Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Hi, Grey Face. I want to play.

---

quote:

---

Is there a basic contradiction between 1 Cor 15 and the Gospels?

---

quote:

---

And - since this isn't Kerygmania - if we are to be reclothed in spiritual bodies according to Paul, and Christ's resurrection is a resurrection like ours, what does that say about the identity of Christ's crucified and risen body according to the Gospels? How much violence do you have to do to reconcile both accounts? Is any reconciliation necessarily violent and distorting?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

"I tell you this, brethren: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
..." I Cor. 15:50

---

quote:

---

"See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have." Lk 24:19

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by ...psyduck...:

quote:

---

"I tell you this, brethren: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
..." I Cor. 15:50

---

vs.

quote:

---

"See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have." Lk 24:19

---

---

Oh Psyduck - this is EASY.

One of the texts is mistaken. Probably Paul, as Jesus trumps him every time. Check with church tradition though - that's where you get the definitive answer.

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

Posted                          

Leprechaun - yes, Leprechaun :

quote:

---

One of the texts is mistaken.

---

Gee - I didn't see the portal, but I'm clearly in a Parallel Universe...

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

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

How am I doing, Lep?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

And make sure you are not applying enlightenment thinking - because that is the root of all evil.

---

Or syllogistic logic, either. As in

σαρξ cannot inherit the kingdom of God (ICor 15:50)

The Risen Christ possesses σαρξ
(Luke 24:39*)

THEREFORE: I tremble to finish the syllogism...

(*not 19, as I typed originally )

Actually, this is a point that I'd been trying to make earlier. I believe that inerrancy views are actually grounded in Enlightenment-modernist understandings of truth and language - which derive in at least some considerable measure from classical Greek understandings of the same. I don't think that Biblical language - or language as such - works as inerrantists say that it does.

But I still honestly can't see what an inerrantist would do with these two statements - or at least what an inerrantist would do that I don't.

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

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
THEREFORE: I tremble to finish the syllogism...

---

quote:

---

(*not 19, as I typed originally )

---

quote:

---

But I still honestly can't see what an inerrantist would do with these two statements - or at least what an inerrantist would do that I don't.

---

I've kind of come to the conclusion that inerrancy is a useless category, other than to label the self-declared inerrantist as someone who will almost certainly be bordering on the fundamentalism end of the spectrum and believe in PSA as the only possible model of atonement. No offence intended - I'm not saying this is wrong. It's certainly not what I believe but as I'm not inerrant...

You can't even rely on an inerrantist to be a young-earth creationist these days

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by ...psyduck...:

quote:

---

"I tell you this, brethren: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
..." I Cor. 15:50

---

vs.

quote:

---

"See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have." Lk 24:19

---

---

quote:

---

Rather commentators are agreed that 'flesh and blood' is a typical Semitic expression denoting the frail human nature.{27} It emphasizes our feeble mortality over against God; hence, the second half of v 50 is Paul's elaboration in other words of exactly the same thought. The fact that the verb is in the singular may also suggest that Paul is not talking of physical aspects of the body, but about a conceptual unity: 'flesh and blood is not able to inherit . . . .' Elsewhere Paul also employs the expression 'flesh and blood' to mean simply 'people' or 'mortal creatures' (Gal 1.16; Eph 6.12). Therefore, Paul is not talking about anatomy here; rather he means that mortal human beings cannot enter into God's eternal kingdom: therefore, they must become imperishable (cf. v 53). This imperishability does not connote immateriality or unextendedness; on the contrary Paul's doctrine of the world to come is that our resurrection bodies will be part of, so to speak, a resurrected creation (Rom 8.18-23). The universe will be delivered from sin and decay, not materiality, and our bodies wil1 be part of that universe.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Many scholars have stumbled at Luke's 'a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have,' claiming this is a direct contradiction to Paul. In fact, Paul speaks of 'flesh and blood', not 'flesh and bones.' Is the difference significant? It certainly is! 'Flesh and blood,' as we have seen, is a Semitic expression for mortal human nature and has nothing to do with anatomy. Paul agrees with Luke on the physicality of the resurrection body. But furthermore, neither is 'flesh and bones' meant to be an anatomical description. Rather, proceeding from the Jewish idea that it is the bones that are preserved and raised (Gen R 28.3; Lev R 18.1; Eccl R 12.5), the expression connotes the physical reality of Jesus's resurrection. Michaelis writes,

