tells me I should cook chicken properly, and I know from experience that this is true. I thus have good reason to believe that the rest of the text is true as well, yes?
--------------------
This space left blank
Posts: 5266 | From: the director of "Bikini Traffic School" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Using the geologists example, geologists think what they think because of empirical evidence.
Its not absolute empirical evidence without interpretation. The geologists reason it to be empirical evidence because it seems reasonable to them to conclude this. Its exactly the same argument. So, to use your sentence about me, but changing it to the geologists - "Their position is, in effect, a derived from a philosophy which has, as an a priori assumption, that the geology is what they believe it to be, in the way in which they believe it to be it." They too are unwilling to "accept external 'out of loop' evidence" such as God saying he was involved in forming the mountains because it seems unreasonable for that to be true. Their reasoning seems reasonable to them. This is a circular argument
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Of course, just because someone is an expert does not make them right, but if they have come to their conclusions honestly, and with no axe to grind, and if the vast majority of other such honest observers have come to the same conclusion, I think we can fairly say that their position is likely to be an accurate (though not, of course, complete) account of the real nature of things.
ISTM that you have more faith in science to reveal its truth to us than in God to reveal his!!! I would argue that the Bible is every bit as reliable as the rocks, or any other scientific empirical evidence - not least (and in answer to the post asking why I believe it before the Koran etc) because it is written by many people over many centuries, and yet its consistency is stunning. It also speaks so wisely into life that its self attesting wisdom proves true in life. Its a book beyond all books.
So, in defence of the self attesting of the Bible - Its not so much a circular argument as an upward spiral! It seems reasonable to accept the bible as God's word. So I do. In my experience it proves itself reliable. This gives me more reason to accept its claims, and so I trust it more - an on going, increasing spiral of trust if you like.
Oh blast - I'm pouring petrol onto a little flame burning in Tangent Alley...
[ 04. March 2004, 09:31: Message edited by: Fish Fish ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoo:
You claim your circular reasoning is better than that of a non-inerrantist because you rely on something that you say claims to be God's word in its entirity and sufficiency, and a non-inerrantist relies on something that doesn't make that claim.
I'm not sure this is the claim to be honest. I think, what I would say about this, is that all claims to ultimate authority are inherently circular. It is then our value judgement as to whether the Bible should be given that position or one of the other competing claims for authority, eg our reason.
With reference to inerrancy I think my point would be that it does not show the inerrancy position is rubbish merely by pointing out it is conssistently self referential to the Bible, because this would be true of any claim of authority for anything.
I'm not trying to prove more than that, merely to say dismissing arguments for the authority of the Bible because they are based on the Bible is not a good enough reason, as all authority claims are ultimately self referential.
[ 04. March 2004, 10:00: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Lep, you wrote: quote:
I think, though, that I may not have followed you properly
Congratulations on getting so far, I re-read my post last night and even I couldn't understand it!!?? ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
I guess this should teach me not to post before mid-day when I have been up 'til two that morning!
Firstly, the "embarrassment" bit was meant to be amplified by the following paragraph, in as much as I was saying that the church has had a habit of painting itself into a corner over the years, and then having to beat a hasty and somewhat undignified retreat. Your point about interpretation rather than inerrancy was well made, but the idea that I was trying to get across was that, at the time of the disputes on cosmology or evolution, the arguments that were presented were ones of the threat to the inerrancy of the bible (all right, I accept that the term inerrancy would have been meaningless in the fifteen hundreds, but YKNIM). In retrospect, we say, oh yes, this is clearly a matter of interpretation, but then the landscape was very different. A disinterested observer might well feel that there is a degree of rationalisation going on here. At least, that's how many outside the church seem to see it, and yes, I do feel it's embarrassing for the church to have had such a track record. I was not, of course, implying that you, FF, or any other inerrantist, were an embarrassment, and I apologise unreservedly for any such inference which, I agree, it was possible to draw from my rather inarticulate post.
With regard to your comments on Joshua, I realise this is probably the most troublesome text to inerrantists, and so have not dwelt on it. As they say, hard cases make bad law. But I do think there is a difference between a mishearing of God, be the consequences ever so terrible, and the situation of the false prophets. In the case of the latter, it was the deliberate use of prophecy known to be false which led to culpability.
