Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Now consider 2 Samuel Chapter 24 which tells us that God instructed David to take a census and then used this as an excuse to punish Israel. The same story is told in 1 Chronicles 21, except that the author of Chronicles attributes the inspiration for the census to Satan. Now clearly these accounts cannot both be right. If Satan inspired David then the author of 2 Samuel got it wrong. If God instigated the census then 1 Chronicles must be in error.

---

Callan, I think the seeming "contradiction" in this story has been discussed already in this thread. And the Judas "contradiciton" has also been discussed on the literality thread. There are perfectly feasible answers to these questions, but I will admit wanting to find them relies on one being previously committed to the Bible being inerrant (in my case beacuse of the character of God).
JJ and Papio, I will reply to your very interesting posts when I have had time to think!

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

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by AB:
and what is it that you don't like about the Hindu scriptures that leads you to doubt its inspiration? Or the Koran? Or the Buddhist path to enlightenment?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

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.

---

That was a joke! Sorry!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grey Face:
Fish fish, I get the feeling you're someone who thinks that science and Christianity are in opposition. Would you say that was true?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:

quote:

---

Originally posted by AB:
and what is it that you don't like about the Hindu scriptures that leads you to doubt its inspiration? Or the Koran? Or the Buddhist path to enlightenment?

---

Because they don't tell me about Jesus, the Son of God!

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethiefovich:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Because they don't tell me about Jesus, the Son of God!

---

Why should that matter? Try to answer non-circularly.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
If I assume there are errors in the text, then I have to explain why Jesus didn't sit down with his disciples and correct them - "look chaps, that bit is terribly mistaken." Or "Can I just ammend the ful stop there, and the odd word here?"

---

quote:

---

Rather, he said not a jot of it was to be changed.

---

quote:

---

And where there are apparent erros, I must assume they are not in fact errors because Jesus didn't think them errors. And so if there is a reasonable explanation of the errors, I'll accept that it.

---

Ok, But where, other than "not one jot of the Law" does Jesus seem to take an innerrant position. Simply quoting text "as is" is not proof that Jesus took inerrancy as standard, he may simply have been using familiarity as a vessel for his message. Fish Fish, you may proof text all you like for this one.



AB

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by AB:
Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep, he said the Law, not the Bible whole.

AB

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by AB:
Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep, he said the Law, not the Bible whole.

AB

---

actually AB, he said he did not come to abolish the law and the prophets. Most people I have read seem to take the view that this refers to the whole Old Testament. (although I am willing to take correction from better read people than myself here)
Certainly it is a pretty wild interptetation to say that Jesus valued the Torah more than the rest of the OT, rather most people who say that Jesus did not stand by the OT say from Matthew 5 that it was the law he wanted to alter, by fulfilling the spirit of the prophets.

There's other stuff, but I'll have to come back later....

---

quote:

---

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Mat 5:17-18)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

What matters is if I am right or wrong. If Jesus is SoG, and if he treated the scriptures as innerant (as I believe), then who am I to say to him that they are not innerant? It may not make sense to view them as innerant when I look at them cold. But when I accept Jesus' treatement of the scriptures., I can't avoid innerancy.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Fish Fish:

You wrote

quote:

---

What matters is if I am right or wrong. If Jesus is SoG, and if he treated the scriptures as innerant (as I believe), then who am I to say to him that they are not innerant? It may not make sense to view them as innerant when I look at them cold. But when I accept Jesus' treatement of the scriptures., I can't avoid innerancy.

---

But I'm certainly not convinced that either acceptance of inerrancy is as important as you seem to believe, or that Jesus treated the scriptures as inerrant, in the way in which we mean the expression. Certainly he had a high view of scripture. I would claim that I have a high view of scripture. That is not the same as inerrancy.

---

So why doesn't he correct what is in error rather than make statements such as Matthew 5:16-17?!! I see nothing in what Jesus says and does to back up your interpretation. I sounds rather like you are arguing from silence! So, can you back up your theory with evidence? (Scientific!) If not, I see no reason to change!!

