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


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » biblical inerrancy (Page 22)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  ...  42  43  44 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: biblical inerrancy
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
The issue here is that God does say he will, and whether we're going to accept that as part of an innerant scripture, or rip out the nasty bits we don't like.

My issue is with your characterization of your opponents. The Bible, taken literally, says lots of things which you don't believe; but these you have means for explaining away (genre, etc. etc.). But yours (in your eyes) is the good explaining away. People who explain away other bits, on the other hand, you characterize as "rip[ing] out the nasty bits [they] don't like." Bit of a no-go, isn't it? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If they're "ripping out" when they explain around the final judgment bits, then you must be "ripping out" when you explain around the 6-day creation. Or conversely, if you're not ripping out, neither are they.

The real question in my mind is, who has the right to interpret the scriptures? You? You can say "but that's what it says" until you're blue in the face but when it comes right down to it it's your interpretation versus theirs. For my money the proper interpreter of scripture is the Holy Spirit, as discerned by the ongoing tradition of the church catholic.

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I can't help wondering if "faith" is being used in a rather odd way, here.

It seems to me that when, for example, Matt says he holds the scriptures to be inerrant but the liturgy not to be by "faith", what he actually means is "I believe the scriptures to be inerrant, etc..."

Now, Faith and Belief are ever so slightly different. "Belief" are the things we think/feel/"know"/ascertain to be true. They are our conclusions about how the universe works. I believe that the scriptures are created by the community, for example.

But Faith is actually something else - if it were just a case of "thinking something to be true" then you wouldn't find two apostles, in the Bible, drawing out two radically different conclusions from the story of Abraham. "Faith" is much more than Belief (although related to it) - it is the whole life, practical response of a person in consequence of Belief. "Faith" has more to do with "faithfulness to covenant" than "believing a certain set of propositions".

So I have difficult with the argument "I think this because of faith" because we don't think things because of faith at all - we act faithfully because of things we believe. The earliest Christians acted faithfully in response to what they believed had happened to Jesus - that he had risen from the dead. It's perfectly possible to act faithfully to the belief that the Bible is inerrant - but one does not believe the Bible is inerrant because of faith: the Christian faith doesn't even require you to have read the flipping thing, not least considered every last word of it to be non-contradictory.

So, again, Matt, why do you believe scripture to be inerrant when all the other things God has created seem not to be? What is the ground of this belief?

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Callan:
quote:
OTOH how do you think that the Scriptures got here if they weren't written by the Church (in the persons of Paul, John, Luke et. al.) and how do you think the canon was set if it was not set by the Church?
and:
quote:
Well, I think that's what happened. The development of the Church and the Bible can be roughly summed up thus (all dates approximate):

BC 1800: Abraham extant
BC 1200: Moses extant
BC 900: Origins of Pentateuch (conservative theory)
BC 500: Origins of Pentateuch (radical theory)
BC 250: Septuagint
BC 164: Book of Daniel written
AD 33: Pentecost
AD 51: First NT book (1 Thess.) written
AD 100: Rabbinic Judaism establishes Canon of OT
AD 110: Last NT book (2 Peter?) written
AD 397: Council of Carthage - NT Canon fixed
AD 1517: Start of Reformation. Beginning of process of rejection of Apocrypha by Reformed Tradition.

So the community is prior to the scriptures, wrote the scriptures and decided which bits were canonical and which were not.

I wonder does this help? My own view is that the candidate-documents 'gestated' in the Church - which really means the Churches. In the case of the Gospels, we have to reckon, surely, on them crystallizing out of a generation or so of oral tradition, which really does mean the primitive preaching and teaching of the Church - which was at the same time both (a) the transmission of the impact of Jesus of Nazareth as God's revelation and (b) the Church's reflection on what that meant (guided, if you wish - and I'd certainly want to say so! - by the Holy Spirit).

By the time Mark came to write his Gospel, the whole church had been saturated in the oral gospel for the best part of four decades; if Peter did have special input, it seems to me that way beyond that Mark was saying what the whole church had been led to say (yes, again, by the Spirit) about Jesus.

Same with Matthew and Luke - except, of course, that they have copies of Mark in front of them. They are further into the Next Generation™, and more and more the written documents are crystallizing out.

But the first-generation documents were the things that had to be written, even during a first generation that thinks that it's going to be the last generation (because the End of History is coming) - the Epistles. And Revelation, because, of course apocalyptic is a written genre (unlike prophecy, for example).

And then you have the really late stuff. I'd say the Pastorals belong here. As ecclesiastical as a Sunday School Trip.

And you have the scripture which predates the Church anyway - the OT (yes, specifically the LXX - but in a constant critical relationship with the Hebrew.)

I have to say that the idea that the church, one fine year, a long time after all this process is over, sits itself down and says "Right, chaps! We've got all these documents! We are goung to make something called The Bible™ - or even The Canon™ - so what goes in and what doesn't?" is a tad artificial. Notwithstanding the way the process presents itself. Yes there are big decisions to be made, and some of them might have left us with a Bible substantially different to the one we have. But even the seismic sixteenth-seventeenth century reorientation of Protestantism towards Scripture didn't leave us talking about two totally different, mutially-unrecognizable Bibles. Which I think is the decisive rebuttal of all this 'Apocrypha - in or out' business. I've been all my life in 'Apocrypha-free' churches, but I've never felt the chill, in an Anglican or Catholic setting, during an Apocrypha reading (or even - quel horreur!! - a sermon on an Apocryphal text) which might tell me "Ooh! The Holy Spirit has just Left The Building!!"

What you have is a process which is traceable in broad outline; which connects the production of Scripture with the activity of the Holy Spirit over the whole life of the Church; which gives you ample scope to talk about inspiration, and about books which are both binding on the Church (again, that was the question that was being asked when canonization was an issue - and in most cases it wasn't that difficult to answer) and which in most cases absolutely stink of authenticity. (I worry about Jude...)

These are books which are the product both of a community's intense engagement with God, and of God's intense engagement with a community. They are authentic, real, true. They crystallize the Gospel which called the Church into existence - the Word is over the Community - and they are Canonical - the Community validates the bearers of the Word.

