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 | Register | 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 23)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  ...  42  43  44 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: biblical inerrancy
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

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

No, its totally fair to the context of Jesus affirming "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." To say, as perhaps liberals might, that Jesus is abandoning the law, is to ignore everything Jesus says, and especially the immediate context that Jesus sets his words in.


quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
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?

Yes. Becuase the Bible is God's revelation of his truth - and so more believable than scientific theories. So if that's indeed what it teaches, then I'll accept it.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
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.

Useful for teaching what?! Error?!


quote:
Originally posted by Stoo:
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?

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
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?

I'm no expert at all - and take the advice of the experts. But, isn't that me being authoritative over the text? No. The concluson about genre, and indeed anything, are in a sense preliminary, and totally open to change or ammendment by deeper understanding of the scriptures. The scriptures are always the final and deciding authority. And thus,(as Lep rightly said on my behalf) my interpretation is NOT innerant - and always open for rewriting as I understand the scriptures better.


quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
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.

I definately wasn't leading to that!

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
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.

No, it would be a total characature to suggest it was that blatant! But in the end, when everything is stripped away, that seems to me to be what "errantists" do - either themselves, or the "errantist" experts. In the end, human wisdom determines what is correct and what incorrect, what is revealed and what is error. And here is where my real problem lies - who are we to tell God what is in error about him or his revelation? We assume authority to do this - and thus do not sit under the authority of the text (in the way I describe for myself above). The problem with this way of thinking is that the church or individual can decide anything contradictory to their (limited) understanding of God. They can say something is in error rather than be forced to expand their understanding of God. We may, in this process, edit out wonderful "contradictions" about God - such as the trinity (1 and yet 3 - an apparent contradiction, which is not a contradiction at all).

And, it seems to me on this thread, sometimes the grounds for claiming "CONTRADICTION!" are a perceived contradiction between OT passages and a limited reading of the gospels, which edits out anything Jesus said on judgment!

Hope I've made myself clear in a way that avoids a trip to hell... [Ultra confused] Probaly not [Razz]

--------------------
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 Fish Fish:
And, it seems to me on this thread, sometimes the grounds for claiming "CONTRADICTION!" are a perceived contradiction between OT passages and a limited reading of the gospels, which edits out anything Jesus said on judgment!

Sorry - I slipped into simplistic mode again. Sorry. A thousand sorry's. [Hot and Hormonal]

[ 17. March 2004, 18:50: 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
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:
I'm no expert at all - and take the advice of the experts. But, isn't that me being authoritative over the text? No. The concluson about genre, and indeed anything, are in a sense preliminary, and totally open to change or ammendment by deeper understanding of the scriptures. The scriptures are always the final and deciding authority.

So, when you use reason and scholarship and the advice of the experts, acknowledging that you might possibly be wrong about some detail or another in your interpretation, you're not being authoritative over the text. But when people who disagree with your conclusions use reason and scholarship and the advice of the experts, acknowledging that they might possibly be wrong about some detail or another in their interpretation, they are setting themselves up as authorities over the text.

I'm reminded of a story told me by a wonderful man from what was then East Germany. He said that, on May Day (or whatever day it is that they had the big military parades), a group of students had made a float. On one end of the float was a display of bombs, with a sign reading "Evil American Bombs Make the World Dangerous." On the other end of the float was an identical display, with a sign reading "Good Russian Bombs Keep the World Safe."

The difference between the students' float and your posts is that the students were being deliberately ironic, whereas you seem to believe your own propoganda.

--------------------
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: 10269 | 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 josephine:
But when people who disagree with your conclusions use reason and scholarship and the advice of the experts, acknowledging that they might possibly be wrong about some detail or another in their interpretation, they are setting themselves up as authorities over the text.


Josephine, surely this is to do with the nature of conclusions reached - it is less respectful of a person's authority to start from a point that says I am more likely to be right than them about this. Thus it is less respectful of the bible's authority to start from a point that says we are likely to know more than the Biblical authors (and IMO God!) The parameters that you set do reveal your underlying mindset!
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 
Leprechaun - would you be prepared to concede that there is a fairly important sense in that ALL of us on this thread know more than the authors of Genesis to Malachi?

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9677 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 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 Callan.:
Leprechaun - would you be prepared to concede that there is a fairly important sense in that ALL of us on this thread know more than the authors of Genesis to Malachi?

Yes Callan. Touche. You are quite right in one sense as 2 Peter makes clear.
Whether we know enough to say they were WRONG about the history they recorded, is however, a different kettle of fish....

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

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:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
But when people who disagree with your conclusions use reason and scholarship and the advice of the experts, acknowledging that they might possibly be wrong about some detail or another in their interpretation, they are setting themselves up as authorities over the text.


Josephine, surely this is to do with the nature of conclusions reached - it is less respectful of a person's authority to start from a point that says I am more likely to be right than them about this. Thus it is less respectful of the bible's authority to start from a point that says we are likely to know more than the Biblical authors (and IMO God!) The parameters that you set do reveal your underlying mindset!
Excuse me? Are you saying that, because I come to different conclusions about the meaning of certain passages of Holy Scripture than you do, that I am therefore less respectful of the Bible than you are, and that I think I know more than God?

I do hope that's not what you're saying.