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

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
But the scriptures in a sense are actually a secondary source about Jesus. The primary source is the experience of the Church through the ages - the scriptures are a record of that, but they are not the only or primary record.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
[QUOTE]I actually come from a scientific background, and it took me ages to become a Christian.

But, now as a Christian, when science and scripture seem to conflict, who do I believe?

But, I think it scientific to accept the Bible as solid empirical evidence along side rocks, chemicals, equations etc. This is becuase of who I believe Jesus to be (Son of God) and the way he treats the Bible (as (it seems to me) innerant and authoritative). Since he is the Son of God, and since I submit to him, then the Biblical evidence carries more weight than the scientific theories in a case of conflict between Bible and boffin.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
actually AB, he said he did not come to abolish the law and the prophets. Most people I have read seem to take the view that this refers to the whole Old Testament. (although I am willing to take correction from better read people than myself here)

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by AB:
As Fish Fish has pointed out, Jesus is only referring to the Law when he points out that not one jot will change. Yes, he mentions the "Law and the prophets" at the start of that block, which you correctly identify as referring to the OT, yet he specifically only mentions the Law when pointing out that not one bit is out of place. Why would he do that, if already referring to the Law and the prophets? Perhaps because he was referring to a clause only applying to the Law?

AB

---

The logical conclusion of this argument AB is to suggest that Jesus wanted to change the prophets but not the law. As I was trying to point out, this would be an extremely radical interpretation, as the normal "Jesus changed the OT" argument is that Jesus changed the law to fulfil the spirit of the prophets.
It may be that you want to use Matthew 5 to advance this radical position, that it was in fact the prophets that Jesus wanted to alter, I would be interested to understand your thesis.

My own view is that Jesus regards both as authoritative, but specifically highlights the law as what he is about to say in the Sermon on the Mount could be misinterpreted to mean that he disagrees with the law. That's just my view.

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

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by AB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
actually AB, he said he did not come to abolish the law and the prophets. Most people I have read seem to take the view that this refers to the whole Old Testament. (although I am willing to take correction from better read people than myself here)

---

As Fish Fish has pointed out, Jesus is only referring to the Law when he points out that not one jot will change. Yes, he mentions the "Law and the prophets" at the start of that block, which you correctly identify as referring to the OT, yet he specifically only mentions the Law when pointing out that not one bit is out of place. Why would he do that, if already referring to the Law and the prophets? Perhaps because he was referring to a clause only applying to the Law?

AB

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But again, thats not how Jesus treated scriptures, as mere secondary, error filled reports of the Jewish "church". So why should I act differently to Jesus?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But again, thats not how Jesus treated scriptures, as mere secondary, error filled reports of the Jewish "church". So why should I act differently to Jesus?

---

There's nothing "mere" about a secondary source, L

Show me how Jesus uses and treats scripture.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

So why doesn't he correct what is in error rather than make statements such as Matthew 5:16-17?!!

---

Why doesn't he correct the errors - I don't think it ever entered his head that people would be exercised by such questions. They really weren't, and aren't, germaine to his mission, IMHO. Of course, what was actually in Jesus mind at the time is not accesible to us, and I accept that my explanation is as likely or unlikely to be correct as yours. Nevertheless, I think that the overwhelming evidence is that Jesus held the Scriptures with a lightness of touch which doesn't suggest an inerrant position. This is not to say he didn't regard them as authoritative, or have a high view of them, merely that he used them creatively.

Why did he say "Not a jot or tittle..." Context, context, context. There is a good deal of exegetal work to be done on that passage, particularly on what he meant by "until everything is accomplished" That's probably a job for Kerygmania, but I think the standard evangelical take (TM) is that this refers to His death and resurrection. What is certain, however, is that He immediately launches into a series of examples where he directly contradicts the Law. Now, I can accept that the teaching on, say, adultery is a mere refining interpretation, but when he actually deals with the woman caught in adultery, he overturns the law by preventing her from being stoned. What does this mean then, is He being inconsistant, contradicting himself. Not at all; he is using scripture creatively. His point is not that he wants his listeners to obey they law, but that he wants them to exceed the law. In a very real sense, for Him, the Law is not the point.