Why the heck do they have to be 'infallible' as well? Isn't it easy to see how the Church - and, yes, the Holy Spirit - could have produced real, true, authentic and finally authoritative Scripture which doesn't - and doesn't need to - claim inerrancy?

Scripture - at least the NT - is the frozen preaching of the Church. (And the OT is what it preached Christ out of, the framework of pre-understandings into which Christ comes.) What fills it with life and authority is the living voice of Christ. Like all preaching it can be true and errant at the same time. Yes the Church created Scripture - just as Scripture created the Church.

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
I've never felt the chill, in an Anglican or Catholic setting, during an Apocrypha reading (or even - quel horreur!! - a sermon on an Apocryphal text)

I must admit I've never heard such a sermon. But I've only been attending church regularly for about 30 years, so maybe I just wasn't there on those days.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ken: Now this is probably paranoia, but my experience of ecumenical services in Anglican churches in Wales often seemed to give prominence to a reading from the Apocrypha!

I think it was just a Christian attempt to show us poor Dissenters that there was more to life... (Or maybe it was a mode of Anglican self-assertion, given that nearly all the hymns we'd sing were Welsh Nonconformist in origin... [Biased]

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
For the record, I can remember two sermons on Sirach,(Ecclesiasticus) and one which I'm sure had another co-ordinated NT text, but was to all intents and purposes on Tobit.

I can't understand why Sirach isn't 'in' anyway. I had the constant feeling when I had to do the Hebrew text (only available a century, of course) at university, that it 'defiled my hands' as much as Proverbs did.

And that, of course, was the question the Rabbis asked. Not "Is this orthodox?" or "Is this inerrant?" or "Is this Apostolic?" but "Does this 'defile the hands'?" It's worth reflecting that the Protestant turn to the Hebrew canon is basically an accepting of that touchstone, as far as the OT goes.

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dyfrig, I'm using 'faith' in the sense of 'faith position' or 'statement of faith', which I accept has a different nuance to that of Hebrews 11:1; I guess I could pretty much equally use 'belief'.

You asked why I believe this. There is a variety of responses here:-

1. In some ways, this is like asking someone why they believe in God. To a degree, it's both a choice and a leap of faith.

2. If you are asking what my reasoning is for believing thus, I could bore you with reams on this, but suffice it to say here that I find that the various books of the Bible, separated as they are in space and time, bear remarkable witness to this; there are numerous NT passages that refer to the OT when quoting it as "God says" and "the Holy Spirit says"; Jesus Himself quotes Scripture eg; "it is written..." and similar passages referring to the NT.

3. If you are asking how I have arrived at this position, that's even more complex, and would need even more space and time devoted to it. Let me at least say that I used to be more 'liberal' than I am now. If you want a 'taster' for how this happened, visit this other board where I post:-http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/3/1862.html?


Yours in Christ

Matt

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
suffice it to say here that I find that the various books of the Bible, separated as they are in space and time, bear remarkable witness to this;
To make the delineation of the canon a matter of Biblical authority, wouldn't you need to have a Biblical quote to 'validate' every book of the canon? (and what about those instances in which the NT misascribes a quote to the wrong OT document? (What does that say about either?) And what about Hebrews' famous formula "Someone has said somewhere?"

quote:
Jesus Himself quotes Scripture eg; "it is written..."
...and goes on to say εγω δε λεγω - "But I say to you..." (A point that nobody has satisfactorily answered yet, by the way...)

And interestingly enough, several Bultmann scholars have noted that Bultmann's answer to the German Christians was always "Es steht geschreibt..." "It stands written..." Interesting, because I don't think anyone could pin an inerrantist tag on Bultmann. [Eek!] [Ultra confused]

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I believe Jesus Christ is that perfect revelation and that's a faith position.

Thanks for this GreyFace.

Just wondering, this idea has been banded around in various forms. But where does it come from?! Of course I totally accept that Jesus is a perfect revelation from God. And the ultimate revelation. But is there any scriptural reason to say that he is the perfect revelation in contrast to everything else. In other words, where are we told he is the perfect revelation, and everything else was imperfect? If we're not told that, (and I would argue Jesus held otherwise (Mathew 5:17-18 [Razz] )), then does your faith position have a solid foundation?!


quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
On the other side of things I have no problem with the Church as a whole happily declaring that the creation myths in Genesis are not necessarily literally true in every detail, even though they are presented as historical fact. And they are.

I don't accept that Genesis 1-3 is presented as history actually. I think it has a more poetic genre. However, if it becomes apparent that it is in fact presented as history, then I'll change my view to a 6 day creationalist. This answers this next point:

quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
My issue is with your characterization of your opponents. The Bible, taken literally, says lots of things which you don't believe; but these you have means for explaining away (genre, etc. etc.). But yours (in your eyes) is the good explaining away. People who explain away other bits, on the other hand, you characterize as "rip[ing] out the nasty bits [they] don't like." Bit of a no-go, isn't it? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If they're "ripping out" when they explain around the final judgment bits, then you must be "ripping out" when you explain around the 6-day creation. Or conversely, if you're not ripping out, neither are they.

No, this is not what I'm doing. I am not ripping out bits I don't like, or dismissing anything at all. I am taking the genre seriously - and believing what the Bible teaches me to believe. As I said above, Genesis, in its genre, doesn't seem to be teaching a literal 6 day creation - so I don't believe in a 6 day creation cos thats not what its teaching. If it did teach that, then I'd believe it. So, the Bible is my authority.

But this is in contrast to the errantists - who do not have to struggle with difficult passages, or passages they disagree with - you can simply dismiss what you don't agree with. How do you counter the accusation that you pick what you like and dismiss what you don't like? And how, then, do you claim the Bible has authority? It's a simple question that never seems to get answered!

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

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

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Jesus Himself quotes Scripture eg; "it is written..." ...and goes on to say εγω δε λεγω - "But I say to you..." (A point that nobody has satisfactorily answered yet, by the way...)

I have tried to...