--------------------
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: 10269 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Leprechaun

Muscling in on a very tedious thread .... I know, I know ... it's not tedious to others and I don't have to click! [Roll Eyes]

quote:
Thus it is less respectful of the bible's authority to start from a point that says we are likely to know more than the Biblical authors (and IMO God!)
What do you mean by "know?" Clearly we know a lot, lot more about the subatomic fine structure of matter than St. Matthew. We know that sperm does not contain complete mini-humans. We know that there isn't water above the sky, etc. etc.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I'm no expert at all - and take the advice of the experts. But, isn't that me being authoritative over the text? No. The concluson about genre, and indeed anything, are in a sense preliminary, and totally open to change or ammendment by deeper understanding of the scriptures. The scriptures are always the final and deciding authority.

But... but...

Which experts do you use to make this rather important decision? I try to use the Church. It seems to me that the experts I use are saying different things from your experts about the nature of certain interesting passages.

And I predict that you'll be off to Hell again as soon as you finish your thoughts in the sub-thread with Josephine. In fact it's looking like your apology simply meant "I'm sorry that my speaking the truth about you hurts", because I think you do, in fact, still believe that non-inerrantists are lying when they say the Nicene Creed, and that those who don't accept PSA are failing to do so because they're fluffy bunny cowards with their heads in the sand.

If somebody does drag you down there, I'll be holding out for a retraction and an explanation of why you believe these two things to be the case, or not, not just an apology for saying it in an offensive way.

--------------------
It's not all black and white.
Certified ex-Anglican Layperson

Posts: 5741 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     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.

Well that's not what you CALL it, no. And your opponents don't call what they do by those names either. And yet you are both doing the same thing, just using different words.

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.
Who here has suggested this is the proper way to interpret scripture? This is a straw man.

quote:
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!
Same way you do -- we interpret it. It's just that we are willing to admit we interpret it and you are not.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62953 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 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 josephine:
Excuse me? Are you saying that, because I come to different conclusions about the meaning of certain passages of Holy Scripture than you do, that I am therefore less respectful of the Bible than you are, and that I think I know more than God?

I do hope that's not what you're saying.

No no no. I understand that we are all trying to please God as best we can, and I was not meaning in any way to impugn your motives. Rather I am saying that in any case interpretation is not done without a framework, and our fraweork shows our underlying attitude to the text. Its not just as simple as "I come to this conclusion," "you come to that one" if we are all claiming to want to be under the Bible's authority. We need to ask, which method of interpretation best reflects the authoritative nature of the text?
I don't think that's controversial for most of us, is it; the very discussion we are having is just that. I was just trying to explain why I think the inerrantist view does that better. I wasn't trying to have a go.

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

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

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
So, when you use reason and scholarship and the advice of the experts, acknowledging that you might possibly be wrong about some detail or another in your interpretation, you're not being authoritative over the text. But when people who disagree with your conclusions use reason and scholarship and the advice of the experts, acknowledging that they might possibly be wrong about some detail or another in their interpretation, they are setting themselves up as authorities over the text.

quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
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!
Same way you do -- we interpret it. It's just that we are willing to admit we interpret it and you are not.
No, I'm more than happy to admit I interpret the Bible. I too use archaeology and geology and logic and all the other tools. The difference is where the authority lies. I interpret, but always seek the final word and authority to lie in the scriptures. If the Bible says something contradictory to my logic or my learning, and if I'm certain that is what its saying, then that's the authority I will believe.

But, for example, lets take Genesis 1-2. Science tells us there wasn't a 6 day creation. Some will therefore assume for me to accept that, I'm taking science as an authority over the text. Not so. In Genesis, the word "Day" can also mean "Period of time". Since this is what the text says, it is not contrary to the Bible's teaching to accept the scientific view - the Bible is still the authority for it does not insist on a literal 6 day creation. However, it does insist that it was God who did it - and so do I, no matter what Mr Hawkins or Mr Dawkins says.

But what some people are doing here is to interpret using other tools and information - and these have an authority over the Bible. So, if a Bible passage is seen to be a contradiction or against an understanding of God, or if an authority outside the Bible (geologist, philosopher, physicist, etc - or even the church itself) disagrees with the text, then that authority seems to be give authority over the text. And its that that I have a problem with. Human reason over the text rather than human reason submitting to the text.

[ 18. March 2004, 07:59: Message edited by: Fish Fish ]

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

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

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

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

Muscling in on a very tedious thread .... I know, I know ... it's not tedious to others and I don't have to click! [Roll Eyes]

quote:
Thus it is less respectful of the bible's authority to start from a point that says we are likely to know more than the Biblical authors (and IMO God!)
What do you mean by "know?" Clearly we know a lot, lot more about the subatomic fine structure of matter than St. Matthew. We know that sperm does not contain complete mini-humans. We know that there isn't water above the sky, etc. etc.
I suppose I am saying (and you are right to pick me up on my sloppy use of language here) that they knew more about what they wrote than we do, rather than less. This was particularly in reference to the argument made that we can now look back on particular passages in the OT where God is said to have spoken or done something, but we now know he didn't really, apparently.

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

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

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

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

Useful for teaching what?! Error?!
Useful for teaching the truth about God, not to forget the training in righteousness etc.

Perhaps an example would clarify things. We have in Exodus a whole series of stories about the people of Israel disobeying God and suffering as a consequence. We then have Paul using these same stories to illustrate a point he's making (in 1Cor 10 ... where he also says "these things happened as examples for us" which highlights that there is value in these stories). Now, nothing, it seems to me, depends on these stories being entirely accurate (eg: if the numbers of people reported as killed in one instance is incorrect that doesn't affect the use of that passage in teaching).

The only thing that would be affected by innaccuracies in these accounts would be if you wanted to use them to teach the history of Israel in a modern, objective sense. Which, is not what the Bible aims to do. It has far more important things to teach than mere historical facts.