As to whether I am arguing from silence, I suppose that, in a way I am. But then, so are you. To me, it is natural, to assume that the Bible is authoritative and generally self consistant, but I have no reason to believe it is inerrant, and a deal of evidence that it is not. I find nothing in Jesus' silence on the matter to lead me to doubt that view. You, however come from a position where inerrancy is assumed, and find nothing in Jesus view of the scriptures that contradicts that. The difficult passages you can get round with some creative exegesis. Nothing wrong with that. I can exegete creatively with the best (see above) . It's just a question of which position has us jumping through fewer hoops.

--------------------
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)

Posted                       

quote:

---

On reflection I think this rests on a division between God's living word and written word that I'm not sure the Bible itself justifies.
So the way we find out about God's living word (Jesus) is through the written words (themselves interestingly described as living) breathed out by God. The Bible itself never seems to draw a line to say that we should view one differently than the other, in terms of God speaking to us.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
What is certain, however, is that He immediately launches into a series of examples where he directly contradicts the Law.

---

No he doesn't - the sermon on the mount is not a contradiction of the law - it pushes the law more deeply. We discussed this a few pages ago, so I'll not go over that again.

The woman caiught in Adultery - again, Jesus does not contradict the law. He doesn't at all belittle it. Rather, he challenegs hypocritical; application of the law - those who apply it to others and not themselves first. Its the people at fault not the scriptures.

So, again, Jesus accepts the authority of the Bible. Again, I see nothing in anything he says to show he does not take the Bible as innerant. His teaching never criticises the Bible, and accepts it as totally true, every bit (Mat 5 etc.). So I am NOT arguing from silence!!! But it seems to say "Why doesn't he correct the errors - I don't think it ever entered his head that people would be exercised by such questions. They really weren't, and aren't, germaine to his mission, IMHO." is your humble oppinion - but there's, I would argue, no evidence to back up your humble oppinion!

quote:

---

Originally posted by AB:
So I re-ask Fish Fish, where does Jesus suggest an inerrantist view of the Bible (not just the Law)?

AB

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
As I've said three times now!!! - Matthew 5:16-17 - He defends the law as inerant, but also says of the prophets "I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." which is equally affirming of the fact that he won't correct the prophets at all. And I agree with Lep when he says to say Jesus accepts the law as innerant but not the prophets would make a fascinating thesis. I'd buy a copy!!!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

The woman caiught in Adultery - again, Jesus does not contradict the law. He doesn't at all belittle it. Rather, he challenegs hypocritical application of the law - those who apply it to others and not themselves first. Its the people at fault not the scriptures.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But again, thats not how Jesus treated scriptures, as mere secondary, error filled reports of the Jewish "church". So why should I act differently to Jesus?

---

There's nothing "mere" about a secondary source, L

Show me how Jesus uses and treats scripture.

---

D,
I think you may think it is me who made this point, judging my the "L" in your post. It was not.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
As to whether I am arguing from silence, I suppose that, in a way I am. But then, so are you. To me, it is natural, to assume that the Bible is authoritative and generally self consistant, but I have no reason to believe it is inerrant, and a deal of evidence that it is not. I find nothing in Jesus' silence on the matter to lead me to doubt that view. You, however come from a position where inerrancy is assumed, and find nothing in Jesus view of the scriptures that contradicts that. The difficult passages you can get round with some creative exegesis. Nothing wrong with that. I can exegete creatively with the best (see above) . It's just a question of which position has us jumping through fewer hoops.