[ 17. March 2004, 09:19: 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
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Just wondering, this idea has been banded around in various forms. But where does it come from?!
Try John's Gospel. "He who has seen me has seen the Father."

quote:
Of course I totally accept that Jesus is a perfect revelation from God. And the ultimate revelation. But is there any scriptural reason to say that he is the perfect revelation in contrast to everything else. In other words, where are we told he is the perfect revelation, and everything else was imperfect? If we're not told that, (and I would argue Jesus held otherwise (Mathew 5:17-18 )), then does your faith position have a solid foundation?!
You've segued neatly over from 'ultimate' to 'perfect' - and yes, I know that 'perfect' was Grey Face's word, but some time ago, and several times since, I raised the point about ultimacy and still haven't had an answer.

The real accusation against inerrancy is that it starts off making the Bible co-ultimate with Jesus Christ as a revelation of God, and (inevitably) winds up making the Bible more ultimate than Christ. Why 'inevitably'? Because the Bible contains the apostolic testimony to Jesus. But that's not all it contains. And if you make the whole Bible inerrant, you make everything else in it just as important as Jesus Christ, and that means that God is revealed just as truly and ultimately in the Biblical narrative of the massacre of a thirteenth-century tribe (with all the 'infallible' gloating that accompanies it) as he is in the one who says "He who has seen me has seen the Father".

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry - that should be 'inerrant gloating'...

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But FF, saying "Jesus does not correct them - he simply applies them more deeply" is as much an interpretation by you of these passages as anything offered from a more "liberal" perspective.

I note you say to Grey Face that, if it ever emerged that Gen 1-3 was meant to have been a historical record, you wuold become a 6-day creationist. Would you really change your mind on the basis of the opinion of the critics of biblical literature in the face of quite a substantial geological and physical body of evidence?

Matt, I think I'll have to leave my pursuit of you, as I'll just end up rehashing all the objections to your position that have been put up before. But thank you for being patient with me [Smile] . Like Psyduck, I cannot see why scripture, though important to the witness and continuation of God's people, is necessarily inerrant, and I can't see why, if an errant Church can canonise an inerrant body of scripture, that it cannot also canonise an inerrant form of service and ministry. However, we aren't going to resolve that here, so I shall leave it at that.

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But this is in contrast to the errantists - who do not have to struggle with difficult passages, or passages they disagree with - you can simply dismiss what you don't agree with.

But, as has been said before, those of us who do not accept an inerrantist position ("errantists" if you like, though that isn't a word I'd choose to use to describe my position) do struggle with difficult passages. They may contain "errors", but they were still included in Scripture by people guided by the Spirit (though possibly imperfectly) as foundational texts for Judeo-Christian belief. Even if I dismiss something I don't like as an error, I can't dismiss the fact that that is included in Scripture for a purpose. It is still part of the God-breathed writings that are useful for teaching etc.

--------------------
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
AB
Shipmate
# 4060

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

quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
(and I would argue Jesus held otherwise (Mathew 5:17-18 [Razz]

Since you insist on keep using it, I must persist in my criticism of it.

#1 You have yet to explain why Jesus exempts the Prophets from his explicit "not one jot" statement. If you are looking for a legal explanation that Jesus' stance was one of inerrancy, this comes up short on it's own. He exiplicitly covers the Law (which was covenental) but not the prophets.

#2 You have yet to explain how 'fulfilling' means that he considered the prophets error free. One can fulfill a flawed prophecy if the message to be fulfilled is not necessarily constrained by factual accuracy - logically speaking, do you not agree?

#3 You have yet to explain how Jesus not mentioning that there are errors in the text is tandamount to there being none. I have given you plenty of potential reasons why Jesus may not have wanted to point out errors that you have all too easily dismissed.

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      Profile for Stoo   Email Stoo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I don't accept that Genesis 1-3 is presented as history actually. I think it has a more poetic genre.

Ok, we've used the word "genre" several times now.

How do you, Fish Fish, decide what genre each biblical book is? Once you've done that, how does that affect your reading of the book?

What do you look for in the text to find its genre?

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

Posts: 5266 | From: the director of "Bikini Traffic School" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
but some time ago, and several times since, I raised the point about ultimacy and still haven't had an answer.

Sorry what was the "point about ultimacy" - I misssed it.

quote:

The real accusation against inerrancy is that it starts off making the Bible co-ultimate with Jesus Christ as a revelation of God, and (inevitably) winds up making the Bible more ultimate than Christ. Why 'inevitably'? Because the Bible contains the apostolic testimony to Jesus. But that's not all it contains. And if you make the whole Bible inerrant, you make everything else in it just as important as Jesus Christ, and that means that God is revealed just as truly and ultimately in the Biblical narrative of the massacre of a thirteenth-century tribe (with all the 'infallible' gloating that accompanies it) as he is in the one who says "He who has seen me has seen the Father".

I think this si answered by the understanding of Scriptures that both Jesus and the apostles held, that it ALL points to him, it all reveals him. So I think while I would want to say that Jesus is revealed most directly in the bits that are about his earthly ministry, he is (and God, and The Spirit) revelaed just as effectively through the rest of the Scriptures.

Your view Psyduck, ISTM, and please correct me if I am wrong, that there is an inherent contradiciton between the God of the OT and Jesus. This, I have argued on this thread, and at length in the PSA thread, is an unwarranted conclusion, both by the way Jesus behaves, the cross, and the apostolic testimony. That basic assumption of yours I do not agree with, so please don't just assume that everyone will "see that" and agree with you.

[ 17. March 2004, 10:09: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

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

But this is in contrast to the errantists - who do not have to struggle with difficult passages, or passages they disagree with - you can simply dismiss what you don't agree with. How do you counter the accusation that you pick what you like and dismiss what you don't like?

I'd missed this.

How do I answer it? Well, it's part of my job to preach - that means engaging with the text for the Sunday. I don't "dismiss" the bits I don't like.

Now I can't prove that, of course - you may listen to one of my sermons and say, "Aha! He's avoiding mentioned verse 36 because he doesn't like it!" Of course, precisely the same point could be made to so-called "inerrantists" who avoid the difficulties created by their doctrine or indulge in convoluted explantaions.