With regard to the comparison/contrast between Jesus as the Word of God, and the Bible as the word of God, of course, I accept that it would have been possible for God to produce a completely inerrant text, if only by ensuring that the errant portions were edited out before it was received by the Church. I just don't believe, on the evidence, that he did. I assume he did not because there was something in the process of the writing, or something in its reception by us, which would have been lost if the text was inerrant. But of course, that's where you and I part company.
You also wrote, in response to Papio: quote:
Because God seems to expect his words to be everything we need to get to know Him, to trust him, and expects us to stake our very eternity on his promises. It seems to me both objectively unfair and internally inconsistent with the God of the Bible that he would ask us to do this on promises or revelation that are innaccurate and untrue. The fact is that if there are mistakes in God's revelation of himself, he has no business asking me to entrust everything on those promises, to believe that he is how he says he is, and to give up my life to follow those (according to you, incorrectly passed down) commands.
I have quoted your response at length because it is a moving, passionate, and eloquent defence of your position, and thus bears repetition, but also because it seems, to me, to get to the knub of this debate. For me, your words have great emotional resonance. Nevertheless, I find in them the differences between us. To me, my salvation lies, not in the promises of God, but in the person of Jesus. Of course, I know that you would not disagree with that statement, but there is still a difference of emphasis. I think we are once again back to our old battle on the Penal Substitutionary Atonement thread, concerning the character of the Father, and how salvation actually works. I don't believe that, on the last day, I will have to stand before God and hold him to his promises to let me in to heaven, as if in some way he were reluctant. I think that " while he (I) was still a long way off....".
The Bible shows me what He is like because it shows me what Jesus is like, and I know it's true because I have found Him to be like that in my own experience. It's not so much my faithfulness to the commandments, as His faithfulness to me. The bible is an incredible resource book to help me focus upon Him, treading in the footsteps of those who have gone before, assuring me that they had the self-same problems. In showing how various godly people dealt with situations which they encountered, for well or ill, it helps me to apply the same processes to my nown life. It reminds me that God can deal with the most flawed people, to His glory. Like Jacob, we can start off badly and end well, or like David we can begin full of faith and goodness, and end our days in bitterness and regret. But we will always be loved. Through the Holy Spirit, God speaks to me through, amongst other things, the written words, but always of the Living Word.
--------------------
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
Fish Fish,
So you are happy to use reason in addition to a self-attesting claim to justify the Bible eg. the assumptions that the Bible is very old, written over a passage of time by many different people, that consistency is impossible without inspiration, and that that consistency is a mark of true inspiration over the source of truth that other believers find in the holy books of Hinduism or Islam.
Hmmm, don't buy it. Especially when the Bible was cannonised particularly because it's contents were consistent - and inconsistant books were ommited.
and what is it that you don't like about the Hindu scriptures that leads you to doubt its inspiration? Or the Koran? Or the Buddhist path to enlightenment?
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
|
|
Stoo
Mighty Pirate
# 254
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I'm not sure this is the claim to be honest.
Fair enough. Have re-read his post, and it all hinges on what Fish Fish means by "the greater authority". I had assumed that he meant circular reasoning based around God was "greater" than circular reasoning based around man. I can see that that's not the only interpretation.
--------------------
This space left blank
Posts: 5266 | From: the director of "Bikini Traffic School" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
FF, you wrote: quote:
They too are unwilling to "accept external 'out of loop' evidence" such as God saying he was involved in forming the mountains because it seems unreasonable for that to be true.
How so? I'm sure there are many geologists, maybe at least one on these boards, who passionately believe that God was involved in the creation process. They just dispute that he did it in the way that you believe he did, if, in fact you do believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. If you don't, I'm not sure what point you are making.
quote:
ISTM that you have more faith in science to reveal its truth to us than in God to reveal his!!!
I don't think you can draw this inference from my posts, and regard it as an unhelpful caricature of what I actually believe.
quote:
I would argue that the Bible is every bit as reliable as the rocks, or any other scientific empirical evidence - not least (and in answer to the post asking why I believe it before the Koran etc) because it is written by many people over many centuries, and yet its consistency is stunning. It also speaks so wisely into life that its self attesting wisdom proves true in life. Its a book beyond all books.
I could probably sign up to everything that you have written there, apart from the last sentence, which is a bit vague. But I am not an inerrantist. Go figure!