---

JJ,
I will reply to your other post later - interesting stuff.
On this. I think where this argument came from was referencing the Joshua (and other judgment passages in the OT). The argument being advanced by some (and I think, looking back, by you) was that the revelation of God in Jesus is "so different" that we cannot possibly accept that (Joshua) passage is true.
I think it was originally me who introduced the argument that Jesus did not contradict the OT with reference to this discussion. This was not a proof text based argument (which it seems to have now turned into, and is quite frankly, doing my head in, for those of you who are involved in it ) but rather to say this: If Jesus is to be viewed as so radically different to the God of the OT as you suggest, it is fair to expect him to explain this, or at least advert to it at some point in his ministry. But there is not even the slightest suggestion that Jesus views God's acts of judgement in the OT as inconsistent with himself. Quite the opposite in fact.

So i don't know about FF, but did not introduce this line of thinking so as to say "Jesus explicitly tuaght inerrancy" but merely to undermine the "Jesus is too different from the God of Joshua, for Joshua to be a true picture of God" argument. Yes it is an argument from silence, but IMO, the silence is deafening!

I hope that clears up at least where I stand on this.

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

Posted                      

quote:

---

I repeat: If Jesus hadn't changed law he would have stoned her himself.

---

Or indeed taken the punishment in her place. But that is a different discussion.

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

Posted                      

quote:

---

I'm not disagreeing that this particular story is about hypocrisy, but taking it at at face value, Jesus is also saying that whilst adultery is still wrong, stoning as a punishment for adultery is outdated, if for no other reason than the hypocrisy which would be implicit in that penal system. He has de facto suggested a change to the letter of the law whilst at the same time retaining and reinforcing the moral code on which it was based.

---

quote:

---

There are perfectly feasible answers to these questions, but I will admit wanting to find them relies on one being previously committed to the Bible being inerrant (in my case beacuse of the character of God).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
the written words (themselves interestingly described as living) breathed out by God.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

This isn't quite right either. Jesus does contradict the law inasmuch as he refuses to enforce it.

---

quote:

---

If study of the scriptures leads us to discover errors then surely, we can say that God's character does not lead him to give us a set of inerrant scriptures. Insisting that he does so tells us what you want God to do, rather than what he actually has done.

---

Respect!!

Lep: I think I agree with you on the proof-texting thing!! (Damn, that's twice in a week)

There's a little line that I've noticed but not picked up on in a couple of your posts.

quote:

---

But there is not even the slightest suggestion that Jesus views God's acts of judgement in the OT as inconsistent with himself.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by AB:
FFS Fish Fish, explain how not "not abolishing but fulfilling" means that they are without errors. Surely he can fulfill the message of the prophets without them being completely error free - there are hundreds of posts explaining so in this thread, but I want you to explain from this passage how Jesus is claiming inerrancy for the prophets. The Law I'll give you, he claims that explicitly, but I want you to show me how that covers the prophets too.

Go on, I'm all ears.

AB

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ponty'n'pop:
I repeat: If Jesus hadn't changed law he would have stoned her himself.

---

I agree (as usual! ) with Lep - Jesus knows he is about to die in her place.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Huge-Grey-Bearded Face:
Could you give an example of a situation in which science and scripture seem, to you, to be at odds, then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Huge-Grey-Bearded Face:
There are enough YECcies about that I don't have to look hard usually, but you don't appear to be one. Yet you apparently see a conflict between the conclusions of geology and the Bible, which as far as I can see can only mean that you take the creation story as literal truth and not mythological truth. Please explain what you meant by this.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by AB:
Fish Fish, glad that to have cleared up that matter. So we can't use Matt 5 to promote inerrancy of the whole Bible alone. Good stuff, that was the point I was trying to make!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Huge-Grey-Bearded Face:
Could you give an example of a situation in which science and scripture seem, to you, to be at odds, then?

---

Man created by evolution? The Bible seems to be clear there was a 1st man - so I accept there was. But this is straying into another thread and not innerancy I think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fish Fish:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Huge-Grey-Bearded Face:
I'm not sure what YECcies are? Re the creation story - I try and take it to be true in the sense of the genre it is written in - it seems poetic, but teaching truth about who did it all. That's my current assesment - but I'm open to change on this interpretation. But, again, thats another thread I guess, and not innerancy.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
More than that. There was no wiggle room in Lev. 20:10. The adulterous couple had to be put to death. I agree with everyone else here that the primary target of Jesus teaching here was the heart-condition of the accusers, but it does rather suggest that he had more in mind than a simple reinterpretation of the Law.