Let me give you an example. One of the recurring themes in the preaching myself and our vicar have done over the last few months is on the concept, embedded in the OT and implicit in the NT, that the faith community has to remember who God is and what he has done in order to orient themselves for action now and in the future - e.g. remembering the Exodus and, for Christians, remembering the events of the first Easter in its worship and in the eucharist. Which is all fine and splendind.

So I start preparing for taking the service on the 28th March - and bugger me if the reading from Isaiah for that Sunday doesn't go and have God telling the Israelites, "Forget the things that have been done in the past." [Eek!] Do you believe me when I say that I intend to tackle that scripture head on, rather than ignore it because it doesn't fit in with what I've been banging on about for months?

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
So I start preparing for taking the service on the 28th March - and bugger me if the reading from Isaiah for that Sunday doesn't go and have God telling the Israelites, "Forget the things that have been done in the past." [Eek!] Do you believe me when I say that I intend to tackle that scripture head on, rather than ignore it because it doesn't fit in with what I've been banging on about for months?

I don't know if FF has slightly overstated himself with talk of "ripping" things out. But I think where my approach as a preacher would be different to yours Dyfrig, is that I would not allow myself the interpretative option of saying one of these passages or themes is
wrong And actually, for me this is often where the real application and wrestling comes - when one command (like remember) seems relatively straightforward, but obeying God in this while also "forgetting" something else, you actually get to the real nub of what serving God is about.

As I have said before, inerrancy is not a solve-all cure, but it does considerably limit (and thus, I think, enlighten) on interpretative choices we make.

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

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

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Leprechaun:
quote:
Sorry what was the "point about ultimacy" - I misssed it.

quote:
The real accusation against inerrancy is that it starts off making the Bible co-ultimate with Jesus Christ as a revelation of God, and (inevitably) winds up making the Bible more ultimate than Christ.
quote:
Your view Psyduck, ISTM, and please correct me if I am wrong, that there is an inherent contradiciton between the God of the OT and Jesus.
No, my position is that the Bible is full of gloriously contradictory ways of speaking about God - as is the Christian tradition. My position is that to pin down the way meaning works in the Bible to "This means this, it doesn't mean that , and there's no contradiction in the Bible means that we have to place the same emphasis on everything the Bible says about God.

I don't think that there is a God Of The Old Testament™. The whole Christian tradition is that the Old Testament is a preparation for the full and final revelation of God in Jesus Christ. I say that inerrancy essentially denies that, by denying the preparatory status of God's revelation in the history and to the community of Israel. I say that inerrancy can't make Christian sense of Jesus Christ*.

Does that help?

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Does the unquestionalbe fact that Israel and then the Church saw as canonical two texts (Gen 1 and Gen 2) that give contradictory details about the order of creation tell us something about the importance of inerrancy or enlighten our interpretive choices?

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
... means that we have to place the same emphasis on everything the Bible says about God.

Yup, I do indeed believe that about emphasis.

quote:

The whole Christian tradition is that the Old Testament is a preparation for the full and final revelation of God in Jesus Christ. I say that inerrancy essentially denies that, by denying the preparatory status of God's revelation in the history and to the community of Israel. I say that inerrancy can't make Christian sense of Jesus Christ*.

Does that help?

Help? Er.. not sure. I too believe that the OT is preparation for the "full" (not final I don't think, some of our charismatic bretheren might have an issue there) revelation of God in Christ. Inerrancy does not deny this, merely that the preparatory revelation is not contradictory to the full revelation.

Dyfrig, I find it impossible to answer your question as I do not accept those accounts to be contradictory.

[ 17. March 2004, 11:02: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]

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

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Much of this has been tackled head-on by other posters, but I'll answer it anyway.

quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I believe Jesus Christ is that perfect revelation and that's a faith position.

Just wondering, this idea has been banded around in various forms. But where does it come from?!
You mean, on what is it grounded? As I said it's a faith position, based on the evidence of the witness of the Church over the millenia including that recorded in the Bible. Just because I'm not an inerrantist doesn't mean I think the Bible is a load of crap, if that's what you were leading up to.

quote:
Of course I totally accept that Jesus is a perfect revelation from God. And the ultimate revelation. But is there any scriptural reason to say that he is the perfect revelation in contrast to everything else.
Yes, the fact that the Bible is not perfect [Biased]
Sorry, couldn't resist that one. I'll try to contain myself. Are you asking me to prove from an inerrant text that the same text is errant?

We are told to have no other Gods. This thread has clarified my uneasiness with inerrancy in light of this - and for that, I thank you. If I regarded the Bible as inerrant I think I would be in danger of idolatry. The only perfect revelation of God is God himself, not a book written about him, however inspired, in my opinion. I respect your right to differ, unless of course, you start campaigning for the British Army to commit genocide on those people we consider our enemy on the grounds that it's biblical. Which, of course, you're not.

quote:
I don't accept that Genesis 1-3 is presented as history actually.
On what grounds? Your own decision?

quote:
However, if it becomes apparent that it is in fact presented as history, then I'll change my view to a 6 day creationalist.
If *I* think... I hereby charge you, Fish Fish, with the heresy blah de blah... skip to the good bits... that you did wilfully claim authority over the Bible in choosing to interpret Holy Scripture on your own without consultation with your brothers and sisters in Christ, who also have the Holy Spirit and with whom you disagree... etc

Okay, so I'm joking but I'd like to know whose authority you would accept for the decision that it could be presented as history. Biblical scholars? People of your own denomination? Or yourself alone? Are you a renowned expert on biblical scholarship?

Can you define exactly where in Genesis you have to think literal history starts to call yourself an inerrantist, or do you think the whole book is poetry? Did Adam and Eve exist and were they their names? Did the Flood literally cover the whole earth? Did Joseph have eleven brothers? On what basis do you decide this?

quote:
But this is in contrast to the errantists - who do not have to struggle with difficult passages, or passages they disagree with - you can simply dismiss what you don't agree with. How do you counter the accusation that you pick what you like and dismiss what you don't like? And how, then, do you claim the Bible has authority? It's a simple question that never seems to get answered![/QB]
This has been repeatedly answered for you. I'll summarise some of them since you haven't grasped it yet.

