Are you a fundamentalist?

[OckhamsRazor]

I believe I am a fundamentalist. Here's a definition.

Merriam-Webster defines it as: Fundamentalism: a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching.

[Calvinist4Him]

I believe I am a fundamentalist. Here's a definition.

Merriam-Webster defines it as: Fundamentalism: a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching.

I am a fundamentalist, however, with the Bible, the ideal method to interpret the Bible is to interpret the literal parts literally and the figurative parts figuratively. In other words, I think that definition is somewhat lacking. Fundamentalists tend to be inerrantists while non-fundy's tend to be errantists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist

I like the following definition...

"Fundamentalist Christianity is a fundamentalist movement, especially within American Protestantism.

The term, Fundamentalist, tends to have a variable meaning. Historically, and for those who use the name to describe themselves, a Fundamentalist Christian is one who holds to all of the five Fundamentals of the Faith as a bare-minimum definition of Christian faith (see the Brief History of Christian fundamentalism below).

Derivatively, a fundamentalist Christian is a Christian who holds the Bible to be infallible, historically accurate, and decisive in all issues of controversy that the Bible is believed to directly address; which was the central issue for which the Christian Fundamentalist movement has contended." - from the following article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=390373&query=fundamentalist&ct=

I am an inerrantist and I agree with the following 5 fundamental Christian doctrines:

Inerrancy of the Bible
The virgin birth and deity of Jesus Christ
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement
The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ
The bodily second coming of Jesus Christ

As a closing note, I am STRONGLY against the KJVOnly fundamentalist movement. It's not something I like to debate, in fact, I would be happy if I never have to debate it at all. I prefer to kindly suggest to those well intentioned fundamentalists to read Dr. James White's book "The KJV-Only Controversey" and to do an in-depth study of the history of the KJV.

[OckhamsRazor]

I am a fundamentalist, however, with the Bible, the ideal method to interpret the Bible is to interpret the literal parts literally and the figurative parts figuratively. In other words, I think that definition is somewhat lacking. Fundamentalists tend to be inerrantists while non-fundy's tend to be errantists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist

I like the following definition...

"Fundamentalist Christianity is a fundamentalist movement, especially within American Protestantism.

The term, Fundamentalist, tends to have a variable meaning. Historically, and for those who use the name to describe themselves, a Fundamentalist Christian is one who holds to all of the five Fundamentals of the Faith as a bare-minimum definition of Christian faith (see the Brief History of Christian fundamentalism below).

Derivatively, a fundamentalist Christian is a Christian who holds the Bible to be infallible, historically accurate, and decisive in all issues of controversy that the Bible is believed to directly address; which was the central issue for which the Christian Fundamentalist movement has contended." - from the following article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=390373&query=fundamentalist&ct=

I am an inerrantist and I agree with the following 5 fundamental Christian doctrines:

Inerrancy of the Bible
The virgin birth and deity of Jesus Christ
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement
The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ
The bodily second coming of Jesus Christ

As a closing note, I am STRONGLY against the KJVOnly fundamentalist movement. It's not something I like to debate, in fact, I would be happy if I never have to debate it at all. I prefer to kindly suggest to those well intentioned fundamentalists to read Dr. James White's book "The KJV-Only Controversey" and to do an in-depth study of the history of the KJV.
Hey brother:

I agree with your post entirely. I share your veiw on everything you siad. I think the proper term for our interpretive system is "The Historical Gramatical" method of literalism. I love and understand my brothers who are gun shy about other versions of the Bible. It was something else that came out of the foundation of the movement I would think. They may be suspicious of liberalism that they were afraid of creeping into the newer versions.:lol:

[shunyadragon]

Hey brother:

I agree with your post entirely. I share your veiw on everything you siad. I think the proper term for our interpretive system is "The Historical Gramatical" method of literalism. I love and understand my brothers who are gun shy about other versions of the Bible. It was something else that came out of the foundation of the movement I would think. They may be suspicious of liberalism that they were afraid of creeping into the newer versions.:lol:I am not a fundimentalist and the black and white seperating of those that believe in inerrancy and the extreme skeptics that believe the entire Bible is a myth is not reality.

I actually have problems with some new translations like NIV and NISV, because when the apparently tried to be very modern in their language they mistranslated some things. I prefer the NAB and NASB for Standardness of translation. The KJV is fine for general reading.

My main objection is the extremes of protestant inerrancy and skepticism make extreme unrealistic claims concerning the history and reliablility of the Bible.

[Calvinist4Him]

I actually have problems with some new translations like NIV and NISV, because when the apparently tried to be very modern in their language they mistranslated some things. I prefer the NAB and NASB for Standardness of translation. The KJV is fine for general reading.

It's true that not all translations are equally as literal, as dynamic, as poetic, as thought for thought. I tend to prefer the most literal of English translations...the NASB, but I'm also rather fond of the NET Bible. I'm not a fan of any and all modern translations, some modern translations are poor.


My main objection is the extremes of protestant inerrancy and skepticism make extreme unrealistic claims concerning the history and reliablility of the Bible.

I find that many people do not understand the Biblical doctrine of inerrancy, or do not understand what inerrancy applies to... As much as skeptics and non-believers may not like it, the doctrine of inerrancy is non-falsifiable because it applies to the original autographs, which are not known to exist. Lower biblical criticism provides strong support for the Biblical doctrine of inerrancy.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I am a fundamentalist, however, with the Bible, the ideal method to interpret the Bible is to interpret the literal parts literally and the figurative parts figuratively. In other words, I think that definition is somewhat lacking. Fundamentalists tend to be inerrantists while non-fundy's tend to be errantists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist

I like the following definition...

"Fundamentalist Christianity is a fundamentalist movement, especially within American Protestantism.

The term, Fundamentalist, tends to have a variable meaning. Historically, and for those who use the name to describe themselves, a Fundamentalist Christian is one who holds to all of the five Fundamentals of the Faith as a bare-minimum definition of Christian faith (see the Brief History of Christian fundamentalism below).

Derivatively, a fundamentalist Christian is a Christian who holds the Bible to be infallible, historically accurate, and decisive in all issues of controversy that the Bible is believed to directly address; which was the central issue for which the Christian Fundamentalist movement has contended." - from the following article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=390373&query=fundamentalist&ct=

I am an inerrantist and I agree with the following 5 fundamental Christian doctrines:

Inerrancy of the Bible
The virgin birth and deity of Jesus Christ
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement
The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ
The bodily second coming of Jesus Christ

As a closing note, I am STRONGLY against the KJVOnly fundamentalist movement. It's not something I like to debate, in fact, I would be happy if I never have to debate it at all. I prefer to kindly suggest to those well intentioned fundamentalists to read Dr. James White's book "The KJV-Only Controversey" and to do an in-depth study of the history of the KJV.

