Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "The Bible, as originally given, is the inspired and infallible Word of God.
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
It is the supreme authority in all matters of belief and behaviour."
I've read lines like these a couple of times on various sites. This one is taken from the statement of faith of a body called Christian Concern.
My question (and please forgive my theological naivety here) is: what does 'infallible' mean in this context? Is it a cover for 'the Bible is literally true' or something else and if so, what? Are there any mainstream Christian groups who do not claim that the Bible is the 'infallible' Word of God?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/0953.gif) Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I'm not sure the Orfodoxen use that particular shibboleth. It seems a product of post-enlightenment (western) European thought -- as a reaction, I mean.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/12699.jpg) Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
It's a shibboleth for "the Bible supports the theological positions we say it supports."
Not to mention which Bible they mean. The NRSV, the King James, the Textus Receptus, or the more varied and older Greek manuscripts?
-------------------- NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I think it stems from the Chicago Statement (see here ) on Biblical Inerrancy.
It's not very Anglican, though I think Reform sign up to it. Reading through the Articles just now, there's very little of it I could sign up to. YMMV.
-------------------- Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote: It seems a product of post-enlightenment (western) European thought -- as a reaction, I mean.
Not only that, I would suggest that it is primarily a product of North American conservative protestantism from the mid-1800s onward.
That said, the terminology is very important when discussing this matter, so that we all know what we are talking about.
Inspiration: The scriptures, while the work of human authors, are the product of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Infallibility: Suggests that the scriptures are completely true in their statements regarding God, and Christian faith and practice, and Jesus Christ and all that sort of thing.
Inerrancy: Suggests that the scriptures contain absolutely no false statements whatsoever, no only with regard to matters of faith and practice, but also with regard to history and geography and miracles, etc.
Total verbal inspiration: Suggests that God (or alternatively, the Holy Spirit) spoke it word for word, and the human 'authors' were just stenographers.
-------------------- Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it? Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
I'm guessing this will be moved to Dead Horses soon, as it belongs there.
Until such time, there's plenty of discussion scattered about that section, Anglican't (and much embedded in the homosexuality and Flood threads as well).
-------------------- Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
What is the purpose of a statement about a document or documents that we can never see?
-------------------- Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/0953.gif) Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Jon in the Nati: Inspiration: The scriptures, while the work of human authors, are the product of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
This is a bit circular. You said who the inspiration is by, but not what inspiration means.
quote: Infallibility: Suggests that the scriptures are completely true in their statements regarding God, and Christian faith and practice, and Jesus Christ and all that sort of thing.
Which requires that they be clear in their statements re. etc. In other words that the scriptures are self-interpreting. Very Protestant.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Anglican't: It is the supreme authority in all matters of belief and behaviour."
My question (and please forgive my theological naivety here) is: what does 'infallible' mean in this context?
I believe this statement means that where there appears to be a conflict between a 'prophesy' or 'human philosophy' or any other potential source of knowledge it is the Biblical principle which has authority. That is why it can be related to the enlightenment which was pre-occupied with sources of knowledge and evidence. It is an epistemological outlook.
It is not fair to say that it simply reflects the views of a certain group of people. The Bible is silent on a number of issues and con evos accept that these issues should be decided according to each persons conscience.
Personally I believe that this view of scripture is the best model we have of God's revelation. The basis for arguing that the Bible is infallible is that God is infallible. The only difficulty I have here is that as this model of scripture is defined by fallible people, such as myself, and no doubt influenced by the way that we as a culture generally view the world, there is probably a better model which is beyond our understanding. We are constrained by the limited range of words and terms of reference which are available to us.
My view, which I believe is based on scripture, is that God's main priority is that we enter into a relationship with him and relate in the same way to others. As he has revealed himself through scripture it is difficult to grow in a relationship with God without scripture because we won;t know if it's really him or not.
-------------------- Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/0953.gif) Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Makepiece: It is not fair to say that it simply reflects the views of a certain group of people. The Bible is silent on a number of issues and con evos accept that these issues should be decided according to each persons conscience.
This is unclear. Con evos are a certain group of people, and the statement quoted in the title & OP does, in fact, reflect their views. Further there are other groups of people (as evidenced on this thread) whose views it does not reflect.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: quote: Infallibility: Suggests that the scriptures are completely true in their statements regarding God, and Christian faith and practice, and Jesus Christ and all that sort of thing.
Which requires that they be clear in their statements re. etc. In other words that the scriptures are self-interpreting. Very Protestant.
Indeed. You could say that the Delphic Oracles are completely true in their statements regarding God, and Christian faith and practice, and Jesus Christ - plus a whole bunch of other things besides. Doesn't mean that anyone knows what they're on about, until after whatever it is they were supposed to have prophesied has already happened.
It's all just a big crystal ball gazing ruse to me.
When a person A performs activity X (where X is any activity that would be reasonable to perform under the circumstances that person A is under) and then random event Y occurs (where Y is a death in the family of person A, or any other traumatic event in the life of person A that would not normally be associated with activity X), then someone's got an excuse to say "I told you so! It's in the Bible!"
Not like I'm sceptical or anything, though.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: quote: Originally posted by Makepiece: It is not fair to say that it simply reflects the views of a certain group of people. The Bible is silent on a number of issues and con evos accept that these issues should be decided according to each persons conscience.
This is unclear. Con evos are a certain group of people, and the statement quoted in the title & OP does, in fact, reflect their views. Further there are other groups of people (as evidenced on this thread) whose views it does not reflect.
I was referring to SPK's comment that "it's a shibboleth for "the Bible supports the theological positions we say it supports."
I referred to conv evos because they would agree with the statement in the OP. Nevertheless there will often be theological positions which different Con Evos hold upon which the Bible is silent. SPK was mistaken then to suggest that people who hold this belief claim that the Bible supports all of their theological positions. His comment also seemed to suggest that people who agree with the statement are really only promoting their own opinions. My view is that evangelicalism is rooted in the enlightenment desire to be impartial and objective. Rather than human emotion deciding we are called to look at what the Bible is teaching with a cool head. Hence my suggestion that evangelicals are constrained by the fallibility of human reasoning.
-------------------- Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
[Suffering from a virus - first time on board today] It's a Dead Horse .. of course. Off it goes
Barnabas62 Purgatory Host
-------------------- Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: quote: Infallibility: Suggests that the scriptures are completely true in their statements regarding God, and Christian faith and practice, and Jesus Christ and all that sort of thing.
Which requires that they be clear in their statements re. etc. In other words that the scriptures are self-interpreting. Very Protestant.
Why?
Clear does not have to logically follow from true.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Johnny S: quote: Originally posted by mousethief: quote: Infallibility: Suggests that the scriptures are completely true in their statements regarding God, and Christian faith and practice, and Jesus Christ and all that sort of thing.
Which requires that they be clear in their statements re. etc. In other words that the scriptures are self-interpreting.
Why?
Clear does not have to logically follow from true.
It seems very strange to me that people can agree that the Bible is authoritative, but disagree violently on what it says. Being infallible and ambiguous is a strange combination.
-------------------- 'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.' Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/11014.jpg) Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Well, of course, an infallible document is only as infallible as its interpreters.
Just look what some nutjobs can derive from the US Constitution if you want a flawed analogy...
-------------------- Some say that man is the root of all evil Others say God's a drunkard for pain Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Bullfrog.: Well, of course, an infallible document is only as infallible as its interpreters.
Just look what some nutjobs can derive from the US Constitution if you want a flawed analogy...
So it makes saying that it is infallible pointless, except as a banner to group around.
-------------------- 'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.' Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: You said who the inspiration is by, but not what inspiration means.
Use your imagination.
To me it means there is a message to the human heart from God that is salvic, inspirational, motivational..and final.
Of couse, determining the exact message and agreeing on it is problematic because of the lens we see through. Take the continuing virginity of Mary as a doctrine or her sinlessness or her status as God's mother, or the 'Assumption'. You have to alter your lens a bit to discover that sort of inspiration in there. In fact, you have to be very... 'non' protestant.
-------------------- Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Latchkey Kid: It seems very strange to me that people can agree that the Bible is authoritative, but disagree violently on what it says.
Not at all.
Scientists work hard in coming up with better models to explain the world around us. None, I hope, think they have come up with the infallible model, but equally none (IME) stop believing that there is an objective planet out there to be studied. If they did they would quickly lapse into solipsism.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/13878.jpg) Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Latchkey Kid: quote: Originally posted by Bullfrog.: Well, of course, an infallible document is only as infallible as its interpreters.
Just look what some nutjobs can derive from the US Constitution if you want a flawed analogy...
So it makes saying that it is infallible pointless, except as a banner to group around.
Quite possibly.
An alternative way to look at it is that people should be working seriously towards a better understanding of what the true meaning is. But I would agree that in practical terms the idea that the Bible is true isn't immediately useful, because that proposition really doesn't help you very much in working out what the Bible actually says.
I used to bandy around a quote from the West Wing, where a politician asks Toby Ziegler if he thinks the Bible is true. "Yes Sir," he responds, "but I don't think either of us are smart enough to understand it".
-------------------- Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by orfeo: I used to bandy around a quote from the West Wing, where a politician asks Toby Ziegler if he thinks the Bible is true. "Yes Sir," he responds, "but I don't think either of us are smart enough to understand it".
Now you're talking.
Of course, if it was said on The West Wing then it must be true.
Infallibly so.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Johnny S: quote: Originally posted by Latchkey Kid: It seems very strange to me that people can agree that the Bible is authoritative, but disagree violently on what it says.
Not at all.
Scientists work hard in coming up with better models to explain the world around us. None, I hope, think they have come up with the infallible model, but equally none (IME) stop believing that there is an objective planet out there to be studied. If they did they would quickly lapse into solipsism.
By that analogy the only thing infallible about the bible is it saying God exists. Those who claim infallibility usually say there is a lot more than that.
And there are a subjectivists who do not become solipsists, but that is likely to lead to a tangent.
-------------------- 'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.' Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/0953.gif) Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Johnny S: quote: Originally posted by Latchkey Kid: It seems very strange to me that people can agree that the Bible is authoritative, but disagree violently on what it says.
Not at all.
Scientists work hard in coming up with better models to explain the world around us. None, I hope, think they have come up with the infallible model, but equally none (IME) stop believing that there is an objective planet out there to be studied. If they did they would quickly lapse into solipsism.
An infallable but not-infallably-interpretable Bible isn't infallable at all. Why even bother calling the Bible infallable if you can't unpack it infallably? Its infallability is totally unreachable, unobtainable, like Kant's ding-an-sich. It may be there, but it does us no good at all. At that point the infallability of the Bible becomes a "thaaaaaaat's niiiiiice" footnote.
quote: Originally posted by Jamat: quote: Originally posted by mousethief: You said who the inspiration is by, but not what inspiration means.
Use your imagination.
Okay. I imagine that "inspiration" means a beautiful purple unicorn came and stood by St. Paul's side as he wrote the letter to the Romans, telling him what to say and pointing out his spelling errors.
"Use your imagination" is invitation to chaos. I would rather have a definition of the word as it is being used, by the people using it. Not "use my imagination" and make something up that may or may not be the way others are using the word.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: An infallable but not-infallably-interpretable Bible isn't infallable at all. Why even bother calling the Bible infallable if you can't unpack it infallably? Its infallability is totally unreachable, unobtainable, like Kant's ding-an-sich. It may be there, but it does us no good at all. At that point the infallability of the Bible becomes a "thaaaaaaat's niiiiiice" footnote.
Yes, if you're Kant.
Most normal people are quite happy to grasp the difference between knowing truly (but in part) and knowing exhaustively though.
What am I supposed to say? Immanuel Kant but Johnny Can?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
![](http://ship-of-fools.com/UBB/Avatars/admin.gif) Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Alogon: What is the purpose of a statement about a document or documents that we can never see?
The reason for the "as originally given" phrase in such statements of belief is manyfold. First, it means that we're not talking about one single translation having priority. Second, it's a call to a high standard of scholarship to attempt to determine as best as we can the original documents - both the actual words and the original meaning. Third, it's a recognition that interpretation (including translation) is fallible, and hence leads to the practice of comparing and studying different interpretations to attempt to discern the closest we can get to what God is actually trying to tell us. The whole phrase is basically a call to work hard at reading Scripture. We have no excuse to treat Scripture lightly.
On a different point, it's not true that the phrase is an exclusively con-evo, or even just evangelical, statement. When I was ordained an elder of a distinctly not-evangelical congregation of the largely not-evangelical United Reformed Church we assented to a similar statement.
-------------------- 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
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/0953.gif) Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Johnny S: Most normal people are quite happy to grasp the difference between knowing truly (but in part) and knowing exhaustively though.
That presupposes you know that your interpretation is true. But by definition you KANT know that. So your "most people" are perhaps happy but grossly mistaken in their certainty.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/13538.jpg) Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Makepiece:
My view, which I believe is based on scripture, is that God's main priority is that we enter into a relationship with him and relate in the same way to others. As he has revealed himself through scripture it is difficult to grow in a relationship with God without scripture because we won;t know if it's really him or not.
And how would scripture do this?
There is an awful lot of contadiction in there as to God's character and actions.
I would say prayer and meditation is the best route to personal relationship with God. Scripture (some of it) can help devotionally, I think.
If 'Infallible' means exempt from any liability to factual error, then the Bible is far from it.
No scholarship needed to realise this - just read it and see that there's no way much of it is factually or literally true. But who would expect texts written 1000s of years ago to be so?
<typo> [ 16. November 2010, 08:57: Message edited by: Boogie ]
-------------------- Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: quote: Originally posted by Johnny S: Most normal people are quite happy to grasp the difference between knowing truly (but in part) and knowing exhaustively though.
That presupposes you know that your interpretation is true. But by definition you KANT know that. So your "most people" are perhaps happy but grossly mistaken in their certainty.
And that depends on what you mean by 'know'.
Do you know that your view of epistemology is true?
Genghis Khan.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/13878.jpg) Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I have to confess, the fact that both Johnny S and I believe, in principle, in the truth of Scripture but have clashed rather forcefully on another Dead Horses topic is both somewhat amusing and a sign of how impractical the 'infallibility' is.
Oh well. There'll be some interesting conversations in heaven about where we got it embarassingly wrong. Assuming the heaven part is basically accurate...
-------------------- Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/5408.gif) Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: quote: Originally posted by Johnny S: Most normal people are quite happy to grasp the difference between knowing truly (but in part) and knowing exhaustively though.
That presupposes you know that your interpretation is true. But by definition you KANT know that. So your "most people" are perhaps happy but grossly mistaken in their certainty.
Which is an argument against using words for communication at all.
If you're sure the words you have got are a representation of the speaker's view of reality, then I think, it's fair to say, the number of possible interpretations are limited significantly.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Boogie: quote: Originally posted by Makepiece:
My view, which I believe is based on scripture, is that God's main priority is that we enter into a relationship with him and relate in the same way to others. As he has revealed himself through scripture it is difficult to grow in a relationship with God without scripture because we won;t know if it's really him or not.
And how would scripture do this?
There is an awful lot of contadiction in there as to God's character and actions.
I don't think scripture in itself causes a relationship with God to occur but you can't know anyone unless they disclose information about themselves to you. The Bible seems to me to contain the most thorough revelations of God's character available. This is how he seems to have chosen to reveal himself. I don't believe that many people would choose to seek God through prayer without a decent knowledge of scripture because it is scripture which points us in this direction and I agree that prayer is very important.
I disagree that there is no consistent theme regarding God's character. From Genesis through to Revelation the message is that God is faithful to his promises. The promise which he makes to Abraham is an important theme in Hebrews precisely because it is compelling evidence of God's faithfulness as revealed in more depth through Christ. God seems to gradually reveal his character in more depth throughout the Bible. God cannot answer questions which are not being asked and his word cannot be a lamp to our feet if we are not attempting to travel anywhere. It seems to me then that through Israel God led humanity on a spiritual journey which culminated in Christ.
-------------------- Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Makepiece: Yes, but.......
One promise to Abraham was that through him and his descendents all nations would be blessed. Fulfilled in Christ.
Another promise was that of a land. Fulfilled at the price of invading and conquering a people whose land it was. A conquest by military might and with a lot of genocide involved. In other words religious colonialism at its brutal worst.
Hardly a Christian way of doing things.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/0953.gif) Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Johnny S: quote: Originally posted by mousethief: quote: Originally posted by Johnny S: Most normal people are quite happy to grasp the difference between knowing truly (but in part) and knowing exhaustively though.
That presupposes you know that your interpretation is true. But by definition you KANT know that. So your "most people" are perhaps happy but grossly mistaken in their certainty.
And that depends on what you mean by 'know'.
Do you know that your view of epistemology is true?
Sorry. The burden of proof is on you, not me. I'm not claiming inerrancy.
quote: Originally posted by Leprechaun: Which is an argument against using words for communication at all.
Nope. If I don't claim my communication is inerrant. Normal communication doesn't have as high of a bar.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/10578.jpg) Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote: From Genesis through to Revelation the message is that God is faithful to his promises.
God promised the Jews that he'd be faithful to them. God turns around and becomes incarnate as Jesus, who fails to meet the test God establishes for the Messiah in the OT. Yet if Jews don't accept Jesus as the Messiah God, they are going to hell.
That doesn't sound like God is being faithful to his promises. [ 16. November 2010, 17:39: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
-------------------- "Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: [qb]An infallable but not-infallably-interpretable Bible isn't infallable at all. Why even bother calling the Bible infallable if you can't unpack it infallably? Its infallability is totally unreachable, unobtainable, like Kant's ding-an-sich. It may be there, but it does us no good at all. At that point the infallability of the Bible becomes a "thaaaaaaat's niiiiiice" footnote.
Perhaps that's why some people need a pope.
Seriously, I sense a category error here. People who say the Bible is infallible usually mean the one who inspired it, God, is infallible. The Bible is in the sense your're talking about, merely text. Text is produced through a cultural filter and received through one. In itself it cannot be described as anything but inspired by the HS. A different thing to infallible if similarly thorny.
Regarding inspiration, I did define it I though
-------------------- Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/0953.gif) Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Jamat: Seriously, I sense a category error here. People who say the Bible is infallible usually mean the one who inspired it, God, is infallible.
Perhaps they should say what they mean? If anybody then is making a category error, it is those people, not I. Have a word with them, would you?
quote: The Bible is in the sense your're talking about, merely text. Text is produced through a cultural filter and received through one. In itself it cannot be described as anything but inspired by the HS.
Lots of people describe it as not inspired by the Holy Spirit, so this is on its face false.
quote: Regarding inspiration, I did define it I though
Using your imagination? That's what you told me to do. I wasn't asking for a product of the imagination, I was asking what people were actually using the term to mean in this debate.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/0953.gif) Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by ToujoursDan: quote: From Genesis through to Revelation the message is that God is faithful to his promises.
God promised the Jews that he'd be faithful to them. God turns around and becomes incarnate as Jesus, who fails to meet the test God establishes for the Messiah in the OT. Yet if Jews don't accept Jesus as the Messiah God, they are going to hell.
That doesn't sound like God is being faithful to his promises.
He also promised David a permanent and plenary patrilinear* line of kings. That didn't happen either.
---------------------- FOOTNOTE ---------------------- *How's that for some alliteration, eh? eh?
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/10578.jpg) Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
And that Abraham's followers would number as the number of grains of sand on the earth (Gen. 13:16), yet there are fewer Jews in the world than there are people in New York State, and worldwide their number is falling.
-------------------- "Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Jamat: Seriously, I sense a category error here. People who say the Bible is infallible usually mean the one who inspired it, God, is infallible. The Bible is in the sense your're talking about, merely text. Text is produced through a cultural filter and received through one. In itself it cannot be described as anything but inspired by the HS. A different thing to infallible if similarly thorny.
I thought this thread was running under this definition: quote: Originally posted by Jon in the Nati: Infallibility: Suggests that the scriptures are completely true in their statements regarding God, and Christian faith and practice, and Jesus Christ and all that sort of thing.
-------------------- 'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.' Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/0953.gif) Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by ToujoursDan: And that Abraham's followers would number as the number of grains of sand on the earth (Gen. 13:16), yet there are fewer Jews in the world than there are people in New York State, and worldwide their number is falling.
The promise was not for followers but for descendants ("seed" in the quaint King James language; "offspring" in the NIV.) Are Jews the only descendants of Abraham?
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote: I thought this thread was running under this definition:
See, that is why I proposed those definitions and laid them out in the beginning. I wouldn't suggest that those definitions are absolutes (or that they are infallible ) but I have seen too many debates on this subject go completely off the rails because the people involved can't agree on exactly what they are talking about.
Defining terms is key, because it allows us to know that we are talking about the same thing.
-------------------- Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it? Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/0953.gif) Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I was asking for a non-circular definition of "inspiration" out of the belief that agreeing on definitions is necessary to having a discussion that is mroe than simply talking past one another.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
I wasn't aware I was the only person on the Ship who could provide a definition. Frankly, though, I don't have one, and in any case, I'm not sure that is what is being debated here.
This is your party, not mine; I was just trying to help with the setup. [ 16. November 2010, 22:28: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]
-------------------- Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it? Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/0953.gif) Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Jon in the Nati: I wasn't aware I was the only person on the Ship who could provide a definition. Frankly, though, I don't have one, and in any case, I'm not sure that is what is being debated here.
This is your party, not mine; I was just trying to help with the setup.
You're not the only person who could, but you did provide definitions. Except one of them sucked because it was circular. So I asked if you could give a non-circular version. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings or something.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Jon in the Nati: I wasn't aware I was the only person on the Ship who could provide a definition. Frankly, though, I don't have one, and in any case, I'm not sure that is what is being debated here.
This is your party, not mine; I was just trying to help with the setup.
You did help with the set-up. I did not agree with Jamat's statement "People who say the Bible is infallible usually mean the one who inspired it, God, is infallible" which seemed to presume that that was the definition we had been discussing. I had never heard it defined that way before and I doubt that many who believe in the infallibility of the bible would be happy with it.
-------------------- 'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.' Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote: Mousethief: He also promised David a permanent and plenary patrilinear* line of kings. That didn't happen either.
But it will. Christ is David's greater son and his kingdom will not pass away.(The Bible says so.)
The issue is always what preconceptions you bring.
Regarding inspiration, I did define my opinion of it in my original reply above.
Regarding what most people think infallibility is, whose to say? I know more people who think the Bible is divinely 'inspired' than who think the text itself is something you shouldn't roll your smokes in. [ 17. November 2010, 02:57: Message edited by: Jamat ]
-------------------- Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/0953.gif) Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Jamat: quote: Mousethief: He also promised David a permanent and plenary patrilinear* line of kings. That didn't happen either.
But it will. Christ is David's greater son and his kingdom will not pass away.(The Bible says so.)
The kingdom DID pass away. For many years. The promise was not kept.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Jamat: Regarding what most people think infallibility is, whose to say? [/QB]
You did and I disagreed based on my discussions with people over the years and an internet search to make sure I had not been under a misconception all that time.
-------------------- 'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.' Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/5408.gif) Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote: Nope. If I don't claim my communication is inerrant. Normal communication doesn't have as high of a bar.
No, you have misunderstood what I meant to communicate (which may be may fault, word being imprecise and all that)
All that I'm saying is that if a definitive interpretation is necessary for there to be true communication, then using words is always basically a busted flush.
As you're using words, I take it that you think something can be communicated by them.
Infallibility merely restricts the possible interpetative possibilities, it doesn't provide the definitive one, nor does it claim to.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/10578.jpg) Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: quote: Originally posted by ToujoursDan: And that Abraham's followers would number as the number of grains of sand on the earth (Gen. 13:16), yet there are fewer Jews in the world than there are people in New York State, and worldwide their number is falling.
The promise was not for followers but for descendants ("seed" in the quaint King James language; "offspring" in the NIV.) Are Jews the only descendants of Abraham?
Good point.
-------------------- "Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|