1. Errantists do not simply pick and choose. I'll let somebody else drag you back into Hell if you keep going with that one.
2. Some errantists believe that, as a certain book says, every word of the Bible is useful for teaching, rebuking, etc etc. This makes no comment on its historical accuracy.
3. Some errantists believe the Holy Spirit speaks through the ministers of the Church when the Word is preached through the Scriptures. This makes no comment on historical accuracy.
4. Some errantists believe that the Bible is no more than a collection of writings making up the religious history of Judaism, yet are still able to have faith that Jesus Christ is Lord on the basis of that.
5. Some errantists
have a high view of the Bible because it is the definitive text containing the faith of the Church. This makes no comment etc.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gen 1:11 - on the third day God orders the earth to bring forth vegetation and other plants. He doesn't create humans until the sixth day. Reasonable conclusion from this: there was vegetations on the earth before human beings.

Gen 2:4b-7a, however, states that God made man from the dust of the earth when "no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up". In fact, the presence of the vegetation seems to be dependent on there being human beings to till the soil. Reasonable conclusion: no vegetation on the earth before human beings created.

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Leprechaun:
quote:
Inerrancy does not deny this, merely that the preparatory revelation is not contradictory to the full revelation.

No, as I understand it, inerrantist positions are obliged to hold that the massacre of a whole people, and a she-bear coming out of the forest and killing 42 boys for calling a prophet 'Baldy' are just as revelatory of the character of God as is Jesus Christ. You yourself seem to say this with your accepting of the 'equal emphasis'.

quote:
(not final I don't think, some of our charismatic bretheren might have an issue there)
This is a terribly dangerous thing to say. If you say so, I'll accept that there may be some lovely and deeply Christian charismatic guys who may think that they are looking for a revelation beyond Jesus Christ, but that would put them in company with some really deeply unsalubrious guys, like the German Christians, who held that there were new revelations in their time beyond what we have in Jesus Christ, specifically in their case through the medium of Germanism.

But that's your problem isn't it. You believe that revelation = revelations, propositions about God. You believe that revelation = true statements about God. That just isn't how the Bible sees revelation. The New Testament understands revelation as God expressing himself fully, and without reserve, in his λογοs, made flesh in Jesus Christ. What God speaks, he speaks fully and finally in his Son.

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Gen 1:11 - on the third day God orders the earth to bring forth vegetation and other plants. He doesn't create humans until the sixth day. Reasonable conclusion from this: there was vegetations on the earth before human beings.

Gen 2:4b-7a, however, states that God made man from the dust of the earth when "no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up". In fact, the presence of the vegetation seems to be dependent on there being human beings to till the soil. Reasonable conclusion: no vegetation on the earth before human beings created.

Or reasonable conlcusion on the assumption both texts the word of God, plants created before people, but did not commence growing until people created, plants taking some time to germinate. There is also a valid question here of the meaning of the phrases "plant of the field" or "shrub of the field" in Genesis 2 - it could be that this refers to particular plants for human consumption that required human cultivation.
On an inerrantist interptetation what this shows is that while there was a clear order to creation with human beings at the peak, God had still ordered the world so that people were necessary to work it. Thus instead of saying - one text is wrong, I will decide which to teach as true - true meaning is found by working through and resolving the apparent difficulties.

Many issues, not covered adequately I realise, apologies..

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

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

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Leprechaun:
quote:
In fact, the presence of the vegetation seems to be dependent on there being human beings to till the soil. Reasonable conclusion: no vegetation on the earth before human beings created.
[Killing me] Er - you're not really a gardener, are you? (Incredulous apologies if wrong...)

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Gen 1 account says that "it was so" - the plants came into existence on the third day. They brought forth fruit according to their kind. And so on and so on. What you are doing, just as much as I am, is interpreting, the only difference being you have the "inerrancy" of the entire Bible as a modifier (and, before you say, I know perfectly well that I've got my own modifiers).

I can't see inerrancy as being anything other than a pair of spectacles worn by some in the same way "liberation theology" or "demythologising" are worn by others.

There's no real way to back it up in the texts themselves without taking it asn a priori position (thus making the argument circular) and frankly I think it's as much a product of modern critical method as any other "-ism".

It is not essential to salvation and, insofar as it harms our salvation in leading us to believe wrongheaded things about God, should be treated with extreme circumspection.

And with that, I'm done.

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Leprechaun:
No, as I understand it, inerrantist positions are obliged to hold that the massacre of a whole people, and a she-bear coming out of the forest and killing 42 boys for calling a prophet 'Baldy' are just as revelatory of the character of God as is Jesus Christ. You yourself seem to say this with your accepting of the 'equal emphasis'.

And you again are assuming that these revelations are self evidently contradictory, an assumption I do not accept.

quote:

But that's your problem isn't it. You believe that revelation = revelations, propositions about God. You believe that revelation = true statements about God. That just isn't how the Bible sees revelation. The New Testament understands revelation as God expressing himself fully, and without reserve...

How is this a "problem for me"? It is not. I have no problem with this! I have before made what, to me, seems like the obvious link the Bible makes between the truth presented in Christ and the propositional truth of the text. It is not a problem for me that these are both God expressing hismelf unreservedly. Why it is for you, seems only to be because you come with a predisposed view of what God expressing himself would look like.

[ 17. March 2004, 11:36: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]

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

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mistar Saidyc,

Ar sail hynny, dydi awdur Genesis 2 ddim yn arddwr da iawn chwaith! [Big Grin]

[to Hosts: no that's not rude.]

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Leprechaun:
quote:
In fact, the presence of the vegetation seems to be dependent on there being human beings to till the soil. Reasonable conclusion: no vegetation on the earth before human beings created.
[Killing me] Er - you're not really a gardener, are you? (Incredulous apologies if wrong...)
Erm. It was Dyfrig who posted this. Not me. Thanks.

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

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

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Why it is for you, seems only to be because you come with a predisposed view of what God expressing himself would look like.

Yup. A Biblical view!
quote:
And you again are assuming that these revelations are self evidently contradictory, an assumption I do not accept.

You don't accept that the story of Elisha, the 42 boys and the she-bear is - let's say 'difficult to square' - with the understanding of God we have in Jesus Christ?

What do we learn about God in this passage?