I recommend, "The Remaking of Evangelical Theology" by Gary Dorrien as the only history of Evangelical Theology ever written by a non-Evangelical and "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" by Mark Noll.

Fundamentalism started off the right foot, but it has more or less stagnated intellectually, owing to how it elevates a particular USAmerican version of Christianity, understanding of the Bible into what is God's Truth.

dlw

[shunyadragon]

It's true that not all translations are equally as literal, as dynamic, as poetic, as thought for thought. I tend to prefer the most literal of English translations...the NASB, but I'm also rather fond of the NET Bible. I'm not a fan of any and all modern translations, some modern translations are poor.



I find that many people do not understand the Biblical doctrine of inerrancy, or do not understand what inerrancy applies to... As much as skeptics and non-believers may not like it, the doctrine of inerrancy is non-falsifiable because it applies to the original autographs, which are not known to exist. Lower biblical criticism provides strong support for the Biblical doctrine of inerrancy.
Interesting point that bible doctrine of inerrancy is non-falsifiable because it applies to the original autographs, which are not known to exist. It sounds like that should read non-verifiable

The Lower biblical criticism is more like a circular arguement of internal documentation in that the Bible documents itself. External documentation is limited to that which agrees with internal evidence. Higher biblical critism is basically not allowed to question inerrancy.

I understand that inerrancy means different things to different people. Inerrancy in the Roman Church allows for theistic evolution, but in fundimentalist Christianity Genesis is considered inerrant so no form of evolution is allowed.

I think my I am willing to listen to any arguement as to what inerrancy is applied to, but I do find that the logic of what is inerrant is some what circular and not subject to external evidence. It is often the case that internal evidence is not considered.

For example it is acceptable from my point of view that inerrancy should not be applied to the man in the whale and the circumference of a circle and some other points skeptics are picky about. Unfortunately it is impossible based on any form of external evidence that Genesis is a literal word for word record of God's creation of the earth.

[OckhamsRazor]

Interesting point that bible doctrine of inerrancy is non-falsifiable because it applies to the original autographs, which are not known to exist. It sounds like that should read non-verifiable

The Lower biblical criticism is more like a circular arguement of internal documentation in that the Bible documents itself. External documentation is limited to that which agrees with internal evidence. Higher biblical critism is basically not allowed to question inerrancy.

I understand that inerrancy means different things to different people. Inerrancy in the Roman Church allows for theistic evolution, but in fundimentalist Christianity Genesis is considered inerrant so no form of evolution is allowed.

I think my I am willing to listen to any arguement as to what inerrancy is applied to, but I do find that the logic of what is inerrant is some what circular and not subject to external evidence. It is often the case that internal evidence is not considered.

For example it is acceptable from my point of view that inerrancy should not be applied to the man in the whale and the circumference of a circle and some other points skeptics are picky about. Unfortunately it is impossible based on any form of external evidence that Genesis is a literal word for word record of God's creation of the earth.
Internal evidence is a valid method as a part of textual critsizm. If you are studying external evidences read Sir William Ramseys work on Luke. You could also read Albrights work on Archaeology and/or Kathleen Kenyon. There is newer work but these are really good and famous people.
As far a the issue of the circle: from what I understand the number you come up with for pi is like 3. Pi is 3.14. To point to that as an example of error is being pedantic (nit picky) actually given the accuracy of Jewish copiest tradition of the ancient world and early European Christian world coming to to number 3 when you solve for pi is remarkably accurate. One is allowed to round of numbers and still be considered accurate because the Bible isn't a mathematical text. ADVICE: Read the scriptures as an historian searching for what the text is trying to tell us, rather than the skeptic who is often only interested in disproving the Bible.

[OckhamsRazor]

I recommend, "The Remaking of Evangelical Theology" by Gary Dorrien as the only history of Evangelical Theology ever written by a non-Evangelical and "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" by Mark Noll.

Fundamentalism started off the right foot, but it has more or less stagnated intellectually, owing to how it elevates a particular USAmerican version of Christianity, understanding of the Bible into what is God's Truth.

dlw
Actually, it doesn't much matter what their accusations might be. One only has to read the Bible in a reasonable fasion and you can come to many of the same conclusions that fundamentalists do.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Actually, it doesn't much matter what their accusations might be. One only has to read the Bible in a reasonable fasion and you can come to many of the same conclusions that fundamentalists do.

Well, my friend, that would be a statement that a fundamentalist would make.

dlw

[Cephas]

I was thinking about this... while there are creeps like Falwell who I consider totally indefensible, I don't mind being called a "fundamentalist." The media have co-opted that word to mean crazy, control-freak BapTalibans who have ties to the KKK. I (now) hold a rather tight interpretation of the Bible, and do find it useful as guide to living and loving.

The thing is the Bible calls for both harshness and tenderness--what is important is when (and to whom) to be harsh and when (and to whom) to be tender.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I was thinking about this... while there are creeps like Falwell who I consider totally indefensible, I don't mind being called a "fundamentalist." The media have co-opted that word to mean crazy, control-freak BapTalibans who have ties to the KKK. I (now) hold a rather tight interpretation of the Bible, and do find it useful as guide to living and loving.

The thing is the Bible calls for both harshness and tenderness--what is important is when (and to whom) to be harsh and when (and to whom) to be tender.

Here is a link to the post where I give my def'n of fundamentalism vs. evangelical. http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=580966&postcount=21

I don't think it is so much a matter of how we as Christians answer the question of how best to let our lights shine in this world, but whether we read the answers we make into the Bible or whether we acknowledge that they are not completely derived from the Bible, which isn't a blue-print for right-conduct in every conceivable ethical situation. We need to strive to understand the Bible as its immediate audience so long ago understood it and then we need to exegete its teachings to apply them to the somewhat different problems of today.

dlw

[Cephas]

the Bible, which isn't a blue-print for right-conduct in every conceivable ethical situation. We need to strive to understand the Bible as its immediate audience so long ago understood it and then we need to exegete its teachings to apply them to the somewhat different problems of today.

dlw"There is nothing new under the sun"--King Solomon, or whoever wrote Ecclesiastes.

DLW, have you read the whole Bible? (I haven't, so I'm not judging you). I was surprised to see how useful the Bible was when I had a problem, prayed about it, and cracked it open. Funny how I saw just the verses I needed whenever I had a problem.
I've been using my signature verse (and its context) lately to help cope with unbelievers and different interpretations of Scripture.