--------------------
Don't Brexit if you haven't a scooby how to fix it.

Posts: 31970 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
But what some people are doing here is to interpret using other tools and information - and these have an authority over the Bible.

Then you are indeed claiming that your sources are more authoritative than theirs.

The writer of Joshua says that Joshua's genocide was ordered by God. This account is inerrant according to you, yet you cannot accept that it might be inerrantly telling you that Joshua was wrong, in the light of the Gospels.

I'm changing my position here to the one that states inerrancy is at best an unhelpful and at worst a useless term. I believe the Bible contains inerrant truths, and these truths must be interpreted to be perceived. If one of these truths is that books that say "God told X to commit atrocity Y" tell me (I believe) that the writer was wrong about God's instructions, the only other possibilities being either that Y is not an atrocity, or that God really does condone atrocities, then your assertion that I'm wrong is no different to my assertion that you're wrong, it's a judgement on interpretation, not the authority of the text.

The latter beliefs above can lead people to commit atrocities in the name of God - let's just say, as a thought experiment Fish Fish, and to turn a previous inerrantist argument on its head, that you ended up with serious psychiatric problems, hearing voices claiming to be God and telling you to go out and start the serial killing of "idol worshippers" such as Roman Catholics. So you consult Christianity, and with your literalist interpretation of Joshua conclude that God has indeed told people to do this, in the past, and off you go with your axe. If on the other hand you look at the Bible in the light of the Gospels, I believe (and I'm not saying I'm certainly correct - I'm not inerrant) that you would be forced to conclude that the voices you are hearing cannot be God.

Let me summarise this for you: I believe the Bible teaches truth. The truth that it teaches me does not require the text that conveys it to be a historically accurate, in every detail, record.

I just can't see so-called inerrancy as being anything other than literalism in the passages you think are literal, and freedom to interpret those passages you think are poetic. I also can't see how you make these judgements over the text (surely true inerrancy would require ultra-literalism) on the authority of the people you decide are authorities, yet have the gall to claim that the Church is not such an authority.

You've clarified one thing for me though - I theoretically hold the authority of the Bible over that of the Church, which makes me an evangelical I suppose - I *must* take this position because I have to say that if the Church started saying, for example, that Jesus never taught the things presented as the Sermon on the Mount, that salvation was through genocide, or that the Earth was created by a giant turtle that lived in the belly of an elephant from Kathmandu, I would believe the Bible. BUT, and it's a big but [Killing me] I hold the authority of the Church catholic (thanks for the phrase MT) to interpret said Bible over that of you or any other so-called authority and let's face it, the Church catholic is not going to throw the Bible out of the window either. Remember what the Church is.

--------------------
It's not all black and white.
Certified ex-Anglican Layperson

Posts: 5741 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 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 GreyFace:
theirs.

The latter beliefs above can lead people to commit atrocities in the name of God - let's just say, as a thought experiment Fish Fish, and to turn a previous inerrantist argument on its head, that you ended up with serious psychiatric problems, hearing voices claiming to be God and telling you to go out and start the serial killing of "idol worshippers" such as Roman Catholics. So you consult Christianity, and with your literalist interpretation of Joshua conclude that God has indeed told people to do this, in the past, and off you go with your axe. If on the other hand you look at the Bible in the light of the Gospels, I believe (and I'm not saying I'm certainly correct - I'm not inerrant) that you would be forced to conclude that the voices you are hearing cannot be God.

Grey Face. A lot of what you said makes sense to me. But IMO this is a very poor argument indeed. Inerrancy does not safeguard against this, but it is just as likely to safeguard against it as non-inerrancy, as at least it also protects the Christian interpretation of these events given by Jesus and the NT. Non-inerrancy, and the selective nature of it (and I'm not saying inerrancy does not involve selection, merely that this selection is more controlled) actually introduces more potential for wacky interpretations than inerrancy. And I'm glad (and I'm not being sarcstic here) that you trust the church catholic to sift these interpretations. I, have to say on its past record, I do not.

This discussion has helped me too though. Although I still hold to inerrancy firmly, it has helped me box much more clearly what I think inerrancy should be useful for. People have pointed out that it doesn't solve interpretative problems, and I think perhaps, that classic evangelicalism has assumed that it does. I stand by the conviction though that it (helpfully) narrows the field. And that the nature of the Scripture demands that we believe it, no matter if it useful or not - but I am happy to agree to differ over that with you!
quote:

You've clarified one thing for me though - I theoretically hold the authority of the Bible over that of the Church, which makes me an evangelical I suppose

Gosh. I will contact Reform and tell them your application is in the post.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stoo

Mighty Pirate
# 254

 - Posted      Profile for Stoo   Email Stoo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Non-inerrancy, and the selective nature of it (and I'm not saying inerrancy does not involve selection, merely that this selection is more controlled) actually introduces more potential for wacky interpretations than inerrancy.

I disagree, and think this is a bit of a straw man on both sides, to be honest.

Neither inerrancy nor non-inerrancy prevents someone from taking a passage out of context. I've seen it done on both sides. Non-inerrantists may dismiss passages they dislike just as inerrantists may cling to one particular verse as proof of what God's purpose is.

Neither side keeps one safer from sin. Neither side keeps one safer from badly misguided interpretations. If you've got it in your head that you're God's agent of vengeance, then no way that you read the Bible will sort your mind out.

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

Posts: 5265 | From: the director of "Bikini Traffic School" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Grey Face. A lot of what you said makes sense to me. But IMO this is a very poor argument indeed. Inerrancy does not safeguard against this, but it is just as likely to safeguard against it as non-inerrancy, as at least it also protects the Christian interpretation of these events given by Jesus and the NT.