--------------------
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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
This is the word of the LORD:
You should always cook your chicken properly before you eat it. Northerners are inherently better than Southerners and are My Chosen People. Northerners will inherit the Earth.
Well, at least no-one could argue with the last part of that prophecy ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Its not absolute empirical evidence without interpretation. The geologists reason it to be empirical evidence because it seems reasonable to them to conclude this. Its exactly the same argument. So, to use your sentence about me, but changing it to the geologists - "Their position is, in effect, a derived from a philosophy which has, as an a priori assumption, that the geology is what they believe it to be, in the way in which they believe it to be it." They too are unwilling to "accept external 'out of loop' evidence" such as God saying he was involved in forming the mountains because it seems unreasonable for that to be true. Their reasoning seems reasonable to them. This is a circular argument
Except reason isn't an authority, in that sense. ISTM that inerrantists seem to see two conflicting sources of authority - reason and Scripture and want to insist that where the two conflict, Scripture invariably trumps reason. Liberals, on the other hand, are deemed as upholding the authority of reason against scripture, which is seen as a bad thing.
The trouble with this line of argument is that reason is not, by definition, an infallible or inerrant source of knowledge nor does it claim to be. Reason is a rule, or set of rules, about thinking.
An example is the law of non-contradiction. Two contradictory statements cannot be true. Consider the text book syllogism.
(a)Socrates is a man.
(b)All men are mortal.
(c)Therefore Socrates is immortal.
If statements (a) and (b) are both true then statment (c) cannot be true because it contradicts either statement (a) or statement (b).
Now consider 2 Samuel Chapter 24 which tells us that God instructed David to take a census and then used this as an excuse to punish Israel. The same story is told in 1 Chronicles 21, except that the author of Chronicles attributes the inspiration for the census to Satan. Now clearly these accounts cannot both be right. If Satan inspired David then the author of 2 Samuel got it wrong. If God instigated the census then 1 Chronicles must be in error. The same thing can be found in Matt 27, where Judas is said to have hanged himself, and in Acts 1, where Judas is said to have fallen headlong and his entrails to have fallen out. Both accounts cannot be true. If one is true, then the other must be false. One could multiply examples. Inerrancy is not merely a doctrine about the authority of scripture, it is an empirical claim which is, therefore, subject to testing and falsification.
It seems to me that if we are to insist that the Bible is inerrant we have to insist that the law of non-contradiction does not work, or is not applicable to Holy Scripture. As epistemological claims go this is absolutely astounding. This plunges us into a relativism, far beyond anything that most liberal interpreters of scripture would countenance. This is not an argument about the validity of any given body of scientific or historical authority. This is an assault on cognition itself.
One objects to inerrancy, not because an authority called 'reason' has issued an encyclical proclaiming that the Bible is errant, but because the ordinary laws of rational thought and discourse lead inexorably in that direction. Errancy fits better with reasoned argument and the observed facts. If reasoned argument and the observed facts are not grounds for holding beliefs, then not only is inerrancy true but potentially anything and everything is true (and also false). A sobering thought.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Leprechaun - I would echo Jolly Jape's summing up of your latest response to me. It is moving and I do have some sympathy with it.
However:
I do find in it some confusion between God's word and God's Word. I don't believe that the Bible is the sole means whereby God communicates with humanity. There is also reason, tradition and, much more importantly, Jesus Himself. As a friend of mine used to God - "the Bible isn't perfect, it just points to Jesus - who is". The Bible is an imperfect record of a perfect man. I don't come to the Bible to be saved (words alone will not save me). I come to Jesus.
Karl Barth compared the Bible to an old gramaphone record. I can't find his exact words, but he said something like this: The Bible is like an old 78 which, while it contains pops and stratches, still allows us to hear the tune clearly. The tune is God, not the Bible.
I am with Barth on this one. I don't often agree with him tbh, but I concur with him on this.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Sorry to double post, but I would like to correct a misinterpretation of my position (hopefully) before it happens).
I do not reject everthing in the Bible I dislike or find baffling or inconvieniant. For example, unlike at least some people here, I believe in a literal hell and believe that, tragically, some human beings will go there.
However, where I find there is clear evidence that the Bible cannot be taken literally (for example, in evolutionary science, homosexuality, women priests etc) I am forced to conclude that I have discovered one of Barth's stratches.
Papio.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