[OckhamsRazor]

Here is a link to the post where I give my def'n of fundamentalism vs. evangelical. http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=580966&postcount=21

I don't think it is so much a matter of how we as Christians answer the question of how best to let our lights shine in this world, but whether we read the answers we make into the Bible or whether we acknowledge that they are not completely derived from the Bible, which isn't a blue-print for right-conduct in every conceivable ethical situation. We need to strive to understand the Bible as its immediate audience so long ago understood it and then we need to exegete its teachings to apply them to the somewhat different problems of today.

dlw
First the concept of understanding it in it's historical context shouldn't destroy it's obvious teachings. If Paul is condeming homosexuality one should not then read psychology into the text and then say Paul was sexually repressed or some how messed up. For one thing that's bad psychology, it's diagnosing someone that that person has never interviewed or put through a battery of diagnostics. They are speculating. I wouldn't trust them with my head let's just put it that way. Paul was condeming homosexuality in a pretty strait forward way. Now, to use historical context would be to look at who the people he was speaking to. He was speaking to a people where there was alot of sexual immorality. This would explain why it's a part of his discussion with them. A better example of were looking for an historical context is where he says not to seek to be married. He was speaking to people that were suffering severe persecution, but he also adds in his writtings that people were free to marry if they were struggling to stay pure. In other passages he says each should have his own wife. So we know that we are going to have to look at the context. This doesn't mean that every thing that Paul says should be filtered through someones analysis. Most things seem pretty strait forward. Secondly, if you are calling it Paul's words only, then you are denying that the writtings of Paul are the word of God. Which is another reason to be suspect of that persons interpritation. Any time someone comprimises a fundamental truth of the Christian faith, it calls into question the reality of their claim to be Christians. Now I know people get confused and are misled. At the same time though I would caution that a belief system that violates the fundamental teachings of Christianity should be avoided. If you don't hold to those basics then you are not holding to Christianity by definition. To be Christian requires that you believe in it's fundamentals. All orthodox Christian denominations (or churchs that still hold to orthodoxy with in their denomination) hold these fundamental truths in common. ie: virgin birth, sinless life of Christ, the diety of Jesus, the completeness of Jesus' work on the cross to save us from our sins, the literal physical resurrection from the dead ect. These are the fundamentals of the Christian faith, and there are a few more as well. These are the issues on which no compromise can be made. Any church that denies these central truths is not Christian.

~Electric

[themuzicman]

The fundamentalist movement of the 1920s (which continues today) also included a separatist mindset, in that they remove themselves from the culture as much as possible.

Inerrancy, deity of Christ, the trinity, and salvation by grace through faith without the separatism is evangelicalism.

Michael

[shunyadragon]

Internal evidence is a valid method as a part of textual critsizm. If you are studying external evidences read Sir William Ramseys work on Luke. You could also read Albrights work on Archaeology and/or Kathleen Kenyon. There is newer work but these are really good and famous people.
As far a the issue of the circle: from what I understand the number you come up with for pi is like 3. Pi is 3.14. To point to that as an example of error is being pedantic (nit picky) actually given the accuracy of Jewish copiest tradition of the ancient world and early European Christian world coming to to number 3 when you solve for pi is remarkably accurate. One is allowed to round of numbers and still be considered accurate because the Bible isn't a mathematical text. ADVICE: Read the scriptures as an historian searching for what the text is trying to tell us, rather than the skeptic who is often only interested in disproving the Bible.

My interest is not disproving the Bible, but to make the understanding of the Bible more realistic in light of history, science and the modern world. At present fundimentalist Christianity takes an unreasonable extreme position.

The deal with the circle is not a remarkably accurate figure. It is just okay for the time.

I have read the above mention works and occasionaly go back take a second look. The are okay, sometimes a bit biased and also should be balenced with other more recent research and opinions.

[shunyadragon]

Actually, it doesn't much matter what their accusations might be. One only has to read the Bible in a reasonable fasion and you can come to many of the same conclusions that fundamentalists do.

Your assuming that ' reasonable fashion' is the conclusions that the fundimentalists make, but I do not consider it reasonable in light of modern knowledge of history, science and Biblical Archeology.
.

[elysian]

I would say I am most certainly orthodox (with the small "o" meaning "traditional") and evangelical. Many Lutherans refer to themselves as "evangelical catholics" (the word "catholic" meaning "universal" not "Roman Catholic") because the church was never meant to be a secret society and Christianity was never intended to be limited to 45 minutes on Sunday morning.

The Great Commission is what Jesus told believers to do. In effect He said, "If you believe Me, and you know I AM Who I say I AM, then you will do these things." If you believe a parachute will break your fall if you jump out of a plane, that observation will influence your actions. You will not hesitate to jump out of the plane if you have faith that your parachute will break your fall. Your faith has no practical application if you say "I believe the parachute will break my fall" but you fail to make the jump, what use is your faith? Faith leads to action.

"Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Matthew 28:18-20 (NIV)

Jesus is saying in the Great Commission: "Get out there!" We are called to be His presence in the world. How we live the remaining 167 1/4 hours of the week that we are not in church is our real act of worship. What many of us call worship should rightly be called by its old fashioned name: "Divine Service"- it is in the liturgy that we are being served by God in Word and Sacrament and we are equipped for a life of worship.

Martin Luther taught that the Bible is the manger that holds the Christ Child- not Christ Himself. Lutherans read and interpret the Bible through the lens of the Cross- knowing that the Scriptures are inspired by God and point us to Christ. We interpret Scripture with Scripture, not just taking random verses out of context (see what Fred Phelps has done by basing his entire theology on the Book of Leviticus and selected verses of Romans) but by seeking the whole counsel of Scripture.

Lutherans recognize the 66 books of the Protestant Bible as inspired (we generally regard the apocrypha as interesting reading, but not inspired Scripture) though Luther himself (in addition to the apocrypha) wanted to cut out both the Book of James because he believed in the context of Luther's times that James' counsel could be interpreted as a form of "works-righteousness," and Revelation because Revelation is just plain bizarre. Fortunately both of those books were left in the canon- but it goes to show it is Christ Who is our focus. When we speak of Biblically-based Christianity we really should speak of Christ-based Christianity While Scripture is God's inspired message to us, it must always be seen through the lens of the Cross.

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. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV)

Scripture is the norm and standard for the Christian's daily life, and includes everything that we would need to know for the purpose of salvation and to come to belief in Jesus Christ:

"Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." John 20:30-31 (NIV)

We are not limited to Scripture but the doctrine of "Scripture Alone" (ok, here's the Lutheran understanding of Sola Scriptura) means that Scripture is the norm and standard that all other information or teachings must adhere to. If a teaching or practice or tradition is clearly against Scripture then it is not valid and should not be practiced. If a teaching or practice or tradition is supported by Scripture then it is valid. If Scripture is silent, the teaching, practice or tradition is optional and may be changed, updated, or deleted if it no longer serves to point people to Christ.

So to make a long story short, no I am not a fundamentalist. I do admire the Baptists' emphasis on Bible study, (Beth Moore is one of my favorite writers/teachers) but the caution is to always study the Bible through the lens of the Cross, with our focus on Christ.

