|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: biblical inerrancy
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Posted by Glen moved from Purgatory quote:
Purgatory can be a cruel place. I read the inerrancy thread, sat down to compose a contribution and when I log on again the thread has been declared a dead horse!
So here is my effort shamelessly mounted on a new horse with a possibly less than convincing name.Ekalb,
Thanks for your postings on the inerrancy thread – I appreciated their personal aspects. Your interaction with Bonzo lead me to write the following which relates to the issue of epistemology and logic. Like you I do not believe that there are knock down (unassailable) arguments for or against biblical inerrancy. To some non-inerrantists (Bonzo) that may sound odd or strained since to them the bible so clearly contains contradictions that it cannot be inerrant. I greatly sympathise with this view, but what is a knock down argument for them is clearly not seen that way by others. It all has to do with how belief in inerrancy fits within a whole set of other beliefs about other matters. For inerrantists these other matters outweigh the impact of alleged contradictions in the bible. The other reasons for inerrancy allow them to accept the often intensely strained explanations given to account for alleged errors. A metaphor that I find extremely helpful in this connection is one used by the philosopher Susan Haack. She likens epistemology to doing a crossword. When you try and solve a crossword you have to do two things at the same time: get the answers to fit the clues and get the answers to fit in with each other. Logically it is possible for there to be more than one solution to a crossword. The different sets of answers may fit the clues and each other. In practice you may be so certain of the answer to one clue that you are prepared to reject the most obvious answer to another clue because it doesn’t fit with the answer you are most certain of. So people like Wenham and Packer appear to be certain that Jesus believed in the inerrancy of scripture and that Jesus, being God must be right. Being certain of that when they are faced with the clue given by the many apparent errors in the bible they feel that they cannot draw the obvious answer from that clue: that the bible contains errors. Like Ekalb, they live with the tension that creates because the other beliefs seem sufficiently secure and in tune with other clues. Speaking personally, I spent the first ten years or so of my Christian life holding more or less to an inerrantist view of the bible. At first because that was the brand of Christianity I came to faith in, but later for reasons like Wenham and Packers. Over time, however the strain of trying to fit that ‘inerrancy’ into the crossword lead me to the view that the more reasonable approach was to give up inerrancy. The factors that lead me to abandon that position were many. As someone who had done a biology degree I eventually found young earth creationism, and anti-evolutionism impossible to agree with. This meant that I could no longer take parts of the OT as literally true. I also found that reading stuff on biblical criticism alerted me to the many differences in the gospel accounts. There were moral problems with conservative positions on issues like the position of women, homosexuality etc. There were theological problems with conservative views on other religions. I began to be less happy with the view of Jesus approach to scripture presented by Wenham and Packer – Jesus seems to be far more liberal in his approach to scripture than they would hold. In the end it seems to me that the whole picture makes more sense if the bible is not seen as inerrant. But, of course saying that the bible is not inerrant is to say very, very little indeed about what it is. In that sense non-inerrantism is not a position but a huge range of possible positions. One may adopt the (still too conservative for my taste) positions like that of John Goldingay and IH Marshall and be non-inerrantist. One of the saddest aspects of the inerrantist approach over the last few decades has been the tendency of some inerrantists to say that either the bible is inerrant or it is useless. Said of any other book such a statement would leap out at you as being so obviously sheer nonsense you’d laugh at it. But by saying it so earnestly they have managed to make it a shibboleth for many Christians. My view is similar to others expressed earlier in this thread. The bible gives us a fascinating and mixed bag of writings, which convey all sorts of views to us and in amongst them are views of God and his attitudes and relationship to the world. These views and understandings developed and changed with time. But I have run out of time! More later I hope. Glenn -------------------- 'This entire doctrine is worthless except as a subject of dispute.' -Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742-1799)
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Laura: quote:
What's that sound I hear, my friends? What's that sound? I believe it's a faint, croaking sort of neighing! Yes, my friends, this horse has been dying for quite some time. I declare it DEAD.You all can keep on, of course, over at the board where we keep this sort of thing.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! For some reason I don't fully understand it takes a great weight off my mind to have someone else acknowledge that this discussion was running round in circles. Thank you.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
*bump*
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I guess "How do we set our morality?" ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif) wore everyone out, Laura.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I must be some sort of glutton for punishment, either that or awfully bored. But, that morality thread in one of it's excursions into what should have been on this thread covered material not here (yes, I just read this thread in totality and copied the relevant posts here ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) )
--------------------------------------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Young Mr. Coot :
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
To go back to the beginning of this thread, I wanted to debate how we set our morality.
I have set my belief that the Bible is the ultimate, deciding authority.
...
The response to my position has been to question the Bible’s justification of itself as God’s word – that this is a circular argument.
...
So, why do I accept the Bible as authoritative over my reasoning? Because it claims to be God’s word, and claims that God reveals himself through his word, and experience shows this to be true – the more I submit myself to it, the more I discover God’s wonderful revelation.
Now, you started this thread by saying you want to debate how we set morality, and you've reiterated it here. Then you follow it up with 'I have set my belief that the Bible is the ultimate, deciding authority'. So er, why did you do that then? Because someone told you to? Just felt like it?
Today, I think I might set my belief that whether the toast lands butter side down will be the ultimate, deciding authority.
You are very right that the response to your position is to question 'the Bible's justification of itself as God's word' but certainly not from me because 'this is a circular argument'. I couldn't give a fig if it was a circular argument. I want to know where 'the Bible justifies itself as God's word'; where 'it claims to be God's word' and where 'it claims that God reveals himself through his word'.
I can accept the prophetic books and the Revelation as such eg. 'The words of Jeremiah... the Word of the Lord came to him...'; 'The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place.' because these assert themselves to be prophecies from the Lord.
I can also accept the words recorded as being Christ's in the Gospels as 'from the Lord'.
But as soon as you start talking sexual morality (I notice homosexuality is a concern for you) those places are not where you look for guidance.
It's Paul's epistles that are the guiding light, aren't they? Now, that's not a bad thing really. In fact, I quite like St Paul. But, it is not God's Word!
I even accept where Paul says 'not I but the Lord':
quote:
1Cor7:
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
Do you notice what he says then:
quote:
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord
He doesn't dare to ask them to modify their behaviour as an instrument of the Word of God - because God did not say those things - He/Jesus said the bit about divorce that's why Paul can command it as a command from God. But apart from that he is asking them to adhere to moral standards by virtue of being a person with authority to set moral standards.
If St Paul doesn't dare to command those things of people as the Word of God - how do you dare to?!
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Young Mr. Coot:
want to know where 'the Bible justifies itself as God's word'; where 'it claims to be God's word' and where 'it claims that God reveals himself through his word'.
Fair enough. How about...
1 Thes 2:13 "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe."
2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
And interstingly, Hebrews 3:7
"So, as the Holy Spirit says: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the desert..."
Its the Holy Spirit who is speaking - but the quote is from a psalm witten by a man. So the man writes the words, but it is God's Spirit who speaks.
This is an important point for those who say "I listen to the Spirit, so don't need the authority of the Bible". The Spirit has already spoken through the Bible - so we need to test everything we think he might be saying by what he has already said with authority - his word.
There's loads more I could quote.
quote:
It's Paul's epistles that are the guiding light, aren't they? Now, that's not a bad thing really. In fact, I quite like St Paul. But, it is not God's Word!
Intersetingly, even Paul's words are called scripture - God's word. For again here is a man writing, but the Spirit speaking. So Peter says,
"He (Paul) writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
quote:
Originally posted by Young Mr. Coot :
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Young Mr. Coot:
...I want to know where 'the Bible justifies itself as God's word'; where 'it claims to be God's word' and where 'it claims that God reveals himself through his word'.
Fair enough. How about...
1 Thes 2:13 "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe."
Merp! Reverse! Reverse!
Paul was passionate about one thing, that was to preach the Good News of Christ Crucified. And Paul himself makes a distinction between what is a command from God and what is his desire for the standard of moral conduct of Christians in the various Churches. Anyway, if all the prescriptive (not in a perjorative sense) bits of Acts are the Word of God, it rather makes the Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection a by-word. So nice try, but no cigar.
Now I am not saying that Paul's teachings in the Epistles are without merit. But they should be recognised for what they are: exhortations to a moral standard by a person in authority. And exhortations for a specific time and place. Not words from a mouthpiece for God. And the only one that he says is of God concerns divorce which unlike homosexuality is one of the ones that is often considered negotiable!
quote:
2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Merp! Don't think so. See 2 Timothy 3:15
quote:
15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
Paul's (or whoever wrote Timothy, tis unimportant) letters are believed to predate the Gospels. How old is Timothy? 20, 25? It's likely the Holy Scriptures referred to here are the OT. Paul never claims to have written scripture. Scripture is, as it asserts here, God-breathed. He expressly states that what he says is 'I, not the Lord' - more evidence that what he writes is *not* Scripture. Are you going to insist that Paul wrote scripture when he himself never insisted?!
quote:
Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.
So, I contend again, that except where he notes otherwise, Paul's letters are the writings of someone with authority and trustworthy in interpreting a godly way to live. But not timeless, excisable-as- written-and-transportable-to-modern-life words from the Lord. So, some bits of the Bible you are calling the Word of God and using as your ultimate external authority, are the judgements of a man who has distilled the essence of how to live like Christ, for the people. There are other holy people: Popes, bishops, saints through the ages that are capable of doing this.
quote:
And interstingly, Hebrews 3:7
"So, as the Holy Spirit says: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the desert..."
Its the Holy Spirit who is speaking - but the quote is from a psalm witten by a man. So the man writes the words, but it is God's Spirit who speaks.
Yes, as I said, I am not contesting the prophetic or mystical writings in the Bibles as not being revelations from God.
quote:
quote:
Coot:
It's Paul's epistles that are the guiding light, aren't they? Now, that's not a bad thing really. In fact, I quite like St Paul. But, it is not God's Word!
Fish Fish:
Intersetingly, even Paul's words are called scripture - God's word. For again here is a man writing, but the Spirit speaking. So Peter says,
quote:
2 Peter 3: 16
He (Paul) writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
τας λοιπας γραφας - what is translated as 'the other Scriptures'. This is hardly a clincher that Paul's writings are scriptures. I don't pretend to have a knowledge of NT gk, but from a bit of overlap as a native modern gk speaker, 'γραφας' (someone correct me if wrong) is a common or garden word meaning 'documents/writings'. He doesn't say Holy Scriptures like in 2 Tim 3:15.
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Young Mr. Coot:
2 Peter 3: 16
He (Paul) writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures , to their own destruction.
quote:
τας λοιπας γραφας - what is translated as 'the other Scriptures'. This is hardly a clincher that Paul's writings are scriptures. I don't pretend to have a knowledge of NT gk, but from a bit of overlap as a native modern gk speaker, 'γραφας' (someone correct me if wrong) is a common or garden word meaning 'documents/writings'. He doesn't say Holy Scriptures like in 2 Tim 3:15.
Actually, they use exactly the same word (though one is accusative, the other imperative) - and its the word consistently used in the NT for "scriptures" (Matt 21:42, John 5:39 etc.) I don't have time to deal with the rest - and its dead horse teretory - but Peter is definately calling Paul's writings scriptures on a par with the OT writings.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
No, he's calling both "Writings" - the translation of Graphas. That's all "Scripture" means as well - "The Writings".
If I use the same word for "cats" as in domestic moggies, and "cats" as in the family Felidae, does it follow that I'm saying that tigers and Tiddles are the same kind of thing?
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Actually, they use exactly the same word (though one is accusative, the other imperative) - and its the word consistently used in the NT for "scriptures"
I'm not a Greek scholar either, but I very much doubt that the word is used in the imperative.
(And Paul said to them, 'Scriptures!' And they scripturesed. Go on, Fish Fish, go and scriptures for us.)
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
I know it isn't, unless Imperative stopped being a verb mood and became a noun case since I left school.
But I let it pass.
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
I know it isn't, unless Imperative stopped being a verb mood and became a noun case since I left school.
But I let it pass.
Not sure when you graduated (probably circa when I did), but I'm pretty sure it hasn't.
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
No, he's calling both "Writings" - the translation of Graphas. That's all "Scripture" means as well - "The Writings".
If I use the same word for "cats" as in domestic moggies, and "cats" as in the family Felidae, does it follow that I'm saying that tigers and Tiddles are the same kind of thing?
Sorry everyone - another brif dip into the debate which I hope to return to properly tonight.
But for now let me say I got "The Imperative" bit wrong - sorry. however, the nown we're quoting (don't know how to type greek!) appears 51 times in the NT, and every time is translated "Scriptures". Peter himself uses it 2 other times in his letters, and uses it to mean scriptures there. So, by any standard law of interpretation, the reference in 2 Peter 3:16 should be translated "scriptures" - unless you come to the text determined to prove otherwise...
quote:
Originally posted by Young Mr. Coot:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
No, he's calling both "Writings" - the translation of Graphas. That's all "Scripture" means as well - "The Writings".
...
Fish Fish:
...
the nown we're quoting (don't know how to type greek!) appears 51 times in the NT, and every time is translated "Scriptures". Peter himself uses it 2 other times in his letters, and uses it to mean scriptures there. So, by any standard law of interpretation, the reference in 2 Peter 3:15 should be translated "scriptures" - unless you come to the text determined to prove otherwise...
Well no, actually
I am using as my source Bible Gateway's NIV and NT Greek versions:
quote:
See Bible Gateway's text of 2 Tim 3:15:
15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
What Timothy has known from his youth are 'the Holy Scriptures', which are obviously OT scripture. In the NT Greek that is 'τα ιερα γραμματα' [the Holy Writings] which is different from 'τας (λοιπας) γραφας' [the (other) writings/documents] that Peter says of Paul's letters (NIV and Gk). I don't think that shows that Paul's writings are on par with the Holy Scripture of the OT.
quote:
Originally posted by Young Mr. Coot:
Well, after doing my hostly duties, I've just had another read of this whole thread. Not sure why I have given it so much of my time, possibly a morbid fascination with your stubbornness (coff coff, I mean, 'conviction'), Fish Fish.
I noticed I said 'Acts' when I meant 'NT'; referring to the prescriptive parts of the Bible - Acts of course being traditionally accepted as 'descriptive' rather than 'prescriptive' in more literalist evangelical circles.
Also that imperative/accusative thing; I think you may have been meaning fem. singular: 'τας (...) γραφας' (2Tim3:16) and plural: 'τας (...) γραφας' (2Pet3:16). But my point as mentioned above, is that 2Tim3:15 refers to a different word in the neut. plural: 'τα (ιερα) γραμματα'; for the OT writings.
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Young Mr. Coot:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
No, he's calling both "Writings" - the translation of Graphas. That's all "Scripture" means as well - "The Writings".
...
Fish Fish:
...
the nown we're quoting (don't know how to type greek!) appears 51 times in the NT, and every time is translated "Scriptures". Peter himself uses it 2 other times in his letters, and uses it to mean scriptures there. So, by any standard law of interpretation, the reference in 2 Peter 3:15 should be translated "scriptures" - unless you come to the text determined to prove otherwise...
Well no, actually
I am using as my source Bible Gateway's NIV and NT Greek versions:
quote:
See Bible Gateway's text of 2 Tim 3:15:
15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
What Timothy has known from his youth are 'the Holy Scriptures', which are obviously OT scripture. In the NT Greek that is 'τα ιερα γραμματα' [the Holy Writings] which is different from 'τας(λοιπας) γραφας' [the (other) writings/documents] that Peter says of Paul's letters (NIV and Gk). I don't think that shows that Paul's writings are on par with the Holy Scripture of the OT.
The trouble is, wherever else the word is used, it is used to mean the scriptures. For example, take Matthew 22:29
quote:
Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
He uses exactly the same words in Greek for "the" and "scriptures/writings". (See also Luke 24:32, 24:45, John 5:39 etc). The only difference is the insertion of the word "other" in Peter's letter. If all the other examples really refer to scriptures, why should we translate the majority as "Scriptures" and only Peter's as "writings"?
I hope you saw my appology to you in Hell ("I want to appologise to Mr Coot for suggesting that he may be intelectually dishonest - that was unfair of me and I'm sorry"). But I must admit, I really cannot see any reason to justify your interpretation!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Young Mr. Coot:
Regarding 'tas grafas' and Scriptures. I guess a salient point here is authorship and who is speaking in the writing. For instance there is a tradition that Mark's gospel is written down from an account by Peter, who in turn got the juicy bits from the BVM. So maybe I would be more convinced if 'tas grafas' was used in that gospel (as I haven't conducted a systematic study I don't know - pls tell me if you or other posters do) to mean the OT, but yet, if the word is used by Jesus it still does not mean that the use of Jesus is the same as the use of Peter.
I think the significant thing for me is that when Paul wanted to stress the OT (the recognised God-inspired writings of the time) he used the 'iepa' (Holy) 'grammata' (writings; a diff. word to 'grafas' - sorry writing this quickly and not using the Char. Map). My view is at odds with say, the Orthodox view, who do see 2Pet3:16 (according to their study bible - a plot! a plot! - no really, I was just reading it to um, see what they think) as evidence that Peter considers Paul's writings on par with the OT.
My personal view is that Peter uses 'tas grafas' because he is referring to both the (considered to be by them) God-breathed writings of the OT and the apostles' writings, but not because they are all in the same category of writings.
Like I said before, even if I was incontrovertibly shown that Paul's writings were God-breathed, it would make little difference to me, because I take as my cue the Orthodox position (for example - no really, I'm not succumbing) which is that the Bible should not be read apart from the Church. And, they were the first (and continue), so, they should know!
Thankyou also, for your apology.
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Young Mr. Coot:
Regarding 'tas grafas' and Scriptures. I guess a salient point here is authorship and who is speaking in the writing. For instance there is a tradition that Mark's gospel is written down from an account by Peter, who in turn got the juicy bits from the BVM. So maybe I would be more convinced if 'tas grafas' was used in that gospel
p.s. Try Mark 12:24, and almost the same, 14;49
quote:
Originally posted by Young Mr. Coot:
What I'm looking for more is where the author uses the word to describe what Jesus is doing, rather than the words out of Jesus' mouth (and that the author is the same author of the letters called Peter). In other words, strong evidence for me would be a piece of writing attributed to Peter where he says eg. 'Jesus read from the Scriptures'. Rather than Jesus saying 'Today this Scripture etc', because that could be purely writing down the words as Jesus spoke them.
But still, have just done a perfunctory search (I'm not set up for this - any useful books I have are packed in a box) and find Acts 18:28
quote:
28For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.
Even though Acts is not considered to be by same writer as the letters I find this more persuasive because it shows 'των γραφων' (plural possessive) being used specifically for the OT scriptures. If this noun also was used by Peter (or author of the letters) elsewhere to mean the OT scriptures, then I think I would accept it as solid evidence.
So I'll move to accepting that Paul's writings were held with the same esteem as the OT scriptures , but I don't see this as demonstrating them god-breathed... I mean, he says they're not in parts!!!
But my interest in pursuing this relates back to your OP, which is to determine whether or not (I think so and am yet to be shown otherwise) if you set your morality by the Bible (specifically the epistles), you are setting it to the moral standards of a man. I am not contesting that he was a man with authority with the power and right to set those moral standards, but the significance is: the moral standards of God are the same yesterday, today, tomorrow; whereas the moral standards of the man are constrained by his context.
In other words, the crucial point is: are the (1 example) Pauline epistles 'God-Breathed'? - I think they themselves don't assert this. Also, I would like to examine the structure of that sentence 2Tim3:16 a bit more closely and I'll start a thread in Kerygmania presently if it has not already been done there or in DH. (Hosts, please advise if this is dead horse territory)
--------------------
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
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
Why oh why oh why oh why oh why...
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
Alan Cresswell, you're my hero!!! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Alan is going to heaven when he dies. But until then, he'll be at the funny farm. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Opthalmos:
Why oh why oh why oh why oh why...
Because I found it to be an interesting discussion, that should have been here in the first place, even though my knowledge of greek is insufficient to actually contribute. I put it here because I was interesting in knowing if there was anything else anyone has to add ... I'd have done it sooner but didn't have time.
--------------------
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
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
Fair enough! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Young Mr. Coot:
So I'll move to accepting that Paul's writings were held with the same esteem as the OT scriptures , but I don't see this as demonstrating them god-breathed... I mean, he says they're not in parts!!!
Logic -
Paul says All Scripture is God-breathed
Peter says Paul's writings are scripture
Thus Paul's writings are also God breathed
The fact that Paul says "All" scriptures are God breathed, but the Bible is not complete when he wrote this, is no argument against his writings being God breathed. We didn't have to wait for the Bible to be complete before Genesis became God breathed - each book was breathed, and the totality at the time of Paul's writing we all God breathed, and now the Bible is complete, its all scripture, and all God breathed.
quote:
if you set your morality by the Bible (specifically the epistles), you are setting it to the moral standards of a man. I am not contesting that he was a man with authority with the power and right to set those moral standards, but the significance is: the moral standards of God are the same yesterday, today, tomorrow; whereas the moral standards of the man are constrained by his context.
These are simultaniously the writings of a man and yet the writings of God. God breathes, man writes. So the standards absolutely are the those of God - and setting our morals by the epistles is setting them by God's standards.
How can man write and yet God be authoritative. Thats the mystery of God's providence. Another example of this mystery is the cross - It's God's will that Jesus dies, and so he controls all the people to get Jesus crucified just as planned - even to the point where Jesus legs are not broken to fulfill prophecy. Yet those who crucified Jesus are free people doing what they wanted to do. God breathes, but people act.
And we believe this in practice - otherwise we do we pray for God to act in people's lives? People are totally free - yet God can act to infulence them.
Perhaps this is a whole new thread! How does God guide us and preserve our freedom. Fun!
[ 11. February 2004, 08:32: Message edited by: Fish Fish ]
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Atmospheric Skull
Antlered Bone-Visage
# 4513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Logic -
Paul says All Scripture is God-breathed
Peter says Paul's writings are scripture
Thus Paul's writings are also God breathed
Er, you've missed out the bit where you prove they both understand "scripture" to mean the same thing, or where either of them is necessarily correct in what they say.
And that's even assuming your premises are correct -- I may have become confused, but I thought Mr Coot cited two different words, graphas and grammas?
Incidentally, if "all" scripture is God-breathed, that presumably includes the Qur'an, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Adi Granth and so on. Or does Paul not necessarily mean "all" scripture? quote:
It's God's will that Jesus dies, and so he controls all the people to get Jesus crucified just as planned
Eek. How horrible. What exactly do you base that on, then?
--------------------
Surrealistic Mystic.
Posts: 371 | From: Bristol, UK | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
Er, you've missed out the bit where you prove they both understand "scripture" to mean the same thing, or where either of them is necessarily correct in what they say.
And that's even assuming your premises are correct -- I may have become confused, but I thought Mr Coot cited two different words, graphas and grammas?
Nope - we've agreed that isn't the case - its the same word. You'll have to follow the discussion above for that.
quote:
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
Incidentally, if "all" scripture is God-breathed, that presumably includes the Qur'an, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Adi Granth and so on. Or does Paul not necessarily mean "all" scripture?
All scripture from the Christian God - the God Paul defines as "The God of our Lord Jesus Christ".
quote:
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
Eek. How horrible. What exactly do you base that on, then?
That would be the Bible! Which bit makes you go eek?! I feel a new thread coming on...!
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Atmospheric Skull
Antlered Bone-Visage
# 4513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
Nope - we've agreed that isn't the case - its the same word. You'll have to follow the discussion above for that.
Ah, fair enough. quote:
All scripture from the Christian God - the God Paul defines as "The God of our Lord Jesus Christ".
You see, I don't see Paul specifying that. I see that as your interpretation of the word "scripture". quote:
That would be the Bible!
And more specifically? Where does the Bible suggest that Judas, Caiaphas, Pilate, Herod and the mob who asked for Barabbas rather than Jesus did so at God's behest? quote:
Which bit makes you go eek?!
Largely the idea that God would desire such a thing, or inflict the guilt of responsibility for it on human beings.
--------------------
Surrealistic Mystic.
Posts: 371 | From: Bristol, UK | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
You see, I don't see Paul specifying that. I see that as your interpretation of the word "scripture".
Well, I'm not sure I can quote Chapter and Verse on this - But Paul's overall theology is that Jesus is God's son, and the unique revelation of God, and the sole way of salvation. It woyuuld be rather odd if he thought other writings, which say that Jesus is not these things, and thus contradict Paul, are in any way God breathed.
quote:
Where does the Bible suggest that Judas, Caiaphas, Pilate, Herod and the mob who asked for Barabbas rather than Jesus did so at God's behest?
Try Mat 26:20-25 where Jesus prophesies Judas will betray him - How could Jesus do this confiently unless he knew Judas would do it? In some sense Judas is completely responsible for denying Jesus (see Acts 1:18), but in another sense he is guided by God to fulfill Jesus' prophecy.
[Edited to fix UBB code]
[ 12. February 2004, 07:45: Message edited by: TonyK ]
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
You see, I don't see Paul specifying that. I see that as your interpretation of the word "scripture".
Well, I'm not sure I can quote Chapter and Verse on this - But Paul's overall theology is that Jesus is God's son, and the unique revelation of God, and the sole way of salvation. It woyuuld be rather odd if he thought other writings, which say that Jesus is not these things, and thus contradict Paul, are in any way God breathed.
But, what about other "scriptures"? The Didache, or assorted Jewish writings (some of which are in the Scriptures according to a very large number of Christians)? They don't all contradict Paul yet most Biblical Inerrantists say they aren't Scripture. Yet James, which arguably does present a significantly different theology to Paul, is presumably one of the God-breathed Scriptures.
--------------------
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
|
|
Atmospheric Skull
Antlered Bone-Visage
# 4513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:It [would] be rather odd if he thought other writings, which say that Jesus is not these things, and thus contradict Paul, are in any way God breathed.
I'm quite sure that the Bhagavad-Gita says nothing at all about Jesus.
Alan's point is more sensible, though, and bears significantly on your argument here. Given that there was no canon of Christian "scripture" at the time he was writing, how on Earth are we to know what Paul considered God-breathed? quote:
Try Mat 26:20-25 where Jesus prophesies Judas will betray him - How could Jesus do this confiently unless he knew Judas would do it?
Oh, that's feeble. He doesn't even name his betrayer, until Judas gives himself away. And how would he have known? Well, according to the story, he's God. Foreknowledge is one of God's traditional attributes. It's a far cry from that to saying that God / Jesus is responsible for Judas's actions, or that they happened according to his / their will.
You're making huge assumptions in both these cases, and they come from places entirely other than the Bible.
--------------------
Surrealistic Mystic.
Posts: 371 | From: Bristol, UK | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, what about other "scriptures"? The Didache, or assorted Jewish writings (some of which are in the Scriptures according to a very large number of Christians)? They don't all contradict Paul yet most Biblical Inerrantists say they aren't Scripture. Yet James, which arguably does present a significantly different theology to Paul, is presumably one of the God-breathed Scriptures.
The Didache was only found relatively recenlty - and while definately an ancient writing, it contradics the rest of the NT in many places. For example, it says appostles must not stay in a city for more than 2 days - but Paul stays in Corinth for over a year. There are lots of rules about when you can and can't fast etc - which is very pharisaicle. So I think it right to assume its not God breathed.
As for James - there's no contradiction - he simply uses some similare words to Paul, but in a different sense and with different application. Its easy enough to resolve any supposed conflict.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
Alan's point is more sensible, though, and bears significantly on your argument here. Given that there was no canon of Christian "scripture" at the time he was writing, how on Earth are we to know what Paul considered God-breathed?
Paul recognised that all scriptures are God breathed.
He didn't "self attest"
That doesn't matter because others recognised his writings as scripture, and thus Giod breathed.
quote:
Oh, that's feeble. He doesn't even name his betrayer, until Judas gives himself away. And how would he have known? Well, according to the story, he's God. Foreknowledge is one of God's traditional attributes. It's a far cry from that to saying that God / Jesus is responsible for Judas's actions, or that they happened according to his / their will.
I'm definately not saying Jesus was responsible for Judas' actions. But I am saying God is in control in such a way as to guide events to the conclusion he wants:
quote:
I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please...What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do.
(Isaiah 46:9-11)
He is providently in control, yet preserves our responsibility for the actions we choose. So, he can authoritatively guide the scriptures (God breathed), but preserve human "freedom" to write as they choose.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I think I know what Fish fish is getting at, and, in a sense, [shock horror] I agree with him.
Are we actually talking about God working through the contingency of human action to produce His intended end result? This is fair enough; God used my parents' free choices about what to do one night back in the summer of '67, and further back, the chance event of my father joining my mother's dancing class. God worked through the chance mutation and natural selection of the evolutionary process to create the human race in the first place. And so on and so forth.
What I don't see here is any direct evidence that God did work in this manner to produce a Scripture that is inspired in the way Fish Fish thinks it is.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
I think I know what Fish fish is getting at, and, in a sense, [shock horror] I agree with him.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
What I don't see here is any direct evidence that God did work in this manner to produce a Scripture that is inspired in the way Fish Fish thinks it is.
"...God breathed..."
More convincingly, perhaps, is what I quoted above...
quote:
Hebrews 3:7
"So, as the Holy Spirit says: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the desert..."
Its the Holy Spirit who is speaking - but the quote is from a psalm witten by a man. So the man writes the words, but it is God's Spirit who speaks.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Actually, I find "God-breathed" and "profitable for..." rather a weak claim compared with the inerrancy and "actual Word of God" doctrines that are hung upon it. In Genesis Adam's life was "God breathed" but it didn't make him perfect by a long shot, as evidenced by his rather easily accomplished transition to the Dark Side.
Your quote from Hebrews shows that the writer equates the message of the Psalm with the message of the Holy Spirit. This is, again, a far cry from inerrancy. Moreover, the Psalm is interesting - it starts talking as if God, in the first person. The bit actually quoted is presented specifically as God speaking. Most Scripture is not like this; it speaks about God in the third person.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
Grafas and grammata are the plurals (Nom. f; Nom. neut.) of 2 different words (From 2 Pet and 2 Tim respectively). If you look at the last post in the list cut and pasted by Alan (You're a titan, Mr Creswell); you'll see that I conceded (well semi) the point based on an occurrence of the word 'grafas' in Acts 18:28 which is 'commentary' rather than a quote of someone speaking.
I didn't find the Mark gospel quote of 'grafas' strong - as we were looking for an occasion of 'grafas' by the hand or dictation of Peter (or the write of Peter) where he clearly meant the OT scriptures and the occurrence in Mark was out of the mouth of Jesus.
However, the Acts quote must refer to the Holy Scriptures of the OT (strong) - since the Scriptures/grafas were used to prove to Jews that Jesus was the Christ - hence they can only be the OT.
Why I do not fully concede the point is that there is still a weakness in that (I don't believe, correct me if wrong) the writer of Acts is not the writer of the Petrine Epistles; and the use of the word grafas might vary from writer to writer.
[I'm sure you will all be pleased to hear I'm currently researching the grammatical structure of 2 Tim 3: 16 - intuitively I'd read the Gk as 'All God-breathed and useful scripture is for...']
But like I said before, I rely on holy, wise and learned people to tell me what the Scriptures mean. Because I am not those things, and there is no way the Scriptures are plain - for a start they are in translation of an effectively dead language (NT/koine Gk). Its nearest relative, 'katharevousa' stopped being the official language of Greece in about 1979. Official language = use in official things; ordinary people can barely understand it.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
The Didache was only found relatively recenlty - and while definately an ancient writing, it contradics the rest of the NT in many places. For example, it says appostles must not stay in a city for more than 2 days - but Paul stays in Corinth for over a year. There are lots of rules about when you can and can't fast etc - which is very pharisaicle. So I think it right to assume its not God breathed.
My books are on the other side of the Atlantic at the moment, and I've better things to be doing while visiting my fiance on Valentines Day than Google stuff, but I'm pretty sure the Didache has been known for a long time. I've certainly seen references to it used by several posters on the Ship over the years to demonstrate the antiquity of several church practices. If someone hasn't filled in the details by the time I'm home I'll have a check on that.
quote:
As for James - there's no contradiction - he simply uses some similare words to Paul, but in a different sense and with different application. Its easy enough to resolve any supposed conflict.
Actually I agree that the supposed conflict is largely non-existant, mostly in a matter of emphasis rather than the underlying message. That hasn't stopped people like Luther being very dismissive of this "epistle of straw".
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The Didache was known to Eusebius, and according to the Catholic encyclopedia,
quote:
St. Athanasius and Rufinus add the "Teaching" to the sapiential and other deutero-canonical books. (Rufinus gives the curious alternative title "Judicium Petri".) It has a similar place in the lists of Nicephorus, Pseudo-Anastasius, and Pseudo-Athanasius (Synopsis). The Pseudo-Cyprianic "Adversus Aleatores" quotes it by name. Unacknowledged citations are very common, if less certain. The "Two Ways" appears in Barnabas, cc. xviii-xx, sometimes word for word, sometimes added to, dislocated, or abridged, and Barn., iv, 9 is from Didache, xvi, 2-3, or vice versa. Hermas, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen seem to use the work, and so in the West do Optatus and the "Gesta apud Zenophilum". The Didascalia Apostolorum (q. v.) are founded upon the Didache. The Apostolic church ordinance has used a part, the Apostolic Constitutions have embodied the Didascalia. There are echoes in Justin, Tatian, Theophilus, Cyprian, and Lactantius.
It was "rediscovered" in a codex from a monastery in the Holy Land in 1873 and first published (in the modern era) in 1883.
I was less successful in determining when it was "lost" and whether the churches of the east (Orthodox, Monophysite, Nestorian, or otherwise) were sitting on it while the west lacked it (as is, alas, too often the case). But anyway this is a start to a SOF didachology.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Thanks Mousethief, I could have guessed it would be one of our Orthodox friends who'd teach me something new about the Didache.
--------------------
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
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
Posted by Father Gregory in Purgatory
quote:
Just to add a little more to the cake mix, (and I know all you guys won't agree with this by a long way); in the Orthodox Church we place great store by how the fathers interpreted Scripture. We don't say that this THE way but we do give their interpretations a certain priority in hermeneutics. If of course something crops up that they were not asked to address or didn't know then we simply proceed on the basis of their method and approach. Since this was itself a catholic (inclusive) mind we feel safe doing that ... but as for some bright spark who has just had a really cool idea about this, that or the other verse .... well, we submit that to the critique of others. It may be true, it may not. Only the mind of the Church (the scribes and editors of God's Word) can do that safely and rescue us from the vagaries of idiosyncratic interpretations penned by individuals no matter how learned.
I have to say this isn't that far from the way I would use an evangelical commentator I respect to help me interpret the Bible. Of course if there is a huge body of opinion from people who's views I respect I will lean towards their interpretation.
I suppose the difference is that I wouldn't view it as authoritative, and I wouldn't want it to become an accepted or formalised interpretative framework, because I do believe in (and many of you will think I am mad) in the perspicuity of Scripture to the individual. I don't trust the "mind of the church" as a whole to interpret on my behalf. And I'm glad Matin Luther didn't too. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
AB
Shipmate
# 4060
|
Posted
Hi Lep,
Glad you've decided to pop over here, as I was kinda keen to explore some inerrancy themes with you.