---

quote:

---

If study of the scriptures leads us to discover errors then surely, we can say that God's character does not lead him to give us a set of inerrant scriptures. Insisting that he does so tells us what you want God to do, rather than what he actually has done.

---

quote:

---

Alan's new name wrote:


I don't think "God-breathed" necessarily means breathed out by God (a phrase that comes very close IMO to being spoken by God directly ... something that the clear differences in styles from human authors would contradict).

---

quote:

---

JJ again
Lep: I think I agree with you on the proof-texting thing!! (Damn, that's twice in a week)

---

quote:

---

There's a little line that I've noticed but not picked up on in a couple of your posts.

quote:

---

But there is not even the slightest suggestion that Jesus views God's acts of judgement in the OT as inconsistent with himself.

---

I wondered if you had any specific examples in mind.

---

Good point.Well without my standard conservative evangelical "find a biblical curse" concordance to hand, the one that springs to mind is the "woe to Capernaum" where Jesus says what happens to that place will be WORSE than what happens to Sodom and Gomorrah. Oh, and all the OT parallels in his threats to the churches in Revelation.

But as I said it is largely an argument from silence. So its kinda hard to give examples...

quote:

---

The lovely AB wrote:
Lep, sorry to piss you off - I was geting riled and carried on the argument because of it, so forgive me.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

If I assume there are errors in the text

---

I think this is part of our misunderstanding. From my perspective, I am not assuming it. I am acknowledging it.

Leprechaun - I will respond to you more fully when I am feeling less guilty about the amount of time I spend on the ship when I have research to do.

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

Posted                      

quote:

---

I think you may be doing what more liberal shipmates on the ship have often accused me of doing - assuming the Bible can be read without any interpretative framework. My question is whether we SHOULD read the Bible assuming, from the character of God and his process of inspiration, that what he reveals is inerrant.
Conservative Evangelical Heresy warning - the Bible doesn't actually say absolutely loads about itself, but it says plenty about the God who spoke it, which should certainly effect our hermeneutic. I don't think admitting there is an interpretative process undermines my point - this whole thread is about finding the right interpretative process.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callanovsky:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

I agree with you that all of us approach the Bible with an interpretive framework whether we be catholic or protestant,

---

You picked a strange week to ignore the existence of the Orthodox.

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

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by AB:
We have Jesus teaching that the law is inerrant, yes? And we have this in a teaching block about the law and the prophets, yes? Yet he didn't extend the explicit inerrancy claim to the prophets, yes?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by AB:
We have Jesus teaching that the law is inerrant, yes? And we have this in a teaching block about the law and the prophets, yes? Yet he didn't extend the explicit inerrancy claim to the prophets, yes?

---

One of the problems here is that "the Law" might not have, in that context, meant only the written Torah. One of the dispoutes between the Pharisees and the Saducees was over the Oral Law that later became a source for Talmud.

---

• Did Abraham know and use the personal name of God?
• What is the reason for keeping the Sabbath day?
• Who killed Goliath?
• How much did David pay for the land on which he hoped to build the temple?
• Did Mary and Joseph take Jesus to Egypt after his birth or not?
• When did Jesus cleanse the temple (both when in his ministry, and on what day of the week)?
• Was Jesus crucified on Passover day, or the day of preparation for the Passover?
• Did one of the thieves crucified with Jesus believe in him at the end?
• What was the last thing Jesus said from the cross?
• Who discovered the empty tomb?

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Onionhead:
Personally, on Biblical inerrancy some of the questions I find interesting are...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Onionhead:
Personally, on Biblical inerrancy some of the questions I find interesting are...

---

I'm not sure I understand your list of questions. Are you saying the answers provided in the Bible are incorrect? Or unexplained?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Taking the first question, Exodus 6:3 says that God was not known by His name to Abraham, but Genesis 13:4 and 15:7 has Abraham knowing God's name.

---