[Twilly Spree]

Hmm.....I would not be by any defintion.

[themuzicman]

And you're ok with that, twilly?

[Twilly Spree]

Not fundamentalist? No not really, I pretty happy where I am.

[themuzicman]

I wasn't referring specifically to fundamentalist, but not evangelical or even orthodox.

Michael

[Da Lone-Warrior]

"There is nothing new under the sun"--King Solomon, or whoever wrote Ecclesiastes.

DLW, have you read the whole Bible? (I haven't, so I'm not judging you). I was surprised to see how useful the Bible was when I had a problem, prayed about it, and cracked it open. Funny how I saw just the verses I needed whenever I had a problem.
I've been using my signature verse (and its context) lately to help cope with unbelievers and different interpretations of Scripture.

We can also misuse the Bible by reading into it all manner of things.

No, I haven't read every single epistle and I've skipped some parts of the OT. I did study Biblical Hermeneutics in College from one of the best NT scholars in the US and I had several additional courses in theology/biblical studies in college as well as self-study since then.


First the concept of understanding it in it's historical context shouldn't destroy it's obvious teachings. If Paul is condeming homosexuality one should not then read psychology into the text and then say Paul was sexually repressed or some how messed up. For one thing that's bad psychology, it's diagnosing someone that that person has never interviewed or put through a battery of diagnostics. They are speculating. I wouldn't trust them with my head let's just put it that way. Paul was condeming homosexuality in a pretty strait forward way.

Paul was condemning the practices of committing homosexual acts that were common in the hellenistic world of his time. He wasn't condemning having a homosexual orientation for the simple reason he was unaware that such existed and the concept of homosexuality as being an orientation to be attracted to people of the same sex didn't emerge until the 19th Ctry, anyways.

I'm not talking about doing a Freudian psycho-analysis of the Bible, allright?



Now, to use historical context would be to look at who the people he was speaking to. He was speaking to a people where there was alot of sexual immorality. This would explain why it's a part of his discussion with them. A better example of were looking for an historical context is where he says not to seek to be married. He was speaking to people that were suffering severe persecution, but he also adds in his writtings that people were free to marry if they were struggling to stay pure. In other passages he says each should have his own wife. So we know that we are going to have to look at the context. This doesn't mean that every thing that Paul says should be filtered through someones analysis. Most things seem pretty strait forward.

Actually, when Paul tells people to stay as they are and not get married, unless they can't help themselves, one has to figure out whether this reflects a perhaps over-optimistic expectation that the second-coming would be soon or was it really something that should hold, regardless. Likewise with proscriptions against women having short hair(it was a common practice of prostitutes to have short hair back then.).

We filter the meaning of the words, regardless.


Secondly, if you are calling it Paul's words only, then you are denying that the writtings of Paul are the word of God. Which is another reason to be suspect of that persons interpritation.

The Bible is like Jesus, both the word of God and the writing of particular individuals in particular cultural settings. That is why we rely on communities of scholars to help us understand the Bible better.


Any time someone comprimises a fundamental truth of the Christian faith, it calls into question the reality of their claim to be Christians. Now I know people get confused and are misled. At the same time though I would caution that a belief system that violates the fundamental teachings of Christianity should be avoided. If you don't hold to those basics then you are not holding to Christianity by definition. To be Christian requires that you believe in it's fundamentals. All orthodox Christian denominations (or churchs that still hold to orthodoxy with in their denomination) hold these fundamental truths in common. ie: virgin birth, sinless life of Christ, the diety of Jesus, the completeness of Jesus' work on the cross to save us from our sins, the literal physical resurrection from the dead ect. These are the

I have no problems with the virgin birth, sinless life of Christ, his deity, as well as the completeness of his sacrifice for our sins and his resurrection from the dead.

I myself don't think that having right theology is requisite for having a relationship with God and that is why I'm willing to dialogue and break bread with Liberal Christians as well with non-Christians who can't accept all of the above for various reasons.

dlw

[Twilly Spree]

Oh...okay I thought you just meant fundy....and I was like no way am I. I'm very happy to be Catholic...whatever category that fits in, I'm not good with this kind of thing.

[themuzicman]

Catholic would be orthodox. That's cool.

[Twilly Spree]

I thought so...but I didn't want to say it then get it wrong.

[Sinai]

I actually have problems with some new translations like NIV and NISV, because when the apparently tried to be very modern in their language they mistranslated some things. I prefer the NAB and NASB for Standardness of translation. The KJV is fine for general reading.


The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, with different parts being written in one of those languages. No word-for-word translation can be fully "literal" and still express all the nuances of the original language.

Each of the major translations of the Bible attempt to accurately convey what the Bible has to say--but may do it in different ways. For example, the NASB tends to do a good job of accurately translating the original meaning of a word to its current English counterpart--but may sacrifice some clarity of thought in the process. The NIV tends to do a better job of translating the thought being conveyed in the original language to a nearly equivalent thought in modern English--but may sacrifice some word-to-word accuracy in the process. The Amplified attempts to give more of the nuances of the original language by placing various English synonymns in parentheses, while a parallel Bible may place each of those other translations (or some other translations) side by side.

There are many good study Bibles available. I typically carry the Life Application Study Bible with me to church, but prefer the Complete Biblical Library for serious study…..

[Calvinist4Him]

Inerrancy, deity of Christ, the trinity, and salvation by grace through faith without the separatism is evangelicalism.

To be honest, I hadn't even considered that seperationism or non-seperationism has anything to do with fundamentalism.

When the word "evangelical" springs to mind, the sharing or spreading of the Gospel of Jesus Christ comes to mind.

This is why I say that I'm an evangelical Christian fundamentalist, because I do think it's up to us to share the gospel, and I hold a hight view of scripture, and I believe in the most basic fundamentals of Christianity.

As far as being in the world but not of it, that's exactly how I see it. I don't think Christians should make an effort to remain safe in their groups, but I also think that fellowship is important. There is a balance between fellowship and evangelizing the gospel. I think that there are several factors to be taken into consideration because I'm not so sure that knocking on doors is everyone's calling. In other words, I think there are many ways a Christian can be a witness. I remember hearing or reading something along these lines..."preach, and if necessary use words". Short and sweet but to the point. I also think that a Christian should be well prepared before taking the gospel unto the world, in fact, I think a Christian should be called of God first, there should be no doubt about the calling. Of course, I am referring to one who has been called into the vocation of evangelism one who is doing evanglism vocally full-time, knowing there are different amounts or levels of evangelism.

Finally, just to be clear about what I mean by evangelism, as I mentioned fellowship is important, and evangelism at a certain level is a calling, and one should be prepared, and that means rather than allowing the world to influence us to be more like the world, we should be influencing the world to become more like Christ. I would imagine, that many well intentioned evangelists have gone out into the world to preach the gospel, and ended up being not much different than the world. Evangelism, doesn't mean compromise, it means being a lamp on a hill on the darkest night of the year.