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
So - and this is where I knew we were headed - we need an inerrant interpretation of the letter of the text. The meaning - which is inerrant - doesn't inhere in the words, but in the intrpretation of, among other things, the idioms in which the thought of the text is cast. So if the meaning doesn't inhere in the words - if you need to know that σαρξ (1) in the context of a particular idiom doesn't mean the same as σαρξ (2) in the context of another idiom, where does inerrancy lie? And in what sense can the Bible be said to be inerrant?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

I'm not sure - I presume that it lies within the original communication which was made.

---

quote:

---

fact, Paul speaks of 'flesh and blood', not 'flesh and bones.' Is the difference significant? It certainly is! 'Flesh and blood,' as we have seen, is a Semitic expression for mortal human nature and has nothing to do with anatomy.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Markporter:

quote:

---

I'm not sure - I presume that it lies within the original communication which was made.

---

I'm not clear as to what you think that would be. Do you mean from 'author*' to 'paper**' - albeit inspired - or from God to 'author'?

*For want of a better word
** I know it wasn't Basildon Bond originally!

Worth repeating and clarifying, maybe, that my problem with this:

quote:

---

fact, Paul speaks of 'flesh and blood', not 'flesh and bones.' Is the difference significant? It certainly is! 'Flesh and blood,' as we have seen, is a Semitic expression for mortal human nature and has nothing to do with anatomy.

---

is that so much of the 'inerrant meaning' is extra-textual and interpretative. And as for 'flesh and blood' having 'nothing to do with anatomy' - I just can't make sense of that!

I'd certainly be willing to follow a line that differentiated Paul's very developed notion of σαρξ from that of Luke 24:39; but again so much is a matter of interpretation - and at points legitimate scholarly difference. I'm quite clear that to decide what Paul means by σαρξin any particular verse one must take into detailed and consistent account his use of σαρξ elsewhere. But again, this introduces the element of interpretation, which simply undercuts the sort of things that inerrantists want to say about the Biblical text, IMHO.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
So...

You're saying that truth in the sense we're discussing can only be found in a communication event which requires a recipient?

And therefore - saying that a text is true without a reader, is meaningless? That if someone reads the bible there'll be no encounter between that someone and God, unless the Holy Spirit is at work in the communication?

And this is perhaps at the root of the more radical evangelical view that proof-texting at people will convert them - i.e. that the words have power rather than the meaning (one might say, the Logos) that lies behind them?

If so I'm with you this far but I don't see how that kicks into touch any claim of factual accuracy in the text to begin with - it simply makes it less relevent for the purpose we think the bible is intended, surely?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Philo25 - would you say, though, that you're an inerrantist? I'm not - and my position is precisely that faith arises through encounter with the Logos, i.e. Jesus Christ. I don't consider myself to be either conservative or evangelical, either, but I don't see anything in your narration of your coming to faith anything inconsistent with what I believe - nor anything that requires an inerrant Bible.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
We read texts, and we interpret them, and we interpret them by comparing them with every other text we've ever read. That's how Mark Porter was able to suggest that 'flesh' in I Cor. 15 means something different to 'flesh' in Luke 24 - because 'flesh and blood' is encountered in different contexts to 'flesh and bone', and also - and this is significant - he clinched his point by appealing first to one text, which he quoted, and then to a 'better quote', which he obliged us with. All of which is completely kosher. It's the way we sift through meanings, establish meanings and criticize them.
But all of that means that meaning is something that's established between the reader and the text. Not contained in the text.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
As I say, I wouldn't want to push the postmodern thing too far here - just enough to show that we seem to be at the end of understandings of truth and language that only began less than half a millennium ago. But I really do think that inerrancy is rooted in the intellectual culture of that period now ending.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Daniel 2 - who do we think the 4 kingdoms are?