I agree but I'd been wanting to kick the Ripper argument into touch for a while. Really what I think I'm arguing is that inerrancy is a meaningless concept. We're just arguing over degrees of literalism. I'm not saying that I think the Bible at any point is lying, rather that the truths it's conveying are not (necessarily) historical facts.

quote:
Non-inerrancy, and the selective nature of it (and I'm not saying inerrancy does not involve selection, merely that this selection is more controlled) actually introduces more potential for wacky interpretations than inerrancy. And I'm glad (and I'm not being sarcstic here) that you trust the church catholic to sift these interpretations. I, have to say on its past record, I do not.

The thing is, that means that you think you are better at interpreting than the Church as a whole. Which may well be the case, I can't deny, but it seems unlikely to me. And I realise what a circular argument that is.I doubt that you discount any theological arguments just because they originated within the Church. Do you? I hold me hand up to the charge myself to a certain extent anyway, but it's more the exception than the rule. For one thing I think that women can be priests, but I have my own branch of the Church catholic to back me up [Roll Eyes]

Fish Fish's authorities are, I'd guess, just one branch of the Church in which he puts his trust for interpretation, which I suppose is fair enough as long as I don't have to do the same.

quote:
Gosh. I will contact Reform and tell them your application is in the post.
[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]

Shortly after Alan Cresswell becomes its president, Karl LB becomes the chair of its doctrine body, Mousethief leads the massed hordes of Eastern Orthodoxy into membership, Hell freezes over and the sun comes up in the west.

--------------------
It's not all black and white.
Certified ex-Anglican Layperson

Posts: 5741 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  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:

I'm more than happy to admit I interpret the Bible. I too use archaeology and geology and logic and all the other tools. <snip>
But what some people are doing here is to interpret using other tools and information - and these have an authority over the Bible. So,<snip> if an authority outside the Bible (geologist, philosopher, physicist, etc - or even the church itself) disagrees with the text, then that authority seems to be give authority over the text. And its that that I have a problem with.

No, Fish Fish. You need to come clean here. Your problem is not when someone disagrees with the text -- it's when they disagree with YOUR INTERPRETATION of the text.

Can you tell me why your intepretation of any particular text should take precedence over mine? The only reason you ever seem to give boils down to "My interpretation is right and yours is wrong, because I got it right and you got it wrong."

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun
Rather I am saying that in any case interpretation is not done without a framework, and our fraweork shows our underlying attitude to the text. Its not just as simple as "I come to this conclusion," "you come to that one" if we are all claiming to want to be under the Bible's authority. We need to ask, which method of interpretation best reflects the authoritative nature of the text?

You're right, of course -- interpretation requires a framework. My framework is "antiquity, universality, consensus." It is based on the assumption that I am flawed, sinful, ignorant, self-seeking, and fully able and willing to justify any reading of any text that I'd like to make. It is further based on the assumption that, over the last 2000 or so years, there have been many, many people who were far wiser and less sinful than me, people who have sought God above all else, and who have been granted, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, to know him fully. Therefore, it seems wise to me to defer to their interpretations of the Holy Scriptures rather than to rely on my own.

Perhaps this framework is less respectful of the authority of the Bible. I don't see that. Rather, it is less respectful of my own ability to interpret the Bible accurately.

But that's a consequence of my own sins. For those who are not subject to self-delusion, vanity, or error, it may be better to do the interpretation on your own, without any guidance from anyone except the Holy Spirit speaking to your own heart. I've tried that, though. It doesn't work for me.

--------------------
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: 10269 | 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 
But interpretations of Scripture have varied widely over those 2000 years both in time and space, so I would challenge your assertion of 'consensus'. That variation is especally true today; consider the following quote by Ron Sider:-

“Social activists quote Luke 4:16ff to prove that faithful Christians, like Jesus, must meet the physical needs of the poor, blind, lame and oppressed. Charismatics quote Luke 4:16ff to demonstrate faithful Christians, like Jesus, should be “filled with the power of the Spirit” and therefore perform miraculous signs and wonders. Proponents of world evangelisation cite Luke 4:16ff…to show that faithful Christians, like Jesus, will present Good News to those who have not yet heard. Tragically, each group sometimes ignores or even rejects the concerns of others. The different interpretations of specific texts, of course, result from fundamentally divergent understandings of the kingdom. Medieval Catholicism, on the one hand, tended to identify the kingdom with the institutional, visible church. Modern social activists, on the other hand, have viewed the kingdom largely as a social-economic-political reality that beings can create through politics – whether democratic politics in the social gospel movement or Marxist revolution in some liberation theology. Many 20th century evangelicals understand the kingdom largely as an inner spiritual reality in the souls of believers…Other conservative Christians (in the dispensationalist tradition of Darby and the Scofield Reference Bible) have seen the kingdom as entirely future.” (Sider, “Evangelism and Social Action”, p.50)

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 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
You're right, of course -- interpretation requires a framework. My framework is "antiquity, universality, consensus." It is based on the assumption that I am flawed, sinful, ignorant, self-seeking, and fully able and willing to justify any reading of any text that I'd like to make. It is further based on the assumption that, over the last 2000 or so years, there have been many, many people who were far wiser and less sinful than me, people who have sought God above all else, and who have been granted, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, to know him fully. Therefore, it seems wise to me to defer to their interpretations of the Holy Scriptures rather than to rely on my own.