Ok, I've rambled on enough. :tongue:

[OckhamsRazor]

Your assuming that ' reasonable fashion' is the conclusions that the fundimentalists make, but I do not consider it reasonable in light of modern knowledge of history, science and Biblical Archeology.
.
Shuny:
It would probably be helpful if you were able to access my other posts. I'm not sure you would be able to find them in this paper chase of ours. I've explained this before. If you look at the sciences they have changed constantly in terms of it's theories. The Bible has not. You will notice that the Bible quite often has been right when the theory was quite wrong. You need to keep this in mind during your studies. If you understand that the Bible is the Words Of God, then you need to trust the Scriptures over the tenative theories of men/women in the sciences.
As a fundamentalist I don't generally need to bring many assumptions to the table. The Scriptures can usually be taken in a pretty strait forward way.

~Electric

[OckhamsRazor]

I appreciate your points, I would caution, though, against getting too involved in trying to ferret out a better meaning for a passage. The scholars that translate the text can generally be trusted to do it right. They usually are some of the worlds best. It is unlikely that we will see something that they didn't. I think the best course is to read more than one translation. I would caution against use of the "New World" translation. It is the version used by Jehovahs Witnesses and has been modified in places to fit their teachings.

[OckhamsRazor]

Catholic would be orthodox. That's cool.
Yes Catholicism is considered an orthodox denomination, provided it is the conservative version of that church.

[OckhamsRazor]

Oh...okay I thought you just meant fundy....and I was like no way am I. I'm very happy to be Catholic...whatever category that fits in, I'm not good with this kind of thing.
I would like to adress a point quickly: using the term "Fundy" is a slur. Please don't use it any further.

[OckhamsRazor]

We can also misuse the Bible by reading into it all manner of things.

No, I haven't read every single epistle and I've skipped some parts of the OT. I did study Biblical Hermeneutics in College from one of the best NT scholars in the US and I had several additional courses in theology/biblical studies in college as well as self-study since then.



Paul was condemning the practices of committing homosexual acts that were common in the hellenistic world of his time. He wasn't condemning having a homosexual orientation for the simple reason he was unaware that such existed and the concept of homosexuality as being an orientation to be attracted to people of the same sex didn't emerge until the 19th Ctry, anyways.

I'm not talking about doing a Freudian psycho-analysis of the Bible, allright?



Actually, when Paul tells people to stay as they are and not get married, unless they can't help themselves, one has to figure out whether this reflects a perhaps over-optimistic expectation that the second-coming would be soon or was it really something that should hold, regardless. Likewise with proscriptions against women having short hair(it was a common practice of prostitutes to have short hair back then.).

We filter the meaning of the words, regardless.



The Bible is like Jesus, both the word of God and the writing of particular individuals in particular cultural settings. That is why we rely on communities of scholars to help us understand the Bible better.



I have no problems with the virgin birth, sinless life of Christ, his deity, as well as the completeness of his sacrifice for our sins and his resurrection from the dead.

I myself don't think that having right theology is requisite for having a relationship with God and that is why I'm willing to dialogue and break bread with Liberal Christians as well with non-Christians who can't accept all of the above for various reasons.

dlw
DLW: I would agree that a person that is Born-Again may not be aware of all the fundamentals of the Christian faith. However; if a person is then enlightened to those facts and continues to reject what Jesus said about Him self and the scriptures witness about him it does seem to call into question the validity of their faith. Again how can one call them selves a Christian yet reject that which defines what Christian is.

[OckhamsRazor]

We can also misuse the Bible by reading into it all manner of things.

No, I haven't read every single epistle and I've skipped some parts of the OT. I did study Biblical Hermeneutics in College from one of the best NT scholars in the US and I had several additional courses in theology/biblical studies in college as well as self-study since then.



Paul was condemning the practices of committing homosexual acts that were common in the hellenistic world of his time. He wasn't condemning having a homosexual orientation for the simple reason he was unaware that such existed and the concept of homosexuality as being an orientation to be attracted to people of the same sex didn't emerge until the 19th Ctry, anyways.

I'm not talking about doing a Freudian psycho-analysis of the Bible, allright?



Actually, when Paul tells people to stay as they are and not get married, unless they can't help themselves, one has to figure out whether this reflects a perhaps over-optimistic expectation that the second-coming would be soon or was it really something that should hold, regardless. Likewise with proscriptions against women having short hair(it was a common practice of prostitutes to have short hair back then.).

We filter the meaning of the words, regardless.



The Bible is like Jesus, both the word of God and the writing of particular individuals in particular cultural settings. That is why we rely on communities of scholars to help us understand the Bible better.



I have no problems with the virgin birth, sinless life of Christ, his deity, as well as the completeness of his sacrifice for our sins and his resurrection from the dead.

I myself don't think that having right theology is requisite for having a relationship with God and that is why I'm willing to dialogue and break bread with Liberal Christians as well with non-Christians who can't accept all of the above for various reasons.

dlw
I would disagree with your interpretation of Paul's teachings on homosexuality. The translators saw fit to translate the words that way for one so that should help us. Secondly Paul goes on to say more about that. He points out the same thing later but uses the term " Efeminant" this is quite consistant with modern homosexuality. Paul would be greatly informed by the OT teaching on homosexuality too. Paul speaks of women and men having unnatural affections one for the other in the same sex. There really is no way of seeing what he was talking about as being anything but homosexuality as we know it. Not that I'm aware of. Homosexuality is a behavior first and foremost and so it's clear that he condemed that. And finally, Paul's teaching is the very Word Of God. His doctrine of being not married has to do with the severe persecution of the church in that area. It would make it even harder on a person to constantly worry for their loved ones. I don't think that wether Paul thought things were close to the end had alot to do with it. In other places he says that each one should have his own wife. He also says a great deal about how to have a healthy family. He also said not to let anyone prevent you from being married. He points out that when he said it would be better to remain as he, he pointed out at some point that that wasn't God's commands but his advice. And again it helps to remember that this is not simply a matter of a mans mind and words but God's mind and words.

Ps there are alot of scholars in the country and around the world. The Jesus seminar people are scholars. Some one being a scholar does not mean that what he says is correct. The arguments he makes must be analyized one at a time and on the merits of that individual arguemnt.

~Electric

[themuzicman]

To be honest, I hadn't even considered that seperationism or non-seperationism has anything to do with fundamentalism.

When the word "evangelical" springs to mind, the sharing or spreading of the Gospel of Jesus Christ comes to mind.

This is why I say that I'm an evangelical Christian fundamentalist, because I do think it's up to us to share the gospel, and I hold a hight view of scripture, and I believe in the most basic fundamentals of Christianity.