I understand that the Apocrypha says the iron and clay one is Rome, but my (evangelical) commentary says not.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I'm confused though that you think the method of comparing authorities on the subject is at odds with an inerrantist approach. Why must this be so?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
If your position is that you don't know who the kingdoms represent (just like me) and you are weighing authoritative expositions to see who they might think the 4 kingdoms are (which I have done too) - how does this sit with an inerrantist approach to Scripture?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
Aren't you saying:

1) That there isn't enough information in Scripture - here, the book of Daniel - to tell us unambiguously who the 4 kingdoms are?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
2) That there is no absolutely authoritative authority (not a pretty way to put it, but you know what I mean) in the whole universe who can tell us who they are?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
3) That there is, in this life, and this universe, for us, no absolutely sure way of knowing what the text means?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
4) That the key to understanding the true meaning of the text is a) locked in the head of the person who wrote it, and maybe his apocalyptic circle, now all dead, and/or b) known only unto God, who ain't telling?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ...psyduck...:
And if this is true,
5) What good to our salvation is an inerrant text that we can't possibly know the meaning of?

---

It would be no good if it were impossible to discern. Therefore, if there is a God, it must be possible.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeke:
Your definition of "inerrancy" does not seem to be in line with that of others who have posted here.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Most inerrantists I've come across (Freddy, you're one of the exceptions) have stressed that the Bible has to be inerrant in matters of history because if it isn't inerrant there (where we can verify it's accuracy) then how can we trust it to be inerrant in matters of faith and theology?

---

I think that's right. Which is why I normally would not describe myself as an inerrantist.

The way that this discussion is set up, however, I don't seem to have any other alternatives.

I take the historically normal Christian position that every word of Scripture is directly from God Himself, and is therefore Holy and constitutes eternal Divine Truth.

Where does an opinion like that fit into this discussion?

In my own denomination this is an easy position to take and defend, because we work with a key to biblical interpretation that we accept, in the works of Emanuel Swedenborg. So there is no need to be trapped in a literal interpretation of the texts, and yet they are still holy, eternal and true.

But even without this key it seems to me that this position works better than the alternatives, given the rules and assumptions that I mentioned above.

I think that the resolution of this epistemoligical issue is key to the survival of Christianity. Information is just so important.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I think that the resolution of this epistemoligical issue is key to the survival of Christianity. Information is just so important.

---

Sorry. That should be "epistemological"!

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by evangelical_backslider:
I was wondering if anyone could think of any examples of 'inconsistencies' or contradictions within the Bible that can't be explained by the normal methods (looking in original languages, etc.)?

The one I can think of at the moment is Mark 2.26 when Jesus says that David ate the consecrated bread in the time of Abiathar the High Priest. The corresponding passage in 1 Sam. 21.1ff where the Priest is apparently Ahimelech.

I know this seems a minor point, but I was wondering how people who want to claim the total inerrancy of the Bible reconcile difficulties of this sort, and if there are any examples.

Thanks,
EB.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Originally posted by evangelical_backslider:
[qb] I know this seems a minor point, but I was wondering how people who want to claim the total inerrancy of the Bible reconcile difficulties of this sort, and if there are any examples.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 2:6 'But you, Bethlehem, [in] the land of Judah, Are not the least among the rulers of Judah

---

quote:

---

Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, [Though] you are little among the thousands of Judah,

---

Posted                         

I’ve just spent the last few days – off and on – reading all 28 pages of this thread, which has probably left me with a slightly warped perspective on everything. Neverthless, I’ve enjoyed following much of the discussion and have been heartened to witness the grace of many participants in the face of an increasingly polarised debate.

While it’s perhaps slightly tangential to this thread, I’d like to pick up on something Freddy wrote a few posts back:

quote:

---

The purpose behind this is so that it could be received and grasped by children and uneducated people, and at the same time be loved and understood by receptive educated people. Meanwhile it can be completely opaque to non-receptive people - ensuring the freedom to accept or reject it.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandy Nicholson:
Why should any text be opaque to its readers for them to be able to reject it? OK, so this is the inerrant, infallible Word of God and if everyone understood it they’d have no choice but to accept it (which would be bad!). But what can it possibly mean to reject a message that you haven’t even understood in the first place? And what makes someone non-receptive anyway?