Perhaps this framework is less respectful of the authority of the Bible. I don't see that. Rather, it is less respectful of my own ability to interpret the Bible accurately.

Yep. Getting this now. I suppose that this does boil down to the issue of authority. I have to say the last thing I do when interpreting the Bible is to throw the opinions of past saints out the window. But what I've been saying is that even where the whole of church history is telling me the Bible has got something wrong, I don't accept it because for me the Bible claims ultimate authority, over the church. I think this sort of squares the circle for me for how inerrancy and authority are linked.

--------------------
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 
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
But interpretations of Scripture have varied widely over those 2000 years both in time and space, so I would challenge your assertion of 'consensus'. That variation is especally true today; consider the following quote by Ron Sider:-

At the risk of channelling the Spirit Of The Orthodox Plot (TM) your quote could equally demonstrate the need to interpret scripture in the light of that broad consensus we call 'the teaching of the Church'.

As Sider remarks:
quote:
Tragically, each group sometimes ignores or even rejects the concerns of others.
Which suggests that the triad of 'universality, antiquity and consensus' is probably more ignored than it should be. Of the groups that Sider cites most of them have tended to strike out on their own - the social gospel and liberation theology have tended to insist that the gospel can only be interpreted in the light of modern social democratic politics/ Marxism. The Charismatic movement, notoriously, gives the impression that nothing worthwhile happened in the Church between the closing of the canon and the 1970s and Medieval Catholicism unilaterally altered the Nicene Creed and abandoned consensus for Papal Diktat. Of course, at their best these movements represent rather more legitimate and important developments in theology than perhaps my rather cursory summary indicates, but you can hardly say that consensus doesn't work and then point to those groups which have tended not to value it as proof of your thesis.

I'll shut up now, lest I fall into the Bosphorous.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9677 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

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

I'm more than happy to admit I interpret the Bible. I too use archaeology and geology and logic and all the other tools. <snip>
But what some people are doing here is to interpret using other tools and information - and these have an authority over the Bible. So,<snip> if an authority outside the Bible (geologist, philosopher, physicist, etc - or even the church itself) disagrees with the text, then that authority seems to be give authority over the text. And its that that I have a problem with.

No, Fish Fish. You need to come clean here. Your problem is not when someone disagrees with the text -- it's when they disagree with YOUR INTERPRETATION of the text.

Can you tell me why your intepretation of any particular text should take precedence over mine? The only reason you ever seem to give boils down to "My interpretation is right and yours is wrong, because I got it right and you got it wrong."

I'm not saying my interpretation is necessarily better than yours. Nor am I saying mine is right. Indeed, I am saying mine is open to re-evaluation. What I am saying is that, if I make the scripture the deciding authority, and if you don't, then my interpretation is likely to be the one more faithful to the text.

ISTM that you may be saying that all interpretations of a text are equal. (Forgive me if this isn't what you are saying!). If this is the case, then someone can claim that a valid interpretation of "Thou shall not murder" is "You shall go and murder." Is that really of equal value and validity to the understanding that actually we should NOT murder? Of course it isn't. Why? Well at least partly because the "Go-and-murder" interpretation must rely on a greater authority, external to the text to make that interpretation.

So why is an "inerrantist" interpretation of the text superior to an "errantist" interpretation? Because inerrantists want the Bible to speak with its own authority rather than permit an external authority to interpret and change what the Bible is itself saying. The interpreter becomes the authority over the text, rather that the interpreter being submissive to the text. And, since this is God's word, I want to be completely submissive to God's revealed wisdom rather than impose on it my own feeble wisdom.

Is it not possible that in admitting there are errors, and thus in admitting there is a superior authority to the Bible (the interpreter's wisdom, or the wisdom of the church), that we allow humans to impose human wisdom onto the God given text? Where as, if the interpreters treat the Bible as inerrant, that checks and controls their desire or ability to impose onto the text.


Just a questions about this "universality, antiquity and consensus" interpretation. Just interested - and not wanting to push this into another dead horse - what's your view of homosexual sex? How does the church make a decision today on the issue of homosexual sex when there is no consensus, but there is 2000 years of history where the church has taught homosexual sex is sinful? (I promise not to get into a debate on the rights or wrongs of this issue - I'm just interested in the application of it in one of today’s hottest topics)

--------------------
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
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
We know that there isn't water above the sky,

Actually we know that there is water above the sky, just not very concentrated...

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 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:
I'm not saying my interpretation is necessarily better than yours. Nor am I saying mine is right. Indeed, I am saying mine is open to re-evaluation. What I am saying is that, if I make the scripture the deciding authority, and if you don't, then my interpretation is likely to be the one more faithful to the text.

That's fine. But I'm not nearly as interested in being faithful to the text as I am in being faithful to God.

quote:
ISTM that you may be saying that all interpretations of a text are equal. (Forgive me if this isn't what you are saying!).
[brick wall] [brick wall] [brick wall]

Have you read anything I've said??????

If you have contrary interpretations, the older interpretations are more likely to be right than novel ones, the interpretations that have been universally held by nearly all Christians in all places and times are more likely to be right than those held by an isolated group or individual, and those which are held by those people who are clearly and evidently holy and wise in the things of God are more likely to be right than those held by sinners like me.

Does that sound to you like I think all interpretations are equal? I do not think that, and I don't see how you can possibly come to the idea that I do, if you've actually read what I said, instead of just projecting onto my posts what you think I clearly must mean.