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Quoth dyfrig:

I can't see inerrancy as being anything other than a pair of spectacles worn by some in the same way "liberation theology" or "demythologising" are worn by others.

There's no real way to back it up in the texts themselves without taking it asn a priori position (thus making the argument circular) and frankly I think it's as much a product of modern critical method as any other "-ism".


Couldn't agree with you more on this point, apart from inerrancypossibly the product of modernity; I would view it as more pre-modern. However, whilst I don't believe it's essential to salvation, I have nevertheless personally (at the risk of sounding dreadfully post-modern and relativist) found my relationship with God vastly improved and Him more revealed (I can put it no other way) in His Word since I adopted this stance/ belief/ faith position/ whatever you want to call it

YOurs in Christ

Matt

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
First Psyduck, that is the second time on this thread you have quoted something either to mock or criticise it and misattributed it to me. Could you please read more carefully before you start pointing the finger? It makes me feel like you have some sort of personal crusade going on here, and to be honest, if that is the case, I'm not interested in the discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Yup. A Biblical view!

Give me strength. How you can possibly claim that you view is more "Biblical" than mine is utterly beyond me when in the same post you are doubting God's revelation of himself in the Bible. It was also possibly one of the most patronising replies I have ever had on the ship. Can you imagine if all I did was assert that my view as an inerrantist was more Biblical? There'd be (rightly) Hell to pay. Grow up.

quote:

You don't accept that the story of Elisha, the 42 boys and the she-bear is - let's say 'difficult to square' - with the understanding of God we have in Jesus Christ?
What do we learn about God in this passage?

Difficult. Maybe. Impossible. No.
I think, without detailed study that what we learn about God is that his revealing of his word to us is something to be mocked at our own peril. I think if you accept Elisha as a type of Christ it becomes even more apparent, where Jesus in Luke 13 says even those who "ate and drank and talked" with him will be shut out of the feast ( alot worse than being mauled by a bear)because they reject him - never mind those who mocked him.
And I think this is compunded by the things Jesus promises for those who reject his word in Revelation 2 that I have referred to before. All in all, entirely consistent with Jesus.

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

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

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You're right, I did misattribute it, and I apologise. But this:
quote:
It makes me feel like you have some sort of personal crusade going on here, and to be honest, if that is the case, I'm not interested in the discussion.

is an imputation I utterly reject. I apologise to Dyfrig, too, whose correction in Welsh a few posts ago was gentle enough to make me feel really bad about my clumsiness on the rapid response front. Which is all it was.


And here we touch on something salient.
quote:
Give me strength. How you can possibly claim that you view is more "Biblical" than mine is utterly beyond me when in the same post you are doubting God's revelation of himself in the Bible.
How dare you say that I am doubting God's revelation of himself in the Bible. God reveals himself in the Bible inasmuch as the Bible testifies to Christ. I attend to what the Bible actually says, and I can foind nothing in the Bible which compels me to the inerrantist position. I take the Bible seriously - which is what yet again you are denying - inasmuch as I take seriously what the Bible says about Jesus Christ.

And so we come to 2 Kings 2:23-24
quote:
I think, without detailed study that what we learn about God is that his revealing of his word to us is something to be mocked at our own peril.
Isn't it strange how conveniently literalism and inerrancy part company when it's convenient. What I learn from this passage is that when a group of small boys insult a man of God, he turns round and curses them, and in fulfilment of his curse a she-bear comes out of the forest and kills forty-two of them.

quote:
I think if you accept Elisha as a type of Christ...
Let's try this:

quote:
He went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!"
And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.

quote:
But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."


--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
quote:
I think if you accept Elisha as a type of Christ...
Let's try this:

quote:
He went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!"
And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.

quote:
But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."

And this
quote:
So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways.I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.
Although I imagine that you will conveniently assume this bit is errant, and thus fit the text with your pre-imagined view of God.

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

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

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh... and I just re-read this and changed my mind about whether it merited a response:

quote:
Can you imagine if all I did was assert that my view as an inerrantist was more Biblical? There'd be (rightly) Hell to pay. Grow up.

What's that all about? Isn't that what you're doing? And if not - aren't we wasting our time on this thread? Are you really saying that you are asserting that the Bible possesses a certain quality, a certain metaphysically guaranteed relatonship to truth? And aren't you saying that you understand the Bible better - if not that you only understand the Bible properly - becuase you hold inerrantist views? Or havce you suddenly changed your ground to "inerrantist views are an optional extra"?

Good grief, man, I expect you to claim that your views are more Biblical - closer to what the Bible really is - than mine. So all of that is a piece of mealy-mouthed guff intended to distract.


In fact - 5read the post. This is what I said, in so many words:
quote:
[You said:] Why it is for you, seems only to be because you come with a predisposed view of what God expressing himself would look like.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[I said:] Yup. A Biblical view!

I didn't say it was the Biblical view. I said it was a Biblical view. I deliberately left open the possibility that yours was a Biblical view too. But since you ask, I don't think it is. That's what this whole thread is really about, and why you start taking it personally with me I have no idea. I don't believe that inerrantist views are Biblical. I don't think the Bible works like that. I don't set out to 'patronize' you, and I don't think I do. I don't think your arguments - your arguments - amount to very much, and the implications of some of them horrify me. I think your stance is terribly dangerous. But I don't know the first thing about you, and I haven't imputed anything to you beyond what you say about your position in your posts. Stop trying to personalize things. And stop trying to tell me that I am.

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Belle
Shipmate
# 4792

 - Posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ooh look - something else to interpret!!

Dyfrig - on the basis that the author of Genesis 2 wasn't a good gardener either?

With the aid of my trusty internet translator and a vague idea of what Dyfrig might mean according to the context I've had a go at translating. Fortunately he's still around to let me know if I've got it right...

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

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

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I can tell you. You did [Hot and Hormonal]

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Although I imagine that you will conveniently assume this bit is errant, and thus fit the text with your pre-imagined view of God.
Wrong on two counts. Firstly, the category of 'errant' means nothing to me, as it's as meaningless as 'inerrant'. It's no more 'errant' than it is 'purple'. Secondly, my pre-imagined view of God is actually the sense I can make from wrestling with God's revelation of himself in Jesus Christ as it speaks to me through Scripture.