As far as being in the world but not of it, that's exactly how I see it. I don't think Christians should make an effort to remain safe in their groups, but I also think that fellowship is important. There is a balance between fellowship and evangelizing the gospel. I think that there are several factors to be taken into consideration because I'm not so sure that knocking on doors is everyone's calling. In other words, I think there are many ways a Christian can be a witness. I remember hearing or reading something along these lines..."preach, and if necessary use words". Short and sweet but to the point. I also think that a Christian should be well prepared before taking the gospel unto the world, in fact, I think a Christian should be called of God first, there should be no doubt about the calling. Of course, I am referring to one who has been called into the vocation of evangelism one who is doing evanglism vocally full-time, knowing there are different amounts or levels of evangelism.

Finally, just to be clear about what I mean by evangelism, as I mentioned fellowship is important, and evangelism at a certain level is a calling, and one should be prepared, and that means rather than allowing the world to influence us to be more like the world, we should be influencing the world to become more like Christ. I would imagine, that many well intentioned evangelists have gone out into the world to preach the gospel, and ended up being not much different than the world. Evangelism, doesn't mean compromise, it means being a lamp on a hill on the darkest night of the year.

Ok, I've rambled on enough. :tongue:

Well, let me give you a bit of recent church history:

Liberal Christianity had been running rampant for 100+ years (depending on if you start with Kant or Scheiermacher), and in the 1920s, almost every denomination split, with conservatives having to form their own denominations, and one common thread among them was that they felt the culture was just took corrupt to continue to interact with, so, as much as they could, they withdrew from it. They were called fundamentalists because they took scripture literally, held to the deity of Christ, the trinity, etc, all the things that the liberal Christians rejected from orthodoxy.

However, in the '40s and '50s, some fundamentalists realized that they weren't fulfilling the evangelical call to preach the gospel (i.e. Billy Graham, who was hated by fundamentalists as a liberal), so they broke with the separatist part of fundamentalists, and began to preach the gospel around the world. They still held to the core orthodox doctrines (inerrancy, deity of Christ, trinity, etc), but they also interacted with the culture to bring about a revival among the unsaved. These people were called the Evangelicals. They even started a society called the Evangelical Theological Society (http://www.etsjets.org/) which survives to this day.

So, now you know a little more recent church history, and the difference between a fundamentalist and an evangelical.

Michael

[Da Lone-Warrior]

DLW: I would agree that a person that is Born-Again may not be aware of all the fundamentals of the Christian faith. However; if a person is then enlightened to those facts and continues to reject what Jesus said about Him self and the scriptures witness about him it does seem to call into question the validity of their faith. Again how can one call them selves a Christian yet reject that which defines what Christian is.

I think the use of the term facts to refer to the fundamentals tends to presume a certainty that just isn't there for the things we affirm by faith in Christianity. That's not to say that our affirmation is totally divorced from reasoning or examination of the evidence, but ultimately they still are acts of faith.

The question comes down to what is essential for someone to have a redeeming relationship with God.

We are all reconcilable to God because of Jesus' death and resurrection, but does someone have to accept as factual that for them to ultimately have a relationship with God?

From my studies of how Christianity developed in the US, I have learned about how our religious beliefs have differed from traditional teachings quite severely and wrongly and, yet, I don't believe that that means we didn't have relationships with God.

Ockham:I would disagree with your interpretation of Paul's teachings on homosexuality. The translators saw fit to translate the words that way for one so that should help us.

dlw:The meanings of words change over time. Much of the heat over homosexuality stems from the ambiguity in the definition that is being used by different parties. The point was that the prevalent def'n used today didn't even exist back in biblical times and so there is no way that Paul could have used it.

Ok:Secondly Paul goes on to say more about that. He points out the same thing later but uses the term " Efeminant" this is quite consistant with modern homosexuality. Paul would be greatly informed by the OT teaching on homosexuality too. Paul speaks of women and men having unnatural affections one for the other in the same sex. There really is no way of seeing what he was talking about as being anything but homosexuality as we know it. Not that I'm aware of. Homosexuality is a behavior first and foremost and so it's clear that he condemed that.

dlw: At issue is how homosexuality was understood in Paul's time, not how it is understood today. We cannot just read our modern-day understandings into the Bible and expect for them to be accurate.

The Bible doesn't establish that homosexuality is a behavior first and foremost, but it reflects how it was viewed as such during its time. Just as it reflects the view that the sun revolved around the earth of its time.


And finally, Paul's teaching is the very Word Of God. His doctrine of being not married has to do with the severe persecution of the church in that area. It would make it even harder on a person to constantly worry for their loved ones. I don't think that wether Paul thought things were close to the end had alot to do with it. In other places he says that each one should have his own wife.

So how do you tell it had to do with the severe persecution as opposed to end-times expectations? By looking carefully at its context, as well as relying on extra scholarship that helps to construct the Paul's ministry and the happenings of the early churches that his letters were responding to.

All this information that we need isn't just given to us by God.

As for each one having their own wife, my point stated earlier was that Paul was unaware that some people are only attracted to people of the same sex. For them to marry someone of the opposite sex would probably result in catastrophe for all parties involved. And so the option is whether the church should mandate lifelong celibacy on their behalf or permit monogamous marriages that aspire to the Christian ideal of marriage in all other respects.


He also says a great deal about how to have a healthy family. He also said not to let anyone prevent you from being married. He points out that when he said it would be better to remain as he, he pointed out at some point that that wasn't God's commands but his advice. And again it helps to remember that this is not simply a matter of a mans mind and words but God's mind and words.

Yes, and we can often tell from the context when it is Paul airing his personal views or whether he is giving authoritative teaching that applies in some form for all time.

It is true that the early church did mandate for christian converts to avoid fornication and homosexual acts, going against the tolerance of such that existed in the roman empire.

But that doesn't mean Paul's teaching dealt exhaustively with every ethical situation that we may face and the knowledge we have of the constitutional nature of some homosexuality is a development that didn't exist in biblical times. That is why we must be careful in how we exegete biblical teaching to deal with this situation, instead of just reading a solution/notion of homosexuality into the Bible.


Ps there are alot of scholars in the country and around the world. The Jesus seminar people are scholars. Some one being a scholar does not mean that what he says is correct. The arguments he makes must be analyized one at a time and on the merits of that individual arguemnt.

I said community of scholars. Ultimately, it is within faith-communities that we deliberate on the meaning of scripture and Christian traditions and consider how the latter may be adapted to take into account our progressive knowledge of the world we live in.

dlw

[Tickle Me Goody]

I am an inerrantist and I agree with the following 5 fundamental Christian doctrines:

Inerrancy of the Bible
The virgin birth and deity of Jesus Christ
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement
The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ
The bodily second coming of Jesus Christ

As a closing note, I am STRONGLY against the KJVOnly fundamentalist movement. It's not something I like to debate, in fact, I would be happy if I never have to debate it at all. I prefer to kindly suggest to those well intentioned fundamentalists to read Dr. James White's book "The KJV-Only Controversey" and to do an in-depth study of the history of the KJV.
Seems to me that the various "translations" also provide different "interpretations". I list, for example, the following somewhat contrversial interpretations of Genesis 2.

I note that the NIV and other versions came after scientific evidence as to the order of creation while KLV and Jewish were before.

Comments as to the order of creation?

gg

Jewish Bible http://www.hareidi.org/bible/Genesis2.htm#1



And HaShem G-d said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.'

19 (http://www.hareidi.org/ref/Genesis2.htm#19)

And out of the ground HaShem G-d formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them; and whatsoever the man would call every living creature, that was to be the name thereof.

20 (http://www.hareidi.org/ref/Genesis2.htm#20)

And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him.






NIV



18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.






KJV





18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
------------------------------------------------------------

[Calvinist4Him]

Seems to me that the various "translations" also provide different "interpretations". I list, for example, the following somewhat contrversial interpretations of Genesis 2.

Please note, ALL translations necessarily involve and include interpretation, and this is certainly understandable when one learns about the differences between Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and English languages.


I note that the NIV and other versions came after scientific evidence as to the order of creation while KLV and Jewish were before.

Quite frankly, that is a load of crapola. The translation of the NIV started in 1968 and ten years later published in 1978. Whatever scientific evidence you are referring to, came after 1978. Now, more to the point, the NIV and KJV are based on two different families of text. The NIV is based on the Alexandrian MSS, and the KJV is based on the Byzantine MSS. Both families of text read nearly identical, but are slightly different in places, but at the same time I think both are reliable. There is some disagreement among scholars as to which family of text is superior over the other. From what I have read, most scholars favor the Alexandrian MSS, sometimes reffered to as the majority text (the textual basis of the NIV), over the Byzantine MSS (the textual basis of the KJV).

The Alexandrian MSS is older and comes before the Byzantine MSS. The NIV reflects the Dead Sea Scroll discovery, where the KJV does not. Furthermore, the KJV is a translation of a translation, where the NIV is not. Also worth mentioning is the fact that the translators of the KJV had far fewer MSS to work with, and let's not forget that the lower Biblical criticism has come a long way in the past four hundred or so years.


Comments as to the order of creation?

Your comparing apples to oranges, when you need to compare the translations with the family of MSS. Furthermore, I am not defending the 100% perfection (in every way) of any English translation, I know better than that. KJVOnly proponents often commit a logical fallacy by comparing one English translation against another English translation, when they should be comparing translations with the manuscripts. Oh what a tremendous responsibility it would be to be a Bible scholar...

[Tickle Me Goody]

Please note, ALL translations necessarily involve and include interpretation, and this is certainly understandable when one learns about the differences between Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and English languages. .Glad you agree. Why are you so hostile about it?



.
Quite frankly, that is a load of crapola. The translation of the NIV started in 1968 and ten years later published in 1978. Whatever scientific evidence you are referring to, came after 1978. Now, more to the point, the NIV and KJV are based on two different families of text. The NIV is based on the Alexandrian MSS, and the KJV is based on the Byzantine MSS. Both families are close, but slightly different in places, and at the same time, both are reliable. There is some disagreement among scholars as to which family of text is superior over the other. From what I have read, most scholars favor the Alexandrian MSS, sometimes reffered to as the majority text (the textual basis of the NIV), over the Byzantine MSS (the textual basis of the KJV)..Contrary to "crapola", my observation that the KJV was written when the order of animals and men was not well known is 100% correct.

.
The Alexandrian MSS is older and comes before the Byzantine MSS. The NIV reflects the Dead Sea Scroll discovery, where the KJV does not. Furthermore, the KJV is a translation of a translation. The translators of the KJV had far fewer MSS to work with, and lower Biblical criticism has come a long way in the past four hundred or so years..So again you agree with me.



.
Your comparing apples to oranges, when you need to compare the translations with the family of MSS. Comparing one English translation with another English translation is one of the major fallacies that KJVOnly proponents often commit.I am not a proponent of any particular text. I mearly presented a few facts and then asked a simple question which you avoided answering. You give an information dump but no direct response ---- and you seem awfully hostile about a simple question. Did I accidentally hit a hot button of yours?


GG

[Calvinist4Him]

Glad you agree. Why are you so hostile about it?

:lol: Is somebody a wee bit sensitive? :wink:




.Contrary to "crapola", my observation that the KJV was written when the order of animals and men was not well known is 100% correct.

The first revision of the KJV was published in 1611, the KJV is a translation of the Latin Vulgate, and William Tyndale's tranlation of the New Testament based on what few MSS he had access to. The KJV has a rich history and is a beautiful translation, is one of the most literal, and accurate English translations, even though it's from a different family of MSS, even though it's a translation of a tranlation.

Now, if your meaning to say that the KJV and or NIV are errant, based on modern Science, I would suggest that your interpretation of an interpretation is incorrect. Furthermore, the Bible is not a Science textbook, and empiracists overanalyze certain texts right out of context.


I am not a proponent of any particular text. I mearly presented a few facts and then asked a simple question which you avoided answering. You give an information dump but no direct response ---- and you seem awfully hostile about a simple question. Did I accidentally hit a hot button of yours?

I am....I'm a proponent of the original autographs (which are not known to exist), the known to exist MSS, and a couple of English translation that I happen to like, namely the NASB and NET...maybe the ESV if I take the time to learn more about the translation and read it.

All that I avoided was the fallacy of comparing two English translations from two different familes of MSS, without knowing or being able to read the texts behind the translations. The order of the words are different...so what, big deal. Did you know that Hebrew reads from left to right? Are you aware of how a 100% literal translation would read? Considering that people are skilled at mis-interpreting the translations the way they are, people would really mis-interprete a 100% literal translation. We say a woman is pregnant, but the Jews during Jesus' time would say "she's having it in the belly".

I'm not hostile to your question, I am trying to avoid commiting a fallacy if you don't mind. And why is the tone of my response become the main subject, why am I the primary subject of your response? Are your buttons THAT sensitive?

[OckhamsRazor]

My interest is not disproving the Bible, but to make the understanding of the Bible more realistic in light of history, science and the modern world. At present fundimentalist Christianity takes an unreasonable extreme position.

#1 Ok show me a passage where that is the case.

#2 Fundamentalists take a gramatical historical literalist method. It's a very strait forward reading of the text. It has been shown to be an accurate method.


I have read the above mention works and occasionaly go back take a second look. The are okay, sometimes a bit biased and also should be balenced with other more recent research and opinions.
Sir William Ramsey was a skeptic who was trained in the German school of criticism of the 19th century. He came to his conclusions by seeing the material discoveries first hand. He came to believe in the validity of Luke after he had been a skeptic. He was convinced by the evidence. Not by a preexisting bias.

As far as WF Albright: Please produce the work that he did that cannot be trusted due to bias. Just one example would be fine.

~Electric

[OckhamsRazor]

:lol: Is somebody a wee bit sensitive? :wink:





The first revision of the KJV was published in 1611, the KJV is a translation of the Latin Vulgate, and William Tyndale's tranlation of the New Testament based on what few MSS he had access to. The KJV has a rich history and is a beautiful translation, is one of the most literal, and accurate English translations, even though it's from a different family of MSS, even though it's a translation of a tranlation.

Now, if your meaning to say that the KJV and or NIV are errant, based on modern Science, I would suggest that your interpretation of an interpretation is incorrect. Furthermore, the Bible is not a Science textbook, and empiracists overanalyze certain texts right out of context.



I am....I'm a proponent of the original autographs (which are not known to exist), the known to exist MSS, and a couple of English translation that I happen to like, namely the NASB and NET...maybe the ESV if I take the time to learn more about the translation and read it.

All that I avoided was the fallacy of comparing two English translations from two different familes of MSS, without knowing or being able to read the texts behind the translations. The order of the words are different...so what, big deal. Did you know that Hebrew reads from left to right? Are you aware of how a 100% literal translation would read? Considering that people are skilled at mis-interpreting the translations the way they are, people would really mis-interprete a 100% literal translation. We say a woman is pregnant, but the Jews during Jesus' time would say "she's having it in the belly".

I'm not hostile to your question, I am trying to avoid commiting a fallacy if you don't mind. And why is the tone of my response become the main subject, why am I the primary subject of your response? Are your buttons THAT sensitive?
I think I disagree with both of you:
It seems to me that the modern translators didn't just go grab a seperate batch of manuscripts, actually they used all of them including the Textus Receptus.

[OckhamsRazor]

Ummm.. the thoughts on how evolution has proceeded over time has been through a few changes. The Bible hasn't. Evo was thought to proceede from a single or a few common ansestors, the Bible has always taught that there were many from the beginning. The Bible has been right so far.

[OckhamsRazor]

Sir William Ramsey was a skeptic who was trained in the German school of criticism of the 19th century. He came to his conclusions by seeing the material discoveries first hand. He came to believe in the validity of Luke after he had been a skeptic. He was convinced by the evidence. Not by a preexisting bias.

As far as WF Albright: Please produce the work that he did that cannot be trusted due to bias. Just one example would be fine.

~Electric

I have to repost this whole thing

I have two challanges for Shuny


#1 produce a passage where the fundamentalists have it wrong.

#2 show me an example of inaccuracy in Albrights work do to bias.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Ummm.. the thoughts on how evolution has proceeded over time has been through a few changes. The Bible hasn't. Evo was thought to proceede from a single or a few common ansestors, the Bible has always taught that there were many from the beginning. The Bible has been right so far.

The scientific method is about successive hypothesis formulation and testing and revision. It is no dust of its back that it has mutated over time.

The Bible never claimed to be a scientific lab-report about how the world came into being.

dlw

[OckhamsRazor]

The scientific method is about successive hypothesis formulation and testing and revision. It is no dust of its back that it has mutated over time.

No.. that's just it the Darwinian model has been on life support for a long time now. It's being kept alive by people who act more like dedicated fans then scientists. Lyell's model denied that catastrophy had a significant place in earths geology. We've since seen that view change dramatically. The Bible has always maintained that posistion. Darwin thought that things would increase in diversity and complexity as we proceed up the geologic colum. We see almost the reverse. If you don't assume the gradulaist view of the strata you'll see some evidence for at least one massive catastrophy. Darwin said there would be only one or a few kinds to start with. The cambrian layer makes that notion almost unthinkable so far. The Bible has always said there would be many complete kinds from the beginning. There is indeed a situation like that.

The Bible never claimed to be a scientific lab-report about how the world came into being.

I never said it was, I will say that the Bible has been right many times and scientists have been wrong many times. Especially when it comes to scientists criticism of the Bible.

dlw
~Electric

[OckhamsRazor]

I think the use of the term facts to refer to the fundamentals tends to presume a certainty that just isn't there for the things we affirm by faith in Christianity. That's not to say that our affirmation is totally divorced from reasoning or examination of the evidence, but ultimately they still are acts of faith.

The question comes down to what is essential for someone to have a redeeming relationship with God.

We are all reconcilable to God because of Jesus' death and resurrection, but does someone have to accept as factual that for them to ultimately have a relationship with God?

From my studies of how Christianity developed in the US, I have learned about how our religious beliefs have differed from traditional teachings quite severely and wrongly and, yet, I don't believe that that means we didn't have relationships with God.

Ockham:I would disagree with your interpretation of Paul's teachings on homosexuality. The translators saw fit to translate the words that way for one so that should help us.

dlw:The meanings of words change over time. Much of the heat over homosexuality stems from the ambiguity in the definition that is being used by different parties. The point was that the prevalent def'n used today didn't even exist back in biblical times and so there is no way that Paul could have used it.

Ok:Secondly Paul goes on to say more about that. He points out the same thing later but uses the term " Efeminant" this is quite consistant with modern homosexuality. Paul would be greatly informed by the OT teaching on homosexuality too. Paul speaks of women and men having unnatural affections one for the other in the same sex. There really is no way of seeing what he was talking about as being anything but homosexuality as we know it. Not that I'm aware of. Homosexuality is a behavior first and foremost and so it's clear that he condemed that.

dlw: At issue is how homosexuality was understood in Paul's time, not how it is understood today. We cannot just read our modern-day understandings into the Bible and expect for them to be accurate.

The Bible doesn't establish that homosexuality is a behavior first and foremost, but it reflects how it was viewed as such during its time. Just as it reflects the view that the sun revolved around the earth of its time.



So how do you tell it had to do with the severe persecution as opposed to end-times expectations? By looking carefully at its context, as well as relying on extra scholarship that helps to construct the Paul's ministry and the happenings of the early churches that his letters were responding to.

All this information that we need isn't just given to us by God.

As for each one having their own wife, my point stated earlier was that Paul was unaware that some people are only attracted to people of the same sex. For them to marry someone of the opposite sex would probably result in catastrophe for all parties involved. And so the option is whether the church should mandate lifelong celibacy on their behalf or permit monogamous marriages that aspire to the Christian ideal of marriage in all other respects.



Yes, and we can often tell from the context when it is Paul airing his personal views or whether he is giving authoritative teaching that applies in some form for all time.

It is true that the early church did mandate for christian converts to avoid fornication and homosexual acts