And if you find it so easy to screw up what I said, what gives you any hope at all of understanding what God said???

quote:
Because inerrantists want the Bible to speak with its own authority rather than permit an external authority to interpret and change what the Bible is itself saying. The interpreter becomes the authority over the text, rather that the interpreter being submissive to the text.
You're right, Fish Fish, I want an external authority to interpret the Bible -- the Holy Spirit. You want to make God submissive to the Bible. Sorry. He's Lord even over the Book.

quote:
Just a questions about this "universality, antiquity and consensus" interpretation. Just interested - and not wanting to push this into another dead horse - what's your view of homosexual sex?
I am tempted to tell you what CSLewis said when folks tried to get him to answer the same question: It's really obnoxious of me to say anything at all about a sin I'm not tempted to. If you want me to talk about sins, I'm better off talking about the ones that trip me up, not the ones that God, in his mercy, has seen fit to protect me from all temptation towards.

That said, using the principals of antiquity, universality, and consensus, you will find that homosexual sex isn't much of an issue. The issue is sex outside marriage, which is a sin. Whether it's heterosexual sex or homosexual sex is pretty irrelevant.

--------------------
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: 10269 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271

 - Posted      Profile for Zeke   Email Zeke   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Psyduck, your mailbox is full.

--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin

Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 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 
Zeke - I checked, and your statement is indeed inerrant...

--------------------
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 
Ah... Things have changed! I've cleared out some of my mail, so your statement is no longer inerrant! Gosh! What might this mean?


(Seriously, folks...)

--------------------
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 
Luke.16:16 "The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached..

--------------------
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
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Leprechaun

I what sense did the New Testament authors know better of which they speak?

(1) Because they were nearer in time? But why is 1000 years more reliable a distance in time than 3000 years? As soon as you get beyond, say, 200 years, I would have thought it's pretty much the same.

(2) Because they were more godly than ourselves? Possibly but that is to doubt the work of the Holy Spirit ever since and the evidence of sanctity in the Church.

(3) Because they inhabited a particular culture? Yet, very early on Christianity had no problem making an authentic transition to the Gentile world.

[ 19. March 2004, 13:10: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     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. However, if it becomes apparent that it is in fact presented as history, then I'll change my view to a 6 day creationalist.

Having read the first three chapters of Genesis in Hebrew, I can assure you it's not poetry and has all the markers ("and it came to pass", use of the narrative tense, etc.) of history.

quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
So why is an "inerrantist" interpretation of the text superior to an "errantist" interpretation? Because inerrantists want the Bible to speak with its own authority rather than permit an external authority to interpret and change what the Bible is itself saying. The interpreter becomes the authority over the text, rather that the interpreter being submissive to the text. And, since this is God's word, I want to be completely submissive to God's revealed wisdom rather than impose on it my own feeble wisdom.

This is both a red herring and a straw man. Virtually every non-inerrantist who has been interacting with you on this thread fully believes that the Bible is authoritative; none of us have suggested that our own feeble wisdom(s?) trump scripture. You're barking up the wrong tree here. What we have suggested, however, is that the Bible can be authoritative without being inerrant, because the ultimate authority is not a book, but the Lord of whom it tells.

While it seems to you that we are setting ourselves up above Holy Writ, it also seems to us (me anyway) that you are setting the Bible up above God. Only God is perfect, only God is inerrant. The Bible, being a product of both God and man, is not perfect.

Your attitude, to be honest, and I'm sure you don't mean it this way but there it is: your attitude seems to border on idolatry.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62953 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 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 Father Gregory:
Dear Leprechaun

I what sense did the New Testament authors know better of which they speak?


I was about to answer "because they were there". But then I re read your post and understood what you meant.
So sorry, I feel a bit embarassed about again coming back to the doctrine of Scripture, but because they were inspired is my answer. In a way I do not think the church is. Sorry. I know you disgaree. I'm not really sure what to do about that.

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

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  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:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
[QUOTE]This is both a red herring and a straw man. Virtually every non-inerrantist who has been interacting with you on this thread fully believes that the Bible is authoritative; none of us have suggested that our own feeble wisdom(s?) trump scripture. You're barking up the wrong tree here. What we have suggested, however, is that the Bible can be authoritative without being inerrant, because the ultimate authority is not a book, but the Lord of whom it tells.

While it seems to you that we are setting ourselves up above Holy Writ, it also seems to us (me anyway) that you are setting the Bible up above God. Only God is perfect, only God is inerrant. The Bible, being a product of both God and man, is not perfect.

Your attitude, to be honest, and I'm sure you don't mean it this way but there it is: your attitude seems to border on idolatry.

No, I don't think that's what is being said or meant. Let me offer an analogy: I hereby make the following statement, "I am a real estate lawyer". Now, this statement is not in anyway 'above' or 'superior to' me. But your response to it could be very telling about what you think of me. If you think for example, "No, he's not a lawyer", that tells me one of two things: either you think me mistaken (or even deluded!)or you think I'm a liar. You may even think "Actually, I don't think Matt really made that statement; perhaps there's someone else at his keyboard right now"; that again casts doubt on the veracity and accuracy of the statement and the status of its author. Or you can think "I believe that Matt made that statement and it's true because he's a trustworthy srt of guy (even though he's a lawyer [Big Grin] )".

That's kind of the way I look at the Bible.