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

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

Of course I believe my view to be more Biblical, but I would never merely assert that as an argument for my hermeneutic to close the issue, especially when in the very same post you went on to (somewhat incredulously)ask if there is really anything we can learn about God from 2 Kings 2.

I don't understand your point about literality - I am quite sure of the literality of 2 Kings, and never cast doubt on it.
quote:

So all of that is a piece of mealy-mouthed guff intended to distract.

Whatever.


quote:
I think your stance is terribly dangerous.
That feeling is certainly mutual.

Ok Ok Ok, you weren't trying to personalise. But you did twice misquote me and not apologise - and the first time you apologised to Fish Fish for using his quote as if it was mine, but not to me for mispresenting me. I was somewhat confused, and annoyed.

And I am afraid there are just too many things about your view that I find impossible to accept, not least the strange responsibility you take upon yourself to decide which bits of the Bible are more revelatory than others, and your seemingly uncritical acceptance of postmodernism.
But I didn't mean to be rude....
Pax
M.

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

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sort of tangent alert:

Originally posted by Psyduck:

quote:
These are books which are the product both of a community's intense engagement with God, and of God's intense engagement with a community. They are authentic, real, true. They crystallize the Gospel which called the Church into existence - the Word is over the Community - and they are Canonical - the Community validates the bearers of the Word.
quote:
Yes the Church created Scripture - just as Scripture created the Church.
I thought your long post deserved some sort of response, on the other hand I don't want to turn a thread about inerrancy into a thread about catholic and protestant interpretations of scripture. Suffice it to say that, I don't think that Scripture created the Church - Christ called and comissioned the Apostles and sent the Holy Spirit upon them at Pentecost. Scripture arises out of that. On the other hand I can find nothing substantive in the first comment I've quoted that I would take serious issue with, so I think we are not a million miles apart.

I think the only sermon on the Apocrypha I have ever heard was preached by yours truly. This probably tells us more about the Anglican lectionary than it does about the status of the Apocrypha. [Smile]

Anyway, back to your scheduled programme...

[ 17. March 2004, 13:29: Message edited by: Callan. ]

--------------------
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
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
OK, Pax.

quote:
And I am afraid there are just too many things about your view that I find impossible to accept, not least the strange responsibility you take upon yourself to decide which bits of the Bible are more revelatory than others,
I don't believe that "bits of the Bible are more revelatory than others". I believe that Jesus Christ is the revelation of God, and that the Bible is revelatory - is the Word of God - when it speaks of Christ. I don't want to throw any bits of the Bible away.
quote:

and your seemingly uncritical acceptance of postmodernism.

I'm a very critical accepter of postmodernism. A lot of it is heartless, immoral and stinks. But it's where we are - and one of the liberating things about it is that it seems to me to set us genuinely free to be authentic Christians, and to see the world other than through the optimistic, scientistic, bureaucratic Big Stories of modernity. It unmasks lots of things. That's all I'm saying. That - and that I'm a Christian first (and last).

quote:
I don't understand your point about literality - I am quite sure of the literality of 2 Kings, and never cast doubt on it.

No, but your reading of it
quote:
I think, without detailed study that what we learn about God is that his revealing of his word to us is something to be mocked at our own peril.
is as decently sanitized and shorn of the awfulness of what the story actually says, as anyone could wish. I don't find anything to quibble with in your interpretation - except that it doesn't address the fact that according to 2K2 42 little boys have to die to vindicate the word of God. Now I'm sorry, but that's not a literal reading, because it doesn't deal (don't get me wrong, I find it reassuring that it doesn't)with what the story is actually about. And if I were going to preach on that passage (God forbid that I ever use a lectionary that sets it!!) I would be preaching on it in the context - the Biblical context - of Genesis 22, and the God (found everywhere in the Psalms and Prophets) who desires a broken heart and a contrite spirit, not sacrifice. I would be saying about it "Look what people believe about God!"

(Actually, God isn't mentioned in the passage, and the story is told without any approbation at all, so I don't see why anyone would feel any conflict about treating it like that. Though if there were approbation, my resistance to dismissing it out of hand wouldn't be very long-lived!)

The Revelation passage is intensely metaphorical, of course, and there's nothing wrong about putting 'adultery', 'bed' and 'children' in inverted commas.


quote:
Ok Ok Ok, you weren't trying to personalise. But you did twice misquote me and not apologise - and the first time you apologised to Fish Fish for using his quote as if it was mine, but not to me for mispresenting me. I was somewhat confused, and annoyed.

Well, I did as soon as I noticed the second time. The first time I must be honest, since I was engaging rather critically with the post my big concern was that I let FishFish off the hook (no pun intended when I wrote this - saw it moments later!) - but you're right you are due an apology for that too. I apologise.

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
No, this is not what I'm doing. I am not ripping out bits I don't like, or dismissing anything at all. I am taking the genre seriously - and believing what the Bible teaches me to believe. As I said above, Genesis, in its genre, doesn't seem to be teaching a literal 6 day creation - so I don't believe in a 6 day creation cos thats not what its teaching. If it did teach that, then I'd believe it. So, the Bible is my authority.

So you're saying that the Bible is your authority, but you decide what genre each bit of text is, and therefore how to interpret it. You decide whether it's history or not. You set yourself up as an authority over the Bible, over the Church, over God Himself by deciding what genre each bit of the Bible is, and you then presume to judge those who see it differently from yourself.

On what basis have you decided that Genesis is poetry? Not on the basis of anything in the Bible. Rather, you are applying some external standard, some authority that you have set over the Bible. Maybe you decided, through your own reason, logic, intellect, knowledge, based on the content, that it had to be poetic, since you know it couldn't be literally true. Maybe you based it on your vast knowledge of the conventions of Hebrew poetry -- although, with the miniscule amount I know of Hebrew poetry, I can't see it. But clearly, you are the expert on what the Bible means, you are the judge of all things Biblical. And, amazingly, because of your immense knowledge of all things Biblical, God has granted you the ability to know the hearts and minds of the rest of us.

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

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

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Callan:
quote:
On the other hand I can find nothing substantive in the first comment I've quoted that I would take serious issue with, so I think we are not a million miles apart.

Agreed. Which was really my point. I wasn't offering a thoroughgoing counter-narrative, just trying to show that a thoroughgoing Catholic account and a thoroughgoing Protestant account aren't necessarily too far apart, and that, given that, even if the former might be seen to give the community some sort of primacy over the Word, the second doesn't - and still doesn't require to be couched in inerrantist terms. Inerancy doesn't guarantee the primacy of the Word, and anti-inerrancy (surely a more accurate term than "errancy") doesn't in any way preclude it.

By the way: my position - I may have misexpressed it - is that the Word, sc. Christ, not the Bible, creates the church; as the Word calls the Church into being so the Church preaches the Word; as the Church preaches the Word, so the Word calls the Church into being. Scripture 'crystallizes out' of this process, so that the Word becomes written, and confronts the Church as the apostolic authenticity of her preaching.

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Josephine, to be fair to Fish Fish though he does claim inerrancy for Scripture he has never claimed the same for his interpretation of Scripture.

Now it can be asked what value there is in an inerrant text if an inerrant interpretation is impossible. And, there is a question about whether it is possible to so completely seperate the text from the interpretation. Of course, these points have been raised on this thread already.

Though, it has just occured to me that maybe those holding an inerrant view of Scripture are maybe forced to hold an inerrant interpretation of those passages used to support this view.

--------------------
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
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Josephine, to be fair to Fish Fish though he does claim inerrancy for Scripture he has never claimed the same for his interpretation of Scripture.

Now it can be asked what value there is in an inerrant text if an inerrant interpretation is impossible.



Exactly. The only way Fish Fish's position makes any sense is if his interpretations are as inerrant as the text -- and he certainly acts as if that were the case. You want to say the genocides were metaphorical, you're setting yourself up as an authority over the Bible and throwing out the bits you don't like. You want to say the Creation story is metaphorical, he thinks so, too. So the authority is not the Bible itself, nor the Church's understanding of what the Bible s ays, but Fish Fish's understanding of what the Bible says.

Even if Fish Fish didn't say he holds his interpretation to be inerrant, he has to, or his whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

quote:
Though, it has just occured to me that maybe those holding an inerrant view of Scripture are maybe forced to hold an inerrant interpretation of those passages used to support this view.
Yes! That is a necessary implication of the inerrantist view.

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

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

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
OK, Pax.

Feel the love...
quote:

I don't believe that "bits of the Bible are more revelatory than others". I believe that Jesus Christ is the revelation of God, and that the Bible is revelatory - is the Word of God - when it speaks of Christ. I don't want to throw any bits of the Bible away.

Right, you're going to have to explain this to me then. It seems to me that you choose some bits of the Bible to form an interpretative framework for other bits. Of course we all do this. But you do seem to choose some as having more strength than others - some so weak so as not even to be granted the status of true, never mind God-breathed. Is this because you assume that some of the Bible reveals Christ more than others? Because I think the whole thing reveals Christ...
And I know you don't want to throw any away, yet you seem to shudder at the thought of preaching on 2 Kings 2 - which again I am confused by...

We will have to disagree about postmodernism. I think the last thing it is is liberating, and its suspiscion of metanarrative extremely unhelpful to the Gospel. But, perhaps another debate...

quote:

No, but your reading of it [is as decently sanitized and shorn of the awfulness of what the story actually says, as anyone could wish. I don't find anything to quibble with in your interpretation - except that it doesn't address the fact that according to 2K2 42 little boys have to die to vindicate the word of God. Now I'm sorry, but that's not a literal reading, because it doesn't deal (don't get me wrong, I find it reassuring that it doesn't)with what the story is actually about.

Please understand me on this. I believe this story happened, and again I would need to do a bit more study in 2 Kings, but I believe it is supposed to teach us something about God. And were I preaching it I would not sanitise it. In fact, I think the very horror of the story makes the point that I believe the passage to be teaching - that no matter how innocent one seems, if one rejects and mocks God's instrument for passing on his word (as Elisha is revelaed to be in the previous story) one will face the most horrific of consequences.

And I would preach it with the context of the God (found everywhere in the Psalms and Prophets) who will have mercy on the humble but judge the arrogant. And I would preach it with my heart breaking for people (and young people who I work with) who think they are fine even though they spend their lives mocking or ignoring Jesus, because I think Christ himself is perfectly clear that what will happen to them for rejecting God's ultimate prophet to us is even worse.

quote:

The Revelation passage is intensely metaphorical, of course, and there's nothing wrong about putting 'adultery', 'bed' and 'children' in inverted commas.

The oracle has spoken! In this case I happen to agree, but I think there are serious questions of interpretation before we look at the passage and say this must be the case - not least those raised by 2 Kings 2.

[ 17. March 2004, 15:06: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]

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

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Is this because you assume that some of the Bible reveals Christ more than others?

Yes, exactly!

I think perhaps the modern publishing industry has changed the way people view the Bible. In times past, when paper was made by hand, and texts were copied by hand, it would have been common to have a Gospel, a Psalter, an Epistle book. No one thought of the Bible as A Book that had to hold together as if it were one coherent text with one over-arching story written by one author with one purpose. It was a collection of books.

And that's still how it's understood in the Orthodox Church -- perhaps because, for liturgical reasons, we continue to have a separate Gospel book, a separate Epistle book, and so on.

And we understand that the Gospel is the crown and glory of the Scriptures, giving us a more complete understanding of our Lord than is to be found in the other writings.

Which is not to say that the other writings do not reveal Christ -- even Creation reveals Christ! And the Scriptures more than the stones and stars. But we understand the other Scriptures in light of the Gospel, and the Gospel in light of the experience of the Church, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

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

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

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think that an inerrant view of Scripture necessarily demands an inerrant interpretation, but rather narrows the interpretative field by distinguishing between higher criticism and more 'legitimate' hermeneutics, where there is still scope for diversity in interpretation, ie: to ask the question "How does God speak to us here and what is He saying?" is legitimate, in contradistinction to "Does God speak to us here or is it some kind of 'faith community' speaking to us?"

Yours in Christ

Matt

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  ...  42  43  44 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

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