I guess my main issue with inerrancy is that if you come to the text with an explicit idea of interpretting such that it doesn't err, than you aren't actually creating the best circumstance for impartial understanding of the text and thus 'true meaning' of the text.
I'm thinking of some of the more interesting ideas suggested to resolve supposed 'errors' in the text (Judas's death as case in point...)
AB
--------------------
"This is all that I've known for certain, that God is love. Even if I have been mistaken on this or that point: God is nevertheless love."
- Søren Kierkegaard
Posts: 513 | From: not so sunny Warwickshire | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I guess it's a matter of emphasis Leprechaun. There is also the issue of the dependability of previous commentary. As far as the Orthodox are concerned we tend only to trust learned saints of proven pedigree. We make a distinction between formal teaching and theological opinion in that regard.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
I guess my main issue with inerrancy is that if you come to the text with an explicit idea of interpretting such that it doesn't err, than you aren't actually creating the best circumstance for impartial understanding of the text and thus 'true meaning' of the text.
AB
I have a confession. I have not read this whole thread. Neither am I going to. So if all of this has been said before, forgive me.
For me, its a character of God issue. The reason I come to the Bible with a presumption of inerrancy now, is because I have come to know the God of the Bible as one who only speaks the truth.
Coming knowing the author of the text will therefore only help me understand it better rather than obscuring the meaning.
I am assuming we all agree with that description of God's character.
So I think you are left with choices, of watering down the idea of inspiration (saying there are mistakes, but they are not God's, which is the path of most liberal scholarship) or opting for inerrancy, within the bounds of genre and subject matter (which are big caveats.)
Simply put, that's why I believe it.
Er...not sure what else to say...
[ 17. February 2004, 13:25: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Leprechaun
God speaks through the Bible ... certainly ... but he still speaks through fallible human agents. We are not like Muslims who believe that Allah simply dictated to Muhammad what he should write.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Leprechaun
God speaks through the Bible ... certainly ... but he still speaks through fallible human agents. We are not like Muslims who believe that Allah simply dictated to Muhammad what he should write.
I don't disagree with this. But the Bible assures us in many places that its words are "the word of the Lord" even though they are spoken to us through human people. This part of the great richness and variety of the Bible, yet it doesn't undermine its reliability. IMO anyway.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I don't think it makes any such claim.
It claims from place to place that a given passage is "the Word of the Lord", but the text itself as a whole, no, not that I can see.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I agree Karl. We need to factor into that the variant manuscripts, the extra-ending to St. Mark's gospel, the woman caught in adultery add-on in St. John etc. Of course in Islam, Caliph Uthman had all the variant texts of the Qur'an destroyed so there could be no obvious challenge to claims of Qur'anic inerrancy from text variancy. More honestly IMO the Church zealously kept all the variant MSS. We may not be talking here about errancy in relation to these comparative vatiants ... but we are certainly not positing:- "God says ... write this ..." Of course it has always puzzled me why Protestant Christians don't follow through the logic of this and ascribe to the Church community and authors their proper roles in God guided / inspired Tradition. Well, maybe some do but it rather weakens Sola Scriptura doesn't it? Needless to say I do accept the Bible as God's Word but not divorced from the fallible elements that comprise its human expression. More importantly the Word is the Logos. We believe in a Person, not a Book.
[ 17. February 2004, 14:47: Message edited by: Fr. Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
AB
Shipmate
# 4060
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The reason I come to the Bible with a presumption of inerrancy now, is because I have come to know the God of the Bible as one who only speaks the truth.
Though that begs the question "what is truth?". Is it possible the something factually incorrect could be truth? If so, is it wrong to interpret the Bible to maintain our interpretation of truth?
Food for thought...
AB
--------------------
"This is all that I've known for certain, that God is love. Even if I have been mistaken on this or that point: God is nevertheless love."
- Søren Kierkegaard
Posts: 513 | From: not so sunny Warwickshire | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
I agree Karl....Needless to say I do accept the Bible as God's Word but not divorced from the fallible elements that comprise its human expression. More importantly the Word is the Logos. We believe in a Person, not a Book. [/QB]
I am a little bit confused as how you agree with Karl's statement that the Bible is not the word of the Lord, and then later in the post say that you believe it is.
The Jesus/Bible dialectic when it comes to the phrase "word of the Lord" is one I am familiar with, but think it is a strange discussion - revelation is through words, ultimately THE word made flesh, but even our revelation of Him comes through words. According to you, a lot of which could be mistaken. Which Jesus do you actually believe in then?
Karl, there is another thread on this, I can't remember where - most specifically 2 Tim 3:16, but this covers a whole range of issues about apostolic authority, canonisation, and the Jewish view of the OT that I can't be bothered with. If you don't accept the whole Bible as verbally inspired there is no reason to accept it as inerrant, I agree.
AB, you big postmodern you! ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif) Personally I'm not a big fan of saying something can be true without it being true. But there you go...
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
Oh, and the other thing I meant to say,
My point in my previous post was not that the whole Bible is God's word (although I think it is) but that in the OT the "word of the Lord" often came through human agents while still being called "the word of the Lord". As such I have no concptual problem with believing that to be true of the whole Bible, even though it was not "dictated".
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Yes, I'm sorry Leprechaun. I had not read Karl's post carefully enough. I don't agree with him on that. The whole Bible is the Word of the Lord ... but that doesn't mean that I take it to be inerrant ... eg., which would involve accepting the cosmology / creation process description of Genesis.
You rightly refer to the subset category of prophetic inspiration and utterance as from God.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
eg., which would involve accepting the cosmology / creation process description of Genesis.
Well I'm not sure it would particularly, although I know lots of people who would stone me for saying so. I think I believe that the Bible is inerrant, but because of the genre of Genesis don't think it is trying to describe cosmology quote:
You rightly refer to the subset category of prophetic inspiration and utterance as from God.]