---

quote:

---

9And He said, “Go, and tell this people:
‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
10 “Make the heart of this people dull,
And their ears heavy,
And shut their eyes;
Lest they see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart,
And return and be healed.” Isaiah 6

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

The discussion (here, briefly, and in Dead Horses at length)is about whether certain bits of the Bible can be said to be describing events as having happened, when they did not, because our reason tells us so. This, IMO, elevates reason to a role of authority above Scripture, and that's why I'm not happy with the route.

---

IIRC, you don't believe in a literal 7 day creation?

So why can God speak to us through myth in the early chapters of Genesis but be confined to literal history thereafter? There are fairly strong reasons on both archeological and literary grounds to regard Joshua as mythical rather than historical - in genre it is closer to the Aeneid or Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain, than it is to Thucydides or Macaulay. Another good reason for not treating the book of Joshua literally is the Copernican theory of astronomy - the sun does not travel across the sky every day, rather the earth rotates on it's axis. If this were to stop the results would be... interesting.

Would you honestly say that the book of Joshua was a work of history if you weren't committed to a theory of Biblical inerrancy?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Joshua isn't invalidated by the fact that it is a myth about how God gave the land to our ancestors despite terrible odds and absolutely loathes foreign gods. The point of Joshua is to tell the Jews in exile that they are not to give up hope and not to worship the gods of Babylon.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
So why can God speak to us through myth in the early chapters of Genesis but be confined to literal history thereafter? There are fairly strong reasons on both archeological and literary grounds to regard Joshua as mythical rather than historical

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I agree this is the teaching point of Joshua. I suppose I just don't see how the text can do this job for the people then (or us now) if it is not describing real events that a real God did to give his people a real land. If they are just a myth, just an inspirational story, but ultimately untrue, then they cannot serve the purpose of convincing the people that their God is real and that they should not serve other Gods.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by ce:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I agree this is the teaching point of Joshua. I suppose I just don't see how the text can do this job for the people then (or us now) if it is not describing real events that a real God did to give his people a real land. If they are just a myth, just an inspirational story, but ultimately untrue, then they cannot serve the purpose of convincing the people that their God is real and that they should not serve other Gods.

---

But surely that is the purpose of mythologies. For example most national identities are to some extent founded on a mythology (or even a sketchy and rather dubious version of history).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

Now, I admit, these stories can do many jobs for the nation and the church without being true, but this key lesson rather falls down of the stories are not true. They do not demonstrate God's faithfulness, as the later writers say they do if they didn't happen.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

I agree this is the teaching point of Joshua. I suppose I just don't see how the text can do this job for the people then (or us now) if it is not describing real events that a real God did to give his people a real land. If they are just a myth, just an inspirational story, but ultimately untrue, then they cannot serve the purpose of convincing the people that their God is real and that they should not serve other Gods.

---

quote:

---

There are also fairly strong reasons to regard Joshua and the surrounding books as historical, whether or not you believe that the miracles recounted in those books could have happened. Whereas the evidence is overwhelming that the early chapters of Genesis could not have literally happened.

---

quote:

---

I think the larger question is whether, if God can speak to us through myth in parts of the Bible, it is important to believe that anything in the Bible is historical. I think it is.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
So why isn't "I believe in one God, creator of heaven and earth" invalidated by the fact that he didn't create the world in six days.

---

quote:

---

Consider the proposition: "Totalitarian governments are wicked". It would be eccentric to say that one should prefer Arthur Koestler's 'The Yogi and the Commisar', which is now largely unread, to George Orwell's 1984 as a literary expression of this prohibition just because 1984 is fiction.

---

quote:

---

Saying Joshua is errant because it does not belong to the genre of literal history is like saying the Song of Solomon is errant because it doesn't belong to the genre of literal history. It isn't supposed to.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
When I studied OT the consensus seemed to be that history proper started around the time of Saul and David, although the earlier stuff may well have had historical antecedents.

---