Yours in Christ

Matt

[ 19. March 2004, 13:51: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

--------------------
"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
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
No, I don't think that's what is being said or meant. Let me offer an analogy: I hereby make the following statement, "I am a real estate lawyer". Now, this statement is not in anyway 'above' or 'superior to' me. But your response to it could be very telling about what you think of me. If you think for example, "No, he's not a lawyer", that tells me one of two things: either you think me mistaken (or even deluded!)or you think I'm a liar. You may even think "Actually, I don't think Matt really made that statement; perhaps there's someone else at his keyboard right now"; that again casts doubt on the veracity and accuracy of the statement and the status of its author. Or you can think "I believe that Matt made that statement and it's true because he's a trustworthy srt of guy (even though he's a lawyer [Big Grin] )".

However trustworthy you are (if you're a lawyer I have to have my doubts), that doesn't mean that any statement that PURPORTS to be from you really is. This example confuses, rather than clarifies, the issues.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62953 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Leprechaun

quote:
In a way I do not think the church is.
(inspired that is)

So, the Holy Spirit was not given to the Church at Pentecost? If you refute that (as I think you must), when precisely do you think that ICHABOD like, he left?

[ 19. March 2004, 14:01: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But, MT, that's my point: if it is being said that the Bible is the Word of God but bits of it aren't true/accurate/very nice, that at the very least implies a statement about God. Of course, if it is being said that the Bible (or bits of it) only purports (your word) to be the Word of God, but isn't really, then that is making a massive (and very different)statement about the Bible and reliability in itself...

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 
Matt Black: I believe that the Bible is the Word of God when, being read and preached, and interpreted by the Holy Spirit, it speaks Christ, because God is speaking through it. I believe that the Word of God in the first instance is Jesus Christ - which is what the Bible says. It seems to me that you are saying that the Bible is the Word of God in exactly the sense that Christ is. You are - and I keep coming back to this, but I never get a straight answer to this - making the Bible co-ultimate with Christ. Now I know why Christ reveals God. Because Christ is God made flesh. I'd like to hear how something like this can be said about the Bible.

--------------------
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 
In that regard, I refer you to my earlier post about the view of the statement reflecting the view of the author of that statement. The statement is not 'co-ultimate' with the author but how you view the statement will inevitably affect how you view the author.

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
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
[brick wall] [brick wall] [brick wall]

Have you read anything I've said??????

Apologies for getting you mixed up with someone else!!


quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
You're right, Fish Fish, I want an external authority to interpret the Bible -- the Holy Spirit. You want to make God submissive to the Bible. Sorry. He's Lord even over the Book.

Agreed - but since he was the one inspiring the book, it would seem rather strange if he went against what he'd inspired before wouldn't it? I don’t want to set one against the other. Rather, the written word is the test of the Spirit's guidance to us today.

quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
That said, using the principals of antiquity, universality, and consensus, you will find that homosexual sex isn't much of an issue. The issue is sex outside marriage, which is a sin. Whether it's heterosexual sex or homosexual sex is pretty irrelevant.

Thanks for clarifying that.


quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Having read the first three chapters of Genesis in Hebrew, I can assure you it's not poetry and has all the markers ("and it came to pass", use of the narrative tense, etc.) of history.

Sorry, I can't read Hebrew. Perhaps "poetry" is the wrong term - I'm no expert on genre. But it seems to me, and from what I've read, that the style of the first few chapters of Genesis is very different from the rest of Genesis - the rhythmic structure of Ch1, the seemingly pictorial language of Ch3 etc.


quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
...What we have suggested, however, is that the Bible can be authoritative without being inerrant, because the ultimate authority is not a book, but the Lord of whom it tells.

I honestly don't see how the book can be authoritative over us if we have the authority over the Bible to decide what is in error. I just simply cannot see this.

If something seems in error to me, such as any apparent contradiction, then I assume authority over the text. If I in any sense say "This is in error, so we don't have to accept it." then I am authoritative over the text, and the text loses its authority over me.


quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Your attitude, to be honest, and I'm sure you don't mean it this way but there it is: your attitude seems to border on idolatry.

quote:
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
You are - and I keep coming back to this, but I never get a straight answer to this - making the Bible co-ultimate with Christ.

No - cos the Bible points to Jesus. The whole Bible is about Jesus. So its Jesus I worship and follow. I don't worship the Bible. I do, however, take the Bible as an authoritative telling of who Jesus and God is. So I believe in the God of our Lord Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible, and not a Jesus of my own authoritative editing.

--------------------
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
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Agreed - but since he was the one inspiring the book, it would seem rather strange if he went against what he'd inspired before wouldn't it? I don’t want to set one against the other. Rather, the written word is the test of the Spirit's guidance to us today.

I honestly don't see how the book can be authoritative over us if we have the authority over the Bible to decide what is in error. I just simply cannot see this.

If something seems in error to me, such as any apparent contradiction, then I assume authority over the text. If I in any sense say "This is in error, so we don't have to accept it." then I am authoritative over the text, and the text loses its authority over me.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mousethief:
Your attitude, to be honest, and I'm sure you don't mean it this way but there it is: your attitude seems to border on idolatry.

quote:
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
You are - and I keep coming back to this, but I never get a straight answer to this - making the Bible co-ultimate with Christ.

No - cos the Bible points to Jesus. The whole Bible is about Jesus. So its Jesus I worship and follow. I don't worship the Bible. I do, however, take the Bible as an authoritative telling of who Jesus and God is. So I believe in the God of our Lord Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible, and not a Jesus of my own authoritative editing.

Agreed completely. That's also what I've been trying to get across

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
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
[Agreed completely. That's also what I've been trying to get across

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Yipee]

--------------------
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
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:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
You're right, Fish Fish, I want an external authority to interpret the Bible -- the Holy Spirit. You want to make God submissive to the Bible. Sorry. He's Lord even over the Book.