So, just to clarify, do you think those bits are inerrant, even though they were delivered through people, and often, not in the first person?
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
In my opinion, the 500 pound gorilla is not inerrancy, but the great leap from that notion to the idea that the Bible provides simple, authoritative, indisputalbe answers to every moral issue we individually and collectively confront.
I'm sorry, but I am unable to find more than a scant few issues that I can resolve with a simple "The Bible says....." solution. I find that I have to work through these issues carefully and prayerfully in fear and trembling, and having done so, to nevertheless respect and even love those who reach opposite conslusions (and who in many cases seem to damn and demonize me for my conclusions)
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Let's move away slightly from "thus saith the Lord" and consider Samuel's proclamation of the divine ban against the Amalekites. Was that inerrant? Did God really want all those poor benighted souls put to the sword? Uhmmmm.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
In my opinion, the 500 pound gorilla is not inerrancy, but the great leap from that notion to the idea that the Bible provides simple, authoritative, indisputalbe answers to every moral issue we individually and collectively confront.
I'm sorry, but I am unable to find more than a scant few issues that I can resolve with a simple "The Bible says....." solution. I find that I have to work through these issues carefully and prayerfully in fear and trembling, and having done so, to nevertheless respect and even love those who reach opposite conslusions (and who in many cases seem to damn and demonize me for my conclusions)
Greta
I agree with this. I'm nt sure who this is aimed at? I hope I haven't suggested that questions as to how to apply the Bible's teaching today aren't difficult.
FG, I will address your issue when I have more time.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
AB
Shipmate
# 4060
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
AB, you big postmodern you! Personally I'm not a big fan of saying something can be true without it being true. But there you go...
Well, indeed - but I think post-modernism has some interesting questions - such as what constitutes truth.
I do think, as moderns, we have become too bogged down with 'facts' as truth, and have lost, say, the truth of a myth. But we are conditioned to view truth in a particular way - even my mind has a reaction to reading the word truth next to myth. Yet if Genesis 1-3 can be genred as myth (which I think you agree with Lep) then one can see the truth it contains, whilst being, as a source of factual information, untrue. I would use Jesus' parables as a second example - factually untrue, yet a rich container of truth, just expressed in a different style to a factual account.
So if one has travelled to an acceptance that facts are no longer necessarily needed to convey truth, then is it just a short step to claim that possible factual 'errors' or biases are not necessarily important in the conveyance of truth, nor threats to God's character?
AB
--------------------
"This is all that I've known for certain, that God is love. Even if I have been mistaken on this or that point: God is nevertheless love."
- Søren Kierkegaard
Posts: 513 | From: not so sunny Warwickshire | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AB:
I do think, as moderns, we have become too bogged down with 'facts' as truth, and have lost, say, the truth of a myth. But we are conditioned to view truth in a particular way - even my mind has a reaction to reading the word truth next to myth. Yet if Genesis 1-3 can be genred as myth (which I think you agree with Lep) then one can see the truth it contains, whilst being, as a source of factual information, untrue.
Hmmm. I see what you mean. I think the word myth, implies that the things did not happen. I certainly don't think that is the case for Genesis 1-3, merely that they may not be trying to provide a chronological historical account. In fact clearly they aren't because the events overlap. I think there is a subtle but important line by from saying something masquerading as truth (and Genesis "this is the account of the heavens and the earth..." implies that it does claim truth) isn't true, and saying this something doesn't claim to be true. This would certainly be the case for the parables, which I don't think Jesus ever says are true stories.
quote:
So if one has travelled to an acceptance that facts are no longer necessarily needed to convey truth, then is it just a short step to claim that possible factual 'errors' or biases are not necessarily important in the conveyance of truth, nor threats to God's character?
As I said above, this, in my view is quite a large step. From saying God expresses truth by means other than factual accounts, to God expresses truth by things that are factually false. I think this would rightly raise a question for people about whether God could be trusted at all.
FG - aside from the specific point that you raise, your logic seems to be "I can't believe God would say that, therefore it must be a mistake". I don't think that's a great line of argument as the whole Christian faith rests on God doing things which we find hard to believe (incarnation, atonement, resurrection)
I don't understand a lot of things God says or does. But Jesus assures me that God's words are true and that he is always just. That is enough.
Also, I believe that there will be a day of judgement when people who look even a lot less guilty than the Amalekites and their deviant sexual pratcices and child sacrifices looked, will face God's judgement. So, yes, I do believe that Samuel spoke for God when he said those things. Call me barbaric if you will.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
Well people have called me many things in the past, but never a promoter of atheism. How exciting.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
The problem is not "I can't believe God would say that", it's "a loving, merciful and forgiving God as revealed by Jesus is at odds with the God apparently revealed here".
On a personal level, it's "and this violent, barbaric bastard of a God wants me to serve Him out of love? Get out of it!"
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
In my opinion, the 500 pound gorilla is not inerrancy, but the great leap from that notion to the idea that the Bible provides simple, authoritative, indisputalbe answers to every moral issue we individually and collectively confront.
Yes. Exactly. Even if every word in 2 Chronicles is true, as I'm not Jewish, I'm not a king, I'm not walking after the iniquities of Jeroboam son of Nebat, and the Assyrians aren't about to carry me off into captivity; it is not always clear what they are saying to me right now. If anything.
Using the Bible to to inform the way I handle my credit card account is at best problematic, and certainly bears thinking about at least twice.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Hmmm. I see what you mean. I think the word myth, implies that the things did not happen. I certainly don't think that is the case for Genesis 1-3, merely that they may not be trying to provide a chronological historical account. In fact clearly they aren't because the events overlap. I think there is a subtle but important line by from saying something masquerading as truth (and Genesis "this is the account of the heavens and the earth..." implies that it does claim truth) isn't true, and saying this something doesn't claim to be true. This would certainly be the case for the parables, which I don't think Jesus ever says are true stories.
Yes.
Genesis is historically true, though written in rather allusive language.
And the action of Genesis 2.7 took about 3 billion years.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
