Posted                          

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Maybe thinking like this also highlights the question "If we have a doctrine of the Church and some sort of doctrine of providence, do we actually need any sort of doctrine of inspiration?" "If the Bible is just there - and if everything that's just there is there because God wants it to be, do we really need anything more than a stated belief that the Bible is the preserved tradition out of which we have come, and the Holy Spirit can bring it to life for us, and us to life through it?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
How about: "It's that collection of flawed, very human writings about God, Man, and the interactions between God and Man that God wanted us to have"?

---

OK. If that works as far as giving people confidence that this is where you find the path to salvation.

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

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
I also find myself in the position of looking at Scripture the way I do, and thinking "Why do people who take a "more inspired" or even "inerrantist" view of Scripture feel that mine isn't enough?" What do they feel is missing?"

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
I also find myself in the position of looking at Scripture the way I do, and thinking "Why do people who take a "more inspired" or even "inerrantist" view of Scripture feel that mine isn't enough?" What do they feel is missing?"

---

Because it means that you come to rather different conclusions about other things that are important. The character of God for example.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Yes - but the important point, surely, is that if "we" are right (and I don't mean this in an adversarial way, just this side of the argument) then the other side are surely in danger of drawing conclusions about the character of God based on flawed data.

---

quote:

---

It's the circularity that bothers me. The Bible guarantees our picture of God, who guarantees the Bible, which guarantees our picture of God... I like Jimi Hendrix a lot, but isn't this amount of feedback really quite risky?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Why isn't it possible, regarding Revelation? Inerrantist isn't the same as literalist.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

"It's that collection of flawed, very human writings about God, Man, and the interactions between God and Man that God wanted us to have"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
As John Wimber used to say, "experience changes theology."

---

Did he now?

And interestingly, I was coming to the conclusion that we have to combine the Bible with our own experience and the experience of those who we see as godly role models.

If 'experience changes theology', and we are allowed to accumulate the experience of others as well as ourselves into some composite collection of wisdom, which for the sake of an argument I'll call 'tradition', then we're all Catholics! Including John Wimber.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm linking in here these recent exchanges in Kerygmania . In some ways they continue and extend the recent exchanges on this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Um (carefully attempting to step around the rotting equine), I AM an inerrantist, and that doesn't force me to approve of the sentiment expressed in this verse (re killing babies). Believing in inerrancy doesn't mean approving of everything someone voices in the Scriptures. Nor does it mean taking everything dead literally and ignoring hyperbole, sarcasm and irony, etc.

In this case, I take inerrancy to mean that this verse is a true record of the feelings of the psalmist--not necessarily of God. That's all. And how can poetry be errant or inerrant, anyway?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In private conversations, I tend to find that many folks see the ethical dilemmas which the cursing verses in the Psalms produce - and don't like them. But they aren't prepared to "sell" the inerrant principle because of what they don't like. Ultimately, conceding that one does not understand why "that" is "there" is preferable (from that POV) to conceding that it shows an erroneous ethic, or history, etc.

---

I think that Christians have known from the beginning that killing children was not the way to go.

Yet up until recently people did not question that psalms, and other scriptures, like this one, belong in the Bible. They are consistent, in a superficial way, with the idea that the bad guys get what they deserve.

Inerrantism is not the only alternative to thinking that these verses don't belong.

Saying that we not understand why "that" is "there" is not the only alternative to thinking that God can do what He wants and that the recipients deserve what they get.

The alternative that I prefer is to accept that good and loving actions can be symbolized by actions that are actually wicked and hateful. Like slaughtering the enemy until not one remains. These wicked and hateful actions can be symbolically attributed to God even if the truth is that they did not originate in Him, and that actually opposes them.

The account can be seen as something endorsed by God as a metaphor that was easily understood by ancient and simple peoples, who saw nothing more than that God was on their side.

The cursing psalms are just a few of a large number of biblical examples of God apparently doing the kind of angry, hurtful and vengeful things that He repudiates in the New Testament.

Many examples of this kind of thing are undeniably metaphoric, such as Jesus' parable about ejecting a man from heaven who did not have a wedding garment. No one thinks that this is really the basis for anyone's ejection.

To my mind it is less problematic to accept that the Old Testament describes wicked times, and imperfect people - and that God used the events of that time to teach something better and prepare for His Advent - than to reject them.

The epistemological consequences of rejecting Scripture are more difficult to deal with than the relatively simple interpretation of the many biblical instances of God, or Israel, or the writer of this Psalm, acting or speaking vengefully or cruelly.

We need to get beyond the simplistic errant/inerrant dichotomy. It sets up a straw man that few have ever accepted.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Just a thought (which I'm sure has already been raised here): what is the point of an infallible Bible if the best any of us can come up with is a fallible interpretation?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
[My own denomination, Swedenborgian, also postulates an infallible interpretation in the works of Swedenborg. Sort of a twist on Sola Scriptura.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Sort of Sola Swedenborga, then?

---

No. Heh-heh. Sola Scriptura. But through the, a-hem, lens of Swedenborg.

Does anyone see a better way around the difficulty than something like this?

It seems to me that you either place trust in a living body, like the church hierarchy, councils, etc., as Orthodoxy and Catholicism do, or in something written.

A third option is the consensus of opinion of all Christians.

A fourth option is the individual interpretation of every individual Christian.

I guess there are, actually, lots of options.

[ 17. December 2005, 15:21: Message edited by: Freddy ]

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

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
I'd always go for perfect Scripture, imperfect interpretation, but done reverentially, humbly and with much effort (and listening to others).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

Isn't it somewhat problematic to have all these "imperfect interpretations" running around?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

Isn't it somewhat problematic to have all these "imperfect interpretations" running around?

---

Nope. No more problematic than having all these imperfect Christians running around.

---

Then why is this such a long thread? And why is it a dead horse?

I think that there is a real problem. Am I the only one that thinks so?

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

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oreophagite:
Scripture says what it means, and means what it says.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oreophagite:
If we use Scripture as a practical guide to living, praying, and learning how to EXPERIENCE God, we may well find yourself having a little chat with Jesus in our prayer lives.

If we use our time analyzing contradictions, odd-sounding passages - and dissecting Scripture like some frog in the anatomy lab, we lose the opportunity to have a personal, experiential knowledge of God.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oreophagite:
Scripture says what it means, and means what it says.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oreophagite:
If we use our time analyzing contradictions, odd-sounding passages - and dissecting Scripture like some frog in the anatomy lab

---

but those weird ones are my favorite ones. Plus, it would be stupid for me to be like, well - I like this scripture but this other scripture is weird so obviously I should not think about it. I like the bible. A lot. A couple of years ago, I would pick one Prophet and mediate and read through it every December. Because of that, I really like Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Nehemiah (go, go, go build that wall, uh huh, oh right, okay!)

I like weirdness. I like finding weirdness in the bible. I like frogs too. I didn't mind dissecting them that much either.

Contradictions intrigue me, too. I like that God is both simple and he's complicated. It makes me pause, and think too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oreophagite:
- and dissecting Scripture like some frog in the anatomy lab, we lose the opportunity to have a personal, experiential knowledge of God.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oreophagite:

If we use Scripture as a practical guide to living, praying, and learning how to EXPERIENCE God, we may well find yourself having a little chat with Jesus in our prayer lives.

If we use our time analyzing contradictions, odd-sounding passages - and dissecting Scripture like some frog in the anatomy lab, we lose the opportunity to have a personal, experiential knowledge of God. Swedenborg was NOT the first individual in history to discover this. Mysticism isn't some New Age craze.

Scripture says what it means, and means what it says.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Then why is this such a long thread? And why is it a dead horse?
I think that there is a real problem. Am I the only one that thinks so?

---

No, I think most Christians see it as a real problem; and,even though it's a dead horse, I feel compelled to add my own uneducated and ill-informed view to the general mish-mash.

I know people who take an inerrant view of scripture, and hold that view honestly and with integrity. I believe that, despite what oponents of inerrancy state, it is possible to construct an argument in favour of inerrancy that is intellectually coherent and non-circular. The question is whether one finds such arguments compelling. On balance, I do not; but I respect the views of people who have access to the same information as I do, and have thought long and hard and reached different conclusions from mine.

The problem, it seems to me, is not what people themselves believe; it is how the fruits of that belief are expressed in a person's relationship with the outside world -- a world that may not be Christian. Certain moral strictures, for example, in the Bible almost have to be understood differently on an inerrantist reading, and we may be called on to interpret those strictures in a way that affects other people.

We all make decisions based on insufficient evidence, sometimes in very consequential areas of life. We never, if we're honest, demand proof or certainty in anything. However, if I make a decision that has an impact on the life of another person, then I owe it to that other person to be able to defend my decision on the basis of a rational assessment of the objective evidence. I will accept, of course, that having presented the evidence and my rationale, the person affected may well continue to disagree with me, perhaps even forcefully. But if I could not justify my decisions on the basis of reason and observation at all, then other people are eventually not going to trust my ability to make any decision.

Now, I happen to think that a Christian belief is rationally defensible on the basis of observation of people and of the natural world. I don't for a moment expect atheists to come around to that way of thinking, but at least my arguments would be in terms that an atheist would find comprehensible. Saying ``that's a reasonable argument but I'm not convinced'' is a different response from ``you have provided no grounds for me to believe or trust you''.

Ultimately I cannot find any argument for scriptural inerrancy that could I could defend, on the basis of observation and rationality, to a non-believer. That means that I cannot reasonably take decisions that are contingent on an inerrantist reading of scripture. If I cannot reasonably take a decisions that depend on theinerrantist being true, than inerrancy must be untrue. The alternative is to argue that Christians have an obligation to make decisions that affect non-Christians, on the basis of views that we simply cannot defend in a comprehensible way.

Somebody might say that (simplifying a bit) his or her belief in errancy is the result of `the internal witness of the Holy Spirt', but it worries me a little. It makes sense (to me) to say that it is the work of the Holy Spirit to cause you to open your mind to certain explanations that you would otherwise avoid. It seems to me that I'm entitled to thank the Holy Spirit for breaking down my natural cynicism about religious belief. But -- it seems to me -- what I'm absolutely not entitled to do is to cite the Holy Spirit as evidence to back up any decision I make. If I can't defend my decision on the basis of rationality, then I shouldn't take the decision.

And that, it seems to me, is why inerrancy is such a big deal. It isn't just a private matter between us and our Creator; it affects how we interact with the wider world, and has the potential to set non-Christians at the throats of Christians in a big way. That's why anybody who takes the inerrantist line has a duty to be able to explain why he or she does so, in comprehensible terms, to other people.

That concludes this morning's reading from the Book of Cucumber

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oreophagite:
Scripture says what it means, and means what it says.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oreophagite:
It doesn't usually happen overnight, though it may have for Paul.

Nobody (nobody I know, anyway) can really explain this in a posting at a website. It has to be experienced.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oreophagite:
It's an instruction manual, written in code.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Nobody (nobody I know, anyway) can really explain this in a posting at a website. It has to be experienced.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oreophagite:
It's an instruction manual, written in code.

---

Why do you keep saying that it is an instruction manual?

Some things in the scriptures do look like instructions. But many things (e.g. the psalms) are outpourings, expressions. One might as well say that Keats's poetry is an instruction manual.

And some things in the scriptures are histories - which are informative, but not instructions to live by. E.g. when I read that Abraham laid out on a rock the carcases of several birds split in half, am I to go out and do likewise? Or when Samuel cuts up Agag to pieces, should all Christian pastors go out and practice their sword skills? Is it instructing me? Only in the sense that, say, Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" might be described as an instruction manual in good manners, rather than described as a novel.

The scriptures are a collection of many different kinds of writings: love poems, prayers, instructions on sacrificing animals, edifying anecdotes about various people, myths, made-up stories to illustrate moral points, letters to young churches to settle various issues, highly imaginative fantasies (e.g. Revelation), etc. To say that they are often worthwhile (in some sense) is not the same as saying they are all "instructions". And quite a few bits of the scriptures are simply opaque - I don't know what they mean, and cannot apply them to anything. And how do I "apply" the passage that tells me the reputed names of the rivers that flowed out of the Garden of Eden? What am I meant to do with this passage in any "instruction manual" sense?

A lot of the scriptures is indeed preaching, in some sense of the word - proclaiming a message. But "instruction manual" seems way too narrow a description to fit the wide diversity of literary content in the scriptures.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oreophagite:
Perhaps someone fully familiar with the "code" will write a book about it someday.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
If the requisite "open mind" is so difficult to achieve (and I expect harder to ascertain) then does it really have any meaning to say scripture "means what it says"?

Normally the description "means what it says" is used to imply that the meaning is obvious.... difficult to dispute.... and that most reasonable people would draw the same conclusion.

That's clearly not your point here, then.....?

---

That little statement is meant to be a koan, for meditation. Perhaps I'm in over my head on this discussion; I'll go post something funny in heaven! Merry Christmas to all - do reflect on the words of the hymn "O Little Town of Bethlehem" this year. It's in code, too.

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
So you didn't mean what you said when you said it meant what it said.

---

Yes, I don't think he did.

It might be easier to say that certain parts are quite clear, and appear to mean what they say. For example, that it is wrong to steal, or good to love your neighbor.

The trick, then, is to figure out which parts those are.

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