Agreed - but since he was the one inspiring the book, it would seem rather strange if he went against what he'd inspired before wouldn't it? I don’t want to set one against the other. Rather, the written word is the test of the Spirit's guidance to us today.
Let's back up a bit here, Fish Fish.

I think you and I agree that the Bible isn't a science book, right? So when it says something about "the four corners of the earth," we're not obliged to think of the earth as a square plane. It doesn't even matter whether the person who wrote that bit thought of the earth in that way or not -- we know the earth isn't a square plane, so we can't interpret that passage literally. Nor can we say that "God said the earth has corners, and if you say it doesn't, then you're saying God is a liar" -- because we agree that the point of that chapter, the meaning of it, the reason God inspired it and the Church included it in the Canon, doesn't have anything at all to do with the shape of the earth. The language about the shape of the earth is incidental, and a mistake there isn't a mistake in any meaningful sense of the word.

You can decide it's poetic or metaphorical or figurative if you like, but even if it was regarded as literal by the person who wrote it, we don't have a problem with saying "The Bible says here that the earth is square, but we know it's not." And we don't think we're calling God a liar, or deluded, or mistaken. It's just that God was speaking through people, and using their words, which were necessarily filtered through their knowledge and their experience and their purposes, to say what He wanted to say.

Are you with me so far?

Now, look at, say, the genealogies: if it were to be demonstrated beyond a doubt that a generation or so got left out of the genealogies, why would that be any different than the square earth?

--------------------
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: 10269 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Now, look at, say, the genealogies: if it were to be demonstrated beyond a doubt that a generation or so got left out of the genealogies, why would that be any different than the square earth?

I'm not sure of the point you're making here. Isn't this again to do with genre? "4 corners" is an accepted illustration and not literally 4 corners. Likewise, in the ancient genalogical genre, it was acceptable to miss out generations.

Even if this isn't an argument of genre, my point all along is there are acceptable explanations of "contradictions" in the Bible. But, I don't really want to get into knocking down straw men of examples of "contradictions" again.

So, sorry, not sure what else to say cos not sure of your point! [Biased]

--------------------
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
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:
my point all along is there are acceptable explanations of "contradictions" in the Bible.

So who decides what's an acceptable explanation?

--------------------
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: 10269 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
my point all along is there are acceptable explanations of "contradictions" in the Bible.

So who decides what's an acceptable explanation?
Well I guess there we go back to what Lep has being saying - Inerrancy does not remove these problems - but gives boundaries to narrow the field.

--------------------
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 
Wouldn't it be equally fair just to say that inerrancy asserts that there are no contradictions? Or that what look like them aren't them at all?

--------------------
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:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
my point all along is there are acceptable explanations of "contradictions" in the Bible.

So who decides what's an acceptable explanation?
Well I guess there we go back to what Lep has being saying - Inerrancy does not remove these problems - but gives boundaries to narrow the field.
Answer the question, Fish Fish. Who gets to decide what's an acceptable definition? Who decides which boundaries to use to narrow the field?

--------------------
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: 10269 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Wouldn't it be equally fair just to say that inerrancy asserts that there are no contradictions? Or that what look like them aren't them at all?

Yeah, that would seem to me to be the case. I guess in the sense that the Trinity looks like a contradiction but isn't...

quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Answer the question, Fish Fish. Who gets to decide what's an acceptable definition? Who decides which boundaries to use to narrow the field?

Well, again I guess - I'm happy with the universality, antiquity and consensus principle - played out within the boundaries of scripture though. So, for example, I'd be unhappy with any ancient, universal consensus which made Mary more than the Bible teaches - the Bible still remains the primary and deciding authority.

Lose this primary authority, and even universality, antiquity and consensus could lead you up the heretical garden path.

[ 19. March 2004, 19:48: 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
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:
Originally posted by josephine:
Answer the question, Fish Fish. Who gets to decide what's an acceptable definition? Who decides which boundaries to use to narrow the field?

Well, again I guess - I'm happy with the universality, antiquity and consensus principle - played out within the boundaries of scripture though. So, for example, I'd be unhappy with any ancient, universal consensus which made Mary more than the Bible teaches - the Bible still remains the primary and deciding authority. [/QUOTE]

That begs the question, Fish Fish.

Who decides what the Bible teaches?

Who gets to decide what's an acceptable explanation of a contradiction and what isn't?

Who decides which boundaries to use to narrow the field of legitimate interpretations?

You're telling me "you can use antiquity, universality, and consensus to figure out what the Bible teaches, as long as the answer you get is what the Bible teaches." But that doesn't answer the question.

The question, Fish Fish, is this:

If you and I both see something in the Bible that appears to be a contradiction, and we each, in good faith, with prayer, with reference to the rest of Scripture and to the best information we can find about genre, history, etc., come up with an explanation for that contradiction -- if our explanations differ, who gets to decide which one of us is right?

--------------------
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: 10269 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448

 - Posted      Profile for Fish Fish     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
If you and I both see something in the Bible that appears to be a contradiction, and we each, in good faith, with prayer, with reference to the rest of Scripture and to the best information we can find about genre, history, etc., come up with an explanation for that contradiction -- if our explanations differ, who gets to decide which one of us is right?

Me.


[Two face]

Again, this is not an issure of inerrancy. As Lep has being saying, innerancy does not solve every problem of interpretation. However, if we lose inerrancy, we open the floodgates to 100's more interpretations, and lose the boundaries to rule them out of order. Having innerancy draws in the boundaries.

But interpretation is a different issue from inerrancy, and so another thread I guess.

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

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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  ...  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

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools