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


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » biblical inerrancy (Page 29)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  ...  42  43  44 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: biblical inerrancy
Kelly Alves

Bunny with an axe
# 2522

 - Posted      Profile for Kelly Alves   Email Kelly Alves   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just thought this post from the recently closed Hell thread on inerrancy was worth saving.Some language edited for hellishness,but pretty much left as is.**********************************************


You are asking people to prove their faith. There seems to be a lot of that going around the boards these days. I find the whole argument silly anyway.

Is the bible inerrant? As someone said before, that depends on your definition of inerrancy. Does it's historical accuracy rival that of other accepted sources? Maybe, maybe not.

Does it have to? No.

What is the purpose of the bible? More importantly, what do you think it's purpose is?

I believe the bible contains the traditions and teachings of a group of people that worship God. I believe God's wisdom is revealed therein. In that sense, to me, it is inerrant. God's will and wisdom are revealed, and that is the purpose of the book.

DO I think that the Pope or the minister down the road have gained perfect wisdom from reading it's pages? Do I believe that the humans that teach and study the bible are inerrant? NO.

Whether you believe the bible to be inerrant or not, you have to believe it inspired or you might as well toss it out the window. If it is just another work of human journalism, then it is no more important in understanding God than Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" or Dashiell Hammett's "The Thin Man". You have to believe there is at least some inspiration, or why waste your time reading it? You can get just as much understanding of God from the classifieds of the local paper.

If you accept that it is inspired, then you have to believe that what God wanted in there is in there... even if it's hidden amongst a bunch of rubbish that man has added. Therefore, it is inerrant, because it serves God's purpose completely.

The thing that bugs me about this debate topic is that you have two sides, essentially. Those that believe the bible is inerrant and everyone else is wrong, and those that believe the bible is errant and everyone else is wrong. Both sides are so full of their own ego and pride at their grand understanding of the bible that both sides have to be wrong. The fact is, neither side knows perfectly anything about inerrancy, the nature of God, or whether Christ was raised on a Sunday. For christians to fight among themselves over such issues is f***wittedness as an artform. Both extremes embody vanity. Not because of what they believe, but because of how that belief makes them treat other christians.


Mt 11:25


[from nonpropheteer}

[Well, well Ms Kelly! Pity you didn't resist the temptation to add a long decorative line when you were editing the original! ]

[ 18. June 2004, 08:09: Message edited by: TonyK ]

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm assuming that post isn't considered sufficiently inerrant that when Tony comes along and edits it so that it fits within the screen width this won't be considered sacrilage.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

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

quote:
Because that statement can still be true without believing the world was created in 6 days. Believing (for example) this:
Psalm 44: 1 - 3: We have heard with our ears, O God;
our fathers have told us
what you did in their days,
in days long ago.
2 With your hand you drove out the nations
and planted our fathers;
you crushed the peoples
and made our fathers flourish.
3 It was not by their sword that they won the land,
nor did their arm bring them victory;
it was your right hand, your arm,
and the light of your face, for you loved them.

is pretty much predicated on God playing the role that the book of Joshua says he played. Now of course, Psalms too may be part of the myth culture, but then the Psalmists cry to God to help them, as in former days, is pretty pointless. Like me calling out to Zeus or whatever.

But then St Paul writes in Romans things like: "Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's righteousness leads to justification and life for all", as if he believed in a literal Adam and Eve (which he probably did). But one can believe that the story of Adam and Eve is a myth without abandoning Paul's theory of redemption.

quote:
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.
Yes, but it would be pretty hard to prove the thesis if a fictional book like 1984 was the only genre of evidence to hand.
I think the 'truth' as it were of 1984 - and indeed of all fiction or myth - derives from its ability to accurately describe the human condition rather than its proximity to actual historical events. If there had been no totalitarianism in the twentieth century 1984 would be regarded as a rather macabre curio, rather than one of the prophetic books of the age but it wouldn't cease, on a rather important level, to be true.

In the same way the experience and language of fallenness speaks to us through the story of Adam and Eve and the use made of the story by Christian theologians from Paul onwards. In the same way Joshua is true in as much as it speaks about the sovereignty of God, his faithfulness and power and his radical otherness from other gods...

I take the point that Kelly and NP make in the post above, and I don't imagine that either of us is going to convert the other, but I think that the benefit of our exchanges - at least from my POV is that I have a clearer idea of where thoughtful inerrantists are coming from. I hope that I am giving the impression that non-inerrantists are attempting to faithfully engage with scripture as it is, or at least as we perceive it to be, rather than just attempting to ignore the nasty bits, as it were.

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

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
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:
But then St Paul writes in Romans things like: "Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's righteousness leads to justification and life for all", as if he believed in a literal Adam and Eve (which he probably did). But one can believe that the story of Adam and Eve is a myth without abandoning Paul's theory of redemption.

Indeed. That's why I do believe there must have been one first true human being who "fell".

quote:
If there had been no totalitarianism in the twentieth century 1984 would be regarded as a rather macabre curio, rather than one of the prophetic books of the age but it wouldn't cease, on a rather important level, to be true.
I accept that completely. But much of its persuasive power about the dangers of totalitarianism, and using it as a basis (in fact THE most important basis) for decisions about future government would be foolish, unless it had some basis in fact. I'm stretching the analogy too far - but do you see what I mean? So much, ISTM, of OT and NT spirituality rests on those events having actually happened.
Incidentally, this is not to say I believe the books to be attempting a non-biased purely factual account of history, the like of which, you rightly say was not even thought of till later. Rather, that they are God-inspired, and thus completely reliable, and that the author's concerns reflect what God wants us to learn. In that sense I agree with you - that's the most important issue - but I think the persuasive power of it is almost entirely removed if the events did not happen.

quote:

I take the point that Kelly and NP make in the post above, and I don't imagine that either of us is going to convert the other, but I think that the benefit of our exchanges - at least from my POV is that I have a clearer idea of where thoughtful inerrantists are coming from. I hope that I am giving the impression that non-inerrantists are attempting to faithfully engage with scripture as it is, or at least as we perceive it to be, rather than just attempting to ignore the nasty bits, as it were.

Indeed. I certainly don't think that of you Callan. Part of the reason I stopped contributing to THAT thread is because I don't want to end up flinging insults at "liberals", but understand and engage with the position. I hope you will be able to extend to me, the grace to assume that I am not an inerrantist to proof text all my favourite prejudices! I have been guilty of flinging mud in the past, even [Hot and Hormonal] towards Gormenghast. But it was wrong and silly, and I'm here far more to learn than to teach.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305

 - Posted      Profile for Faithful Sheepdog   Email Faithful Sheepdog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Leprechaun said:
Incidentally, this is not to say I believe the books to be attempting a non-biased purely factual account of history, the like of which, you rightly say was not even thought of till later. Rather, that they are God-inspired, and thus completely reliable, and that the author's concerns reflect what God wants us to learn. In that sense I agree with you - that's the most important issue - but I think the persuasive power of it is almost entirely removed if the events did not happen.

I would agree that if the whole story is fiction from start to finish, then the persuasive power of the Bible evaporates, unless we are clearly dealing with theological language that is poetic or parabolic or story-like in form. This is quite common in some parts of the OT, at least as far as I can see. I think the witness of the Bible is especially powerful in situations where the historical events described can indeed be confirmed from other secular sources.

The fall of Jerusalem in 587 BC, the destruction of the temple, and the exile to Babylon are well documented in various ancient texts, as well as supported by archaeology. Yet the biblical perspective here is concerned not so much with what and how, but why. In the case of the destruction of the temple and the exile, this was the hand of God in judgement on the southern remnant (Judah) of a faithless and apostate Israel.

That is a perspective of interpretation and faith that transcends anything that the historical facts can do for us. We see a similar perspective in the exodus (a gracious act of God’s redemption) and the conquest (Israel receiving a divine inheritance as a result of covenantal promises).

Even the crucifixion and resurrection are invested in the Bible with theological significance far beyond the bare historical facts. The Romans crucified many people (history), but the church’s historic proclamation, that Jesus is the Christ who died for the sins of the whole world, cannot be confirmed by history - that is to be received by faith.

Neil

--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe

Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402

 - Posted      Profile for Custard   Author's homepage   Email Custard   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
Even the crucifixion and resurrection are invested in the Bible with theological significance far beyond the bare historical facts. The Romans crucified many people (history), but the church’s historic proclamation, that Jesus is the Christ who died for the sins of the whole world, cannot be confirmed by history - that is to be received by faith.

Um.. and the Resurrection?

Custard

--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.


Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Kelly Alves

Bunny with an axe
# 2522

 - Posted      Profile for Kelly Alves   Email Kelly Alves   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Hot and Hormonal] (hangs head in shame)

Sorry about that Tony.

And perhaps I should have made it clearer than I did, but I wasn't responding to any post, I just thought the quote was worth archiving. So if it landed on anyone--many sorries.

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305

 - Posted      Profile for Faithful Sheepdog   Email Faithful Sheepdog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
Even the crucifixion and resurrection are invested in the Bible with theological significance far beyond the bare historical facts. The Romans crucified many people (history), but the church’s historic proclamation, that Jesus is the Christ who died for the sins of the whole world, cannot be confirmed by history - that is to be received by faith.

Um.. and the Resurrection?

Custard

Whoops, sorry for the delay in getting back to this thread.

For the original witnesses the empty tomb was clearly a matter of fact. The encounters with the risen Christ were also matters of fact for those involved. For later generations, we can only receive their witness by faith, helped in many cases by the discipline of historical enquiry.

What is common to all of us - both the original witnesses and later generations - is the theological significance built on the facts of the empty tomb and the appearances. The use of the word resurrection, rather than resuscitation or simply coming back to life, already implies the beginning of some theological reflection taking OT types into acount, e.g. Daniel 12:2.

According to NT Wright, the resurrection of Jesus was interpreted in the early church as the sign that God had acted to to vindicate his Messiah and to bring the history of Israel to a climax. Even those who had looked into the empty tomb would have had to use theological interpretation to reach that point.

Neil

--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe

Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | 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 
Kelly Alves:
quote:
DO I think that the Pope or the minister down the road have gained perfect wisdom from reading it's pages? Do I believe that the humans that teach and study the bible are inerrant? NO.

Well, I think that the Jesus presented to us in Scripture actually subverts Scripture, and thus demonstrates that he is Lord of Scripture, and that Christ's revelation of God is not constrained by Scripture. And the last thing that Scripture does is to deliver Christ into our hands, wrapped up according to our conceits and prejudices.

--------------------
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
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What does subvert mean?

I guess it doesn't just mean to overthrow here - but something slightly more subtle?

Does an evolving revelation necessarily preclude an inerrant one?

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 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 
My understanding of 'subvert' is that it has a wide range of meanings from "gently destabilize" through to "cause the collapse of". And of course, there are offshoots like "subversive humour". I think the ambiguity you've picked up on is important. I use 'subvert' in the sense of "transfer the basis of authority of..." Where Scripture is seen as contining its auythority within itself (as 'infallible', for instance) I believe that Christ within Scripture transfers that authority to himself. Thus in Matthew 5, he says [17] "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them." But this is in the context of a chain of repetitions of εγω δε λεγω - "But I say to you..." where it seems clear to me that he's asserting his authority as greater than that of Moses. And subverting the Law, leaving it in place, but himself becoming the binding authority - the giver of the Messianic law.

--------------------
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
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If that use of subversion, what of subverting all Judaism with "Before Abraham was, I am"

But does this contradict inerrancy? Since it's subversion rather than overthrow.....

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 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 
An inerrant Bible, I think - and I know that there are those who've posted here who disagree - is an autonomous authority, an authority set over against God. Whereas for the tradition I come from, Scripture only speaks when God speaks through it, and what God says is the Word, i.e. Christ. "When Scripture is read and preached, the congregation wait not for the words of the Minister, but for the word of Christ, who is the Word of God."

I think that that's subversive because it leaves the whole edifice standing but transforms completely the basis on which it's understood to speak to us.

--------------------
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
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Maybe because I'm not a hard core inerrantist, I misrepresent; but I'd think that most inerrantists would dispute your characterisation of the Bible as an authority against God, and agree with what you say about God speaking through the word.

I expect the disagreement would be that they would not admit the changed application and interpretation through the speaker of the day that I imagine you would admit in that process.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 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 
Well, if you scroll back a few pages, you can see them doing exactly that, God bless them! (This is Dead Horses, after all.) But I'm not sure that we ever really faced the central issue here, which is the question "What is Holy Scripture?" It does seem to me that inerrantists seem to want to say something like "Holy Scripture is God's Scripture. It's specially worthy of trust. And how can we trust it completely, as a revelation of God, if it's NOT inerrant?" My point about the autonomy that this confers on Scripture is that it makes Scripture's authority internal to itself. It's an inerrant Book. Yes, maybe it was God who made it that way, yes, maybe ultimately God is the guarantor of that infallibility, but we trust Scripture because it is, in itself, inerrant.

I've never believed that, and I grew up in a tradition that didn't teach that. My understanding of the authority of Scripture is that Scripture has no authority at all separated from God - or for that matter separated from us. The authority of Scripture is precisely God-speaking-to-us-through-it.

So why not an old books? (1) Because the Church was born out of Scripture - without the OT (and the LXX!) what sense would the coming of Jesus of Nazareth have made? And the proclamation of Jesus Christ (both what he said and what was said about him!) creates the Church. And (2) because Scripture is born out of the Church. The Epistles and Revelation are freeze-dried deposits of what the Church was and is; that's how they can be the basis on which the Church can be reformed. Scripture and the Church are bound together, and Scripture are the Church's books. Which is how the Church discerns what is Scripture, but only by bowing before it.

But I still can't see how you preserve any of that, or any of the historical nature of God's revelation in Christ, if you insist on understanding the Bible as (one) inerrant book. Doesn't that mean that you turn the Bible itself into revelation? Doesn't it mean, in the last analysis, that things are only revelation because they're in the Bible? It seems to me that that's to confuse the testimony with the event.

--------------------
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
Tiffer
Shipmate
# 3073

 - Posted      Profile for Tiffer   Author's homepage   Email Tiffer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think it's cute the way Conservatives usually (in my experience) have infallibility clauses in their DBs and Charismatics have inerrancy clauses - just so people know they read their bibles [Smile]

Firstly I think the word inerrancy is silly - I disagreed with it until someone told me it just means infallible, but was more conclusive to put off even more liberals. I like the Evangelical Alliance DB;

"An evangelical believes in the divine inspiration of the Holy Scripture and its consequent entire trustworthiness and supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct."

Why other organisations have to decide to make their DB even more exclusive is beyond me - that is perfectly fine for keeping the liberals out [Razz]

Anyway, they all say "The bible is infallible as originally given" which is pretty pointless, because unless we have a version of the bible "as originally given" (which we don't) who cares if it is infallible or not [Smile] bit of a silly issue I reckon.

Posts: 411 | From: England (all over) | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Depends what "as originally given" means.....I think we're pretty clear what the error bars in the gospel accounts are - going back to the people who first wrote them down.

If you mean going back to the oral tradition from which the writings were made that's more tricky I guess.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
My understanding of the authority of Scripture is that Scripture has no authority at all separated from God - or for that matter separated from us. The authority of Scripture is precisely God-speaking-to-us-through-it.

I had an orthodox Jewish friend who followed a rabbinical ruling (widely respected I think) that he called "Not in heaven". It was a story, used to illustrate the fact that the law had been given by God, but was now on earth, and that the interpretation of the law was now an earthly activity, to be pursued by the minds of men (they were all men) using logic, based on the infallibility of the original law as given.

I'd be interested to know if that really is an old tradition - since it would explain a lot of the conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees of his day if they thought a bit like that.

But I really don't think many evangelical Christians think like that - I think they would all believe God guides them to understand the scripture as they read it. There's then a slight illogicality, since if the scripture is inerrant and obvious in meaning, what guidaince would one need?

There is a big step between the dead infallibility of scripture to a scripture needing interpretation, the guiding Spirit of God to understand......and then I think another step again to a scripture which might actually just be plain wrong in places.

I find myself inexorably moving toward that last position - trying to keep reasoning it out and justifying to resist it - but actually there's just too much water to keep bailing out. But I feel profoundly sad about this - cheated by God. Not over occasional errors - but scripture which seems so profoundly wrong, damaging, harmful......why?

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 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 
mdijon:
quote:
There's then a slight illogicality, since if the scripture is inerrant and obvious in meaning, what guidaince would one need?

I think it's a huge illogicality.
quote:
There is a big step between the dead infallibility of scripture to a scripture needing interpretation, the guiding Spirit of God to understand......and then I think another step again to a scripture which might actually just be plain wrong in places.

I belive in a Scripture that plainly is dead wrong in places (Joshua 10 for one!) but through which God can still speak in Christ. I don't see the problem. But then it only is a problem if you insist that Scripture has to possess in itself the authority of God. Yes, I know the theory - God made it inerrant, so its inerrancy is contingent on all those properties that are not contingent but proper to God.

But you still have, on an inerrantist understanding, a "Toddling-Off Moment" in which God says "OK little Bible - that's you all nice and inerrant - off you go into the world. Oh - and don't worry - if those sinful people I want to save can't read you properly, I'll send the Holy Spirit to sort things out for them...."

The point is that inerrancy, though conferred by God at some point (on the basis of recent discussion in this thread, the moment of "first giving") still becomes a property of Scripture and constitutes Scripture as an autonomous authority, over against God.

I wonder if some inerrantist resistance to this is due to the fact that we're conditioned into a knee-jerk response that autonomous centres of authority in a created universe are, on the Christian scheme, always sinful and in rebellion? (Satan, Vile Self, etc.) I do emphasize that a Bible constituted as an autonomous authority over against God isn't necessarily 'sinful'. A) It's inanimate, and B) it could always have the status of, say, an unfallen angel, doing God's bidding.

But it would essentially be a completely reduplication of everything God says in his revelation to Israel and in Christ. And since, for instance, Karl Barth's model of the Trinity is of God articulating himself three times over, it's very hard not to think of the Bible on this view as something very like a fourth person of the Trinity. Certainly - and I think you can see this happening on this thread - the Bible displacs Christ as the Revealer, which leads to such absurdities as an inability to review the significance of (here it comes! Well, it is Dead Horses...) OT genocides in the light of Christ.

--------------------
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
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
But you still have, on an inerrantist understanding, a "Toddling-Off Moment" in which God says "OK little Bible - that's you all nice and inerrant - off you go into the world. Oh - and don't worry - if those sinful people I want to save can't read you properly, I'll send the Holy Spirit to sort things out for them...."

But even here there's a great difference between "can't read you properly" and "need actually to ignore you on occasion".

One could believe in a scripture subservient to God, a tool of communication, no more......and so be unsurprised if people get it wrong, if it isn't always literal, if it needs interpreting......and yet still be shocked that it is just plain wrong in places. It's one thing to be misunderstood, and demand that what one is trying to say be listened to, not what the hearer heard - another to give a completely misleading, erroneous instruction, and try to get off the hook claiming that what one said shouldn't be elevated to the same status of ones person.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 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 
But even here there's a great difference between "can't read you properly" and "need actually to ignore you on occasion".

But it would only be surprising if God said that to the Bible if a) the Bible were inerrant, and b) there were therefore inerrant bits of it that needed to be ignored. If you'll let me translate "inerrant" into "authoritative" here - which I think is fair enough - my position is that of someone who is completely bound by the authority of Scripture as a whole, but for whom that authority rests on my submitting myself to the reality of Scripture. And the reality is that bits of Scripture are just wrong. Joshua didn't make the sun stand still in the sky, because to do that would have meant that the earth stopped spinning, etc. etc. The authority of Scripture - to restate - isn't contained within Scripture. It's the authority of God's speaking through Scripture.

quote:
One could believe in a scripture subservient to God, a tool of communication, no more......and so be unsurprised if people get it wrong, if it isn't always literal, if it needs interpreting......and yet still be shocked that it is just plain wrong in places.

I honestly don't see why. Is the fact that there's no way on God's earth that Paul wrote Hebrews in any way a diminutuion of its authority as an exposition of what God did in Christ?


quote:
It's one thing to be misunderstood, and demand that what one is trying to say be listened to, not what the hearer heard - another to give a completely misleading, erroneous instruction, and try to get off the hook claiming that what one said shouldn't be elevated to the same status of ones person.
But this is only an objection if you believe that the Bible is in some sense the direct speech of God. If the human "authors" are to be taken into account, why shouldn't they be telling it the best way they can? And if you believe that "author" is a conceit of modernism, and that there's nothng outside the text - why not just let the texts speak, and listen to what they might tell you? Why this need to make them 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
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'd accept that if we were talking about explanations of God/Devil inspiring a census, or how many baths Solomon made....having two half-dove-tailed creation accounts etc.

I think its an objection if you believe God had more than half a hand in writing, had more than half a hand in the Church as custodian of the scripture, and yet we still have a book that viciously attacks chunks of our humanity.

It seems "not inerrant" doesn't quite cover it.....FUBAR more like it.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 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 
It seems to me that what holds the OT together is that it's the national literature of Israel - and it's a record, in all sorts of genres, of how a national community over 1200 years tried to make sense of its existence through its central religious tradition. Essentially, what makes the OT homogeneous, and all that makes the OT homogeneous, is Israel - but Israel itself was hardly a homogeneous entity, not as it was, spread out over time over a millennium and a quarter - with oral traditions reaching back before that - and sometmes it wasn't even very homogeneous all at the same time - in the time of Ahab and Jezebel, for instance, it seems that two sets of law and two religious traditions coexisted more or less murderously in the same polity, and God only knows what was going on in the time of Solomon.

The astonishing thing is that any unifying themes should emerge from such an assemblage. But they do.

As for the NT - well, you have the Gospels, which are basically the precipitation into writing of what the Church had been saying orally for at least three and a half decades about Jesus of Nazareth - with a lot of theology added, especially in the case of John. This is the crater left by the impact of Jesus of Nazareth, both on the people who knew him, and also on the Church that for thirty, fifty, sixty years had known him as Risen Christ, and wasn't shy about putting all that in as well. And why not? The Gospels are testimony, not history. And none the worse for it. "These things are written that you might believe..."

And you have Acts, which is Luke's volume 2, saturated in Luke's "special" understanding of the Church [Biased] ; and you have the Epistles, some of which are in because Paul wrote them, and some of which are in because Paul might as well have written them, and some of which - as Orgien of Alexandria said - God only knows who really wrote them.

And you have Revelation. [Eek!] Which is saturated in... stuff. And a lot of it is very liturgical stuff.

What is wrong with seeing all these as a mess of perspectives on the Christ, and on his relationship with God, with Israel and with us? What if some of them really are off the wall? Is it really honest to pretend that Revelation isn't? But Revelation is truly about the Cost of Discipleship, and about the relativization of self appointed World Powers, and awful, grizzky stuff that has the very positive merit of being in the same division of the Grizzly League as stuff you see on TV every night?

Why does this stuff have to be infallible or inerrant in itself? Why can't it just point kaliedoscopically towards the Christ who fills it all to overflowing so that if everything he did and said were written down, the world itself couldn't contain the books? As William Temple (I think!) said "Anevent is always richer than any possible description of it". What God gives us is event. Event upon event. And then the Christ Event. And the event of the Church - which is us. What the Bible gives is testimony to all of this. All these people were telling the truth as they had it to tell. Why do they have to be inerrant on top of that?

--------------------
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
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
.....Why can't it just point kaliedoscopically towards the Christ who fills it all to overflowing so that if everything he did and said were written down, the world itself couldn't contain the books? As William Temple (I think!) said "Anevent is always richer than any possible description of it". ....All these people were telling the truth as they had it to tell. Why do they have to be inerrant on top of that?

It doesn't need to be inerrant. It needs to bear some relationship to the truth.

There's nothing wrong with it being a kaleidoscopic mess pointing at Christ....but I don't see it doing that.

OK, granted, much of it does. But certain passages bear no relationship to the truth - the point in the exact opposite direction. Certain passages aren't a mess pointing at Christ, they're a mess pointing at oppression and hatred.

Inerrancy? Like arguing over whether Mein Kampf got the punctuation right.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
OK, granted, much of it does. But certain passages bear no relationship to the truth - the point in the exact opposite direction.

Absolutely. That's why I could never be an inerrantist.
quote:

Certain passages aren't a mess pointing at Christ, they're a mess pointing at oppression and hatred.

Again, absolutely. That's what people are like. And Scripture considered objectively is the impression made by God, via a religious tradition, on a large number of human beings. It's faithful and true because there's so much bigotry and genocide and small-minded censoriousness in it. That's a true reflection of how human beings are. But the astonishing thing is how much else there is in it. What inerrantists tend to dismiss as "picking and choosing" is really only responding to the bits through which God speaks. And God isn't the same as the Bible. Which is the point I've been making.

--------------------
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
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Of course he's not the same.....but he's responsible for it isn't he? If he can manage to inspire people to faithfully proclaim his word, can inspire the church to faithfully guard and teach the word, how is it he let the really evil stuff slip through? Doesn't that challenge his ability to influence any of it successfully?

This is a question of degree - I'm not rejecting the argument you make completely, just finding it a stretch to explain the totality of the mess in front of us.

If he could manage to get most of it right, some of it a bit skewed and murky.....then fine, I'd buy all the arguments......but given that he's allowed such oppresive vengeful crap in there, it seems to be a bit of a reach.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 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 
I think we're just approaching this from opposite ends. I can't start anywhere else than with the Bible the way it is - which is in many ways a glorious hodgepodge. I was fortunate enough to be brought up in a religious tradition that let you think this kind of thing about the Bible, without branding you a heretic. I've never felt the slightest hesitation in acknowledging that Joshua 10 just doesn't square with what we believe about the world we live in, and that Genesis 1 and 2 isn't a superb fit, and that genocide is just plain wrong and evil, and that anybody who thinks it's to do with God's will is mistaken - but that maybe in a tribal society three millennia ago, things might have looked different.

Equally, I have no compunction about just dismissing what Paul says is the place of women - and he does say it's his own opinion, of course. So maybe that bit wasn't inspired... [Confused]

I just don't have any problems in looking at the Bible for what it is, and letting God speak through it to me. One of my problems with an inerrant text would be that God wouldn't be able to speak through it. The Bible would mean what it meant - which would be basically exactly what it said - and all the Holy Spirit would be able to do would be to correct me when I'd got it wrong. The Bible would be opaque. When I looked at its pages, I'd be looking at it - because that's where God would be. Not through it.

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

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

Storm in a teapot
# 3571

 - Posted      Profile for Emma Louise   Email Emma Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
heh -I so agree with you psyduck -

but then i get excited about genesis 1 an 2 when you compare it to the other creation myths of the time, and ask what that then says about our God. I get excited by a God who cares for his people, but isnt "just" a tribal God - and excited hearing the stories of how God worked with his people where they were at [Smile] I also hapen to think in context (household codes etc etc etc) PAul is actually liberating to women *at that time*

hmm. gosh im surprising myself, i still seem to like the bible......

Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
....which is in many ways a glorious hodgepodge.

I think this is the point of difference. I find the problem bits so inglorious, I can't find it in me to refer to the resulting hodgepodge as glorious. Or even half-way decent.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 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 
They're not. Just like the human race, bits of the Bible are quite disgusting. That's why the Bible isn't "just" about revealing God. It's about revealing God in interaction with human beings, who sometimes reckon that he's telling them it's ok to do genocide, to come down hard on the marginalized, the fallen, the sinful (who are soooo different to us! If you turn the whole Bible into the direct speech of God, it's bound to cause problems. But if you just amputate the nasty bits - as even William Temple suggested you could lose the nasty bits of Ps. 139 without serious grief - you lose the fact that the Bible is the impress of revelation on sinful, nasty, scummy - and sometimes gloriously imaginative, loving and grace-filled - human beings.

An image that popped into my head was of a Wilson cloud-chamber detecting particles by trails of condensation as they pass through. Scripture is the condensate as God passes through Israel and the Church. OK, twee doesn't come close - but you see what I mean... [Hot and Hormonal]

By the way, when I used the word "glorious" in my previous post, the image I had was of the whole chaotic mess of humanity, which is simultaneously both glorious and hideous.

--------------------
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
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you.

It also occurs to me that without the hideous, persecutory bits of the bible, the bible would make even less sense in this world of ours. Particularly certain bits of it.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 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 
No, thank you. I assume that everyone here is seriously debating the nature of the Bible, and most of us - and I do mean us - are committed to some understanding of Biblical authority for and over us. I certainly am. It's really good to be seriously pushed by somebody who is saying the sorts of things we need to be saying to ourselves - if you see what I mean.

Emma
quote:
hmm. gosh im surprising myself, i still seem to like the bible......

I tend to find that when I approach the Bible as "just" humanly-produced literature, it always seems to point beyond itself. Biblical Studies was my subject, and I always found that really radical, critical Biblical study actually clarified, for me, the sense in which the Bible did "point beyond itself" - and also that part of that was to do with my own faith-commitment.

I don't think it's possible to read the Bible from outside a faith-commitment of some sort, even if it's like - and I can never remember whether it's Anthony Crossman or Dick Crossland, the cabinet minister who'd been an Oxford Classics don. He picked up a copy of Mark's gospel in Greek somewhere one day, and started to read out of curiosity. And then he tossed it aside, because the prose style was so poor. I suppose you could say that his faith commitment was to a cosmopolitan, highly-educated agnosticism or atheism, that stopped him reading the text with any openness.

What I do find interesting, though, is what happens when someone reads Scripture, and their attitude to it is changed. They do make some kind of faith-commitment to it. I suspect that this is usually thought of from the point of view of someone "converting to Christianity" - but what of someone whose view of Scripture suddenly comes to life when they're already well within the Christian tradition?

I'm interested in this because in a sense it was my own experience. My broad understanding of Scripture - from my upbringing - was pretty liberal, but my new understanding was a lot more radical, not conservative.

In a way, it was summed up for me by Rudolf Bultmann's wonderful picture of the old 19th century picture of the "liberal Jesus" on fire in a grate, with anxious scholars trying to pluck bits of it from the flames. His attitude, he said, was to consign it all to the flames, knowing that nothing truly important could be destroyed.

My own experience has been astonishment at how much is left.

--------------------
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
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well thank you in turn for being a bit of a punching bag.

I think much of what I was expressing stemmed from anger with God.

When having difficulty distinguishing the doctor from the sadistic torturer, belief is challenged....

and inevitably one intellectualizes this.

[ 04. February 2005, 03:56: Message edited by: mdijon ]

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
adamant azzy
Shipmate
# 10636

 - Posted      Profile for adamant azzy   Email adamant azzy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Have read most of this. I am underwhelmed by the arguments. often heard and often repeated. As a non believer I say. Those who believe simply state their belief without presenting incontroversial evidence. The non believers respond by trying to present logical arguments. Thus, the two sides are flying at utterly different altitudes and not actually communicating. Maybe they would be better off arguing how someone can have faith without depending upon logically verifiable arguments. The " moral sentiment" of the Emerson ( of Harvard 18something fame, lecture)sort. An act of faith is perhaps not an issue for logical arguments. I think true belivers should never get into this kind of a slinging match. Or then maybe they should if they want to satisfy their ego/hope to convince others, etc. Unlikely.
That is, I am not asking them not to. Philisophical discussions are the greatest joy mankind has invented to date. Only that the subject be chosen carefully. There is hardly any doubt whatsoever that to many the Bible is full of contradictions, improbabilities and unscientific declarations. One can certainly wonder why the lord chose to communicate in such a fashion. He could have been more accurate and and understandable. An act of faith ( blind?) is required here and faith is the essence. Not the details of the content of The Bible. Or for that matter any other Holy book.

A.A. [Devil]

--------------------
....and I came back empty handed

Posts: 84 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm sorry we all underwhelm you.

But are you absolutely sure no-one has voiced a similar sentiment in the last 29 pages of posts?

Welcome to the underwhelming.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have just discovered this thread but have not had time to trawl the whole way through, so apologies of some of this repeats earlier posts from others.

Surely 'innerant' means without errors/mistakes - yet the bible is full of them.

Inspiration is not innerancy

II Tim. 3;16—17 Al1 scripture is inspired...’ lit. ‘Breated into’ — used hitertoo to mean ‘life giving’ as in Gen 2;7 where God breathes into Adam and. in Eccles 12;7 — so it communicates life. Does NOT say it is infallible, inerrant, he talking to Timothy about his personal needs and equipment, that he has known scriptures from childhood (v.15) ie. the Old Testament — most of the New Testament not written yet — and he will find it ‘profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, training in righteousness that the man of God may be complete...’

Jesus made mistakes – or the gospel writers did

Mk. 2;25—26 Jesus says .Abiathar was high priest when David told soldiers to eat temple bread; I Sam 21;l—6 states that it was Ahimelech. Mt. 12 and Lk. 6 tell the same story but omit the name — they maybe realised Mark had got it wrong.

Mt. 23;35 Zechariah was son of Barachiah according to Jesus; II Chron 24;20—2l he was son of Jehoiada. (Another Zechariah was the son of Berechiah — Zech 1;l but this is not the ne who Jesus referred to as being murdered in the sanctuary.

Mark l;l—3 quotes Isaiah — but the quotation actually comes from Mal 3;l and Ex 23:20

Divergences

Mt. 21 Mk.ll and Lk. 19 locate Jesus’ cleansing of the temple at the end of his ministry — either on the Sunday or the Monday before his death; John 2; 13ff. locate it at the very beginning, before he chose disciples.

In Mat. 4, Jesus is tempted to turn stones into bread; jump off temple pinnacle and worship Satan; Luke 4 reverses the order of the second and third of these.

Two traditions

In Ex. l5;5 the Egyptians are drowned by waves flooding over them; in Ex 14;29 the eater goes back like walls yet the chapter 15 account talks of chariot wheels being ‘clogged’ — more like the Sea of Reeds than the Red Sea (no vowels in the original text so it could be either Yam Suph or Yam Siph — the sea of reeds fits in to the geographical details of the rest of the story and this was a marsh, not a great

Exaggerations

David slew 700 chariot fighters of the Arameans, in I Chron 19;18 he slew 7,000
II Sam 24;9 Joab numbered 800,000 Israelites and 500,000 Judeans; in I Chron 21:5 it is 1,100 000 and 470,000 respectively.

If infallible, Christians don’t act on it

If the whole Bible is inspired in the sense of being infallible and all equally relevant, then we should bring back capital punishment for any child who hits his parents (c.2l;15) (Remember Jesus said ‘not one iota’ of the law should pass away’ We should not have mortgages or bank accounts as lending with interest is forbidden Deut. 23;l9. We should not swear an oath in court or to the 5;34f)

Paul made mistakes

Ex. 12;40—4l The sojourn in Egypt was 430 years. For Paul, the same time covers much more time — it stretches from Abraham until the Exodus (Gal 3;17) There is 215 years between Abraham and the entry into Egypt (he was 75 on entering Canaan Gen. 12;4; 100 at Isaac’s birth — Gen 2l;5 Isaac was 60 at birth of Jacon — Gen 25;26 and Jacob was 130 when he went to Egypt Gen 47;9 — that makes 215 years — interestingly it is half of the 430 figuire — is this historical accurac or a number theme which Kabbalists play with?) Was it 430 years or 645. Did the divinely inspired inspired Paul get it wrong?

Misquotations

Heb l0;5 ‘Sacrifices and offerings...but a body hast thou prepared for me’ Cf. Ps. 40;6 ‘Sacrifices...but thou hast given me an open ear’.

Two stories?

Did Noah get animals two by two — Gen 6;21 or in pairs of sevens — Gen 7;2?
Who bought Joseph? Was it the Ishmaelites or the Midianites — there seem to be two stories edited together (badly) — the Hebrew style changes from verse to verse to suggest a clumsy assembly of texts) — thus Gen.37;27 the brothers decide to sell Jo to Ishmaelites, v. 28 Midianites take Joseph, then they sell him to Ishmaelites; but v.36 Midianities sell him (again?) in Egypt.

Faith is based on Jesus — he is the word of God (Jn. 1;1)

We do not have faith in a book in the way a muslim might do — 2 Cor 3; — the new covenant is not a written code but a life—giving spirit — the Holy Spirit, who leads his followers into all truth (,n. 16;13)

The spirit of truth cannot lead people by telling lies so when scripture contradict itself, this leading cannot be entirely from scripture.
Scripture is a collection of writings which arose out of the experience of communites who experienced God at work — they wrote down in the thought forms of their day, using myth, parable, legend &c

THROUGH the stories, we can hear God speaking to us NOW — it is not the book itself which speaks, it is the Spirit speaking through it.
It is not telling us about history, physics and so on, it is a collection of stone which are vehicles for communicating truth which is too deep for words.
The Christian who makes an idol of the bible is from within a very small proportion of the Christian church — the church comprises Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, Anglicans and free churches — the evangelical movement grew up in the past three centuries and most evangelicals today are not fundamentalists.
We must beware treating the bible in a way it was not intended to be treated. When we discover its inaccuracies, this could destroy faith — the very opposite of what the bible sets out to do.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Leo:

quote:
I have just discovered this thread but have not had time to trawl the whole way through
Mt. 5:8; Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

Not many people around at the moment. There is still time to tiptoe out.

--------------------
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
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804

 - Posted      Profile for Petaflop   Email Petaflop   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Teeheehee! This looks like a fun place.

Oh dear, I seem to agree with everyone. Oh well...

Leo, I think your critique of 2 Tim 3:16 should include something on what Paul meant by scripture. Much of the New Testament wasn't written, and I'm not aware of any evidence that anyone considered it to be scripture at the time.

Given Paul's background, I imagine he probably meant the Jewish scriptures. It seems highly unlikely that he would have considered his own letters as scripture, since there was no precedent of epistles as scripture. If he had done so, he might have omitted some of the personal details, and the 'this not from the Lord, but from me' bit.

So if we interpret the statement to cover the NT as well, then we are deliberately misunderstanding Paul.

Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry Psyduck, don't know what you mean.

Re what Paul meant by scripture, yes, of course, her was referring to what Christians call the Old Testament.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just meant that it was delightful to come across someone who was not a battle-scarred veteran of this thread...

--------------------
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
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494

 - Posted      Profile for Gareth   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Re what Paul meant by scripture, yes, of course, her was referring to what Christians call the Old Testament.

...well, some of it, but he was also referring to what Protestants like to call "Apocrypha" but is more accurately called "DeuteroCanonica."

--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke

Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

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

quote:
Given Paul's background, I imagine he probably meant the Jewish scriptures. It seems highly unlikely that he would have considered his own letters as scripture, since there was no precedent of epistles as scripture. If he had done so, he might have omitted some of the personal details, and the 'this not from the Lord, but from me' bit.

So if we interpret the statement to cover the NT as well, then we are deliberately misunderstanding Paul.

St. Paul almost certainly meant the Septuagint. Modern inerrantists almost certainly mean the OT, minus the Deuterocanonical books and the New Testament.

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

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Just meant that it was delightful to come across someone who was not a battle-scarred veteran of this thread...

Oh. Cheers then, as they say round here!

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
samara
Shipmate
# 9932

 - Posted      Profile for samara   Email samara   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Surely 'innerant' means without errors/mistakes - yet the bible is full of them.

Well, inerrant probably usually does (just looked it up to try to check spelling 'incapable of being wrong' was the definition there) mean without errors or mistakes. But then, you know, you can redefine it.

To mean without errors or mistakes in original language. Or without important errors or mistakes. Or chock full of "errors" in terms of our modern understanding of science and language and culture and maybe even God, but with mistakes in the real message.

At which point I've defined all meaning out of the word. So really, I have to admit I do not believe the Bible is inerrant.

Anyway, yes, the Bible is full of errors and mistakes. I like Psyduck's take on it - just read the last couple of pages of this thread for much food for thought.

--------------------
Bookworms will rule the world (after we finish the background reading).
Courtesy of Trouble in China

Posts: 439 | From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Surely 'innerant' means without errors/mistakes - yet the bible is full of them.

Inspiration is not innerancy

I love Leo's list! Those are errors all right.

I keep looking for someone who has a similar view of the Bible to mine.

I see it as dictated by God, miraculously preserved over time, and containing divine truth in every letter. It is literally the Word of God.

At the same time it is full of mistaken appearances, literal errors, and inconsistencies. It was written in a form that would be accessible and loved by the people among whom it was written. It presents many false ideas about the nature of God and the nature of good and evil.

However, a person who reads it intelligently and sincerely will be able to see past the literal errors and inconsistencies, and gain true wisdom from it. Its purpose is to teach a person how to love God and the neighbor.

The parts that are literally untrue or inconsistent are still true by virtue of the pattern of symbolism that is universally present throughout the Scriptures. When this is understood all of the errors are corrected. The pattern of symbolism is often made obvious by the simple comparison of similar words, sayings and events. It can almost always be demonstrated by grouping them. I could give examples.

So the Bible, as Leo said, is inspired but not inerrant.

Does anyone else have similar views? [Confused]

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

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I remember having a rare moment of clarity when considering Mark 2:25. I think it shows that either a) the NT or b) Christ made mistakes.*

Continuing my mental journey, I then found that Christ making an error of memory was not evidence of his sinful nature and did not lead to the whole house of cards coming down.

It was strangely conforting to think of Jesus forgetting and losing things too and that this was not necessarily a sign of weakness.

C

* I've since read many convoluted explanations about why it cannot possibly be as written. Personally, I'd rather call a mistake a mistake.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804

 - Posted      Profile for Petaflop   Email Petaflop   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I see it as dictated by God, miraculously preserved over time, and containing divine truth in every letter. It is literally the Word of God.

At the same time it is full of mistaken appearances, literal errors, and inconsistencies. It was written in a form that would be accessible and loved by the people among whom it was written. It presents many false ideas about the nature of God and the nature of good and evil.

I'm looking for a new doctrine of scripture, my old one being a little the worse for wear. That's interesting, and close. I'll bear it in mind.

At the moment I think I'm more comfortable with the Bible as chosen, or even predestined, by God as his means of self-revelation from the free-will works of men, but maybe I'll find problems with that.

quote:
So the Bible, as Leo said, is inspired but not inerrant.

I like that!
Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Petaflop:
At the moment I think I'm more comfortable with the Bible as chosen, or even predestined, by God as his means of self-revelation from the free-will works of men, but maybe I'll find problems with that.

I like that. How is it different from what I said?

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

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804

 - Posted      Profile for Petaflop   Email Petaflop   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the word 'dictated' is the one which gives me most trouble.

In my version:
quote:
I'm more comfortable with the Bible as chosen, or even predestined, by God as his means of self-revelation from the free-will works of men.
In particular free-will trumps predestination: predestination cannot remove the free-will or human expression of the human authors. (David Edwards wrote an interesting book on predestination and free will IIRC).

I guess what I'm trying to explain is the fact that one the one hand the Bible is a very human document, containing errors, inconsistencies, much that seems irrelevent, and omits stuff which a more direct 'divine self-revelation' might be expected to contain. And yet, at the same time, it is capable of communicating fundamental truths at a spiritual level.

Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Petaflop:
In particular free-will trumps predestination: predestination cannot remove the free-will or human expression of the human authors.

I can go with this too. I agree that the authors wrote according to their own free will, using expressions and describing events that they were familiar with.

By "dictated" I just mean that God made it all happen, and He shaped the way that it turned out - so that its message is perfect despite not violating the free will of the writers.

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

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  ...  42  43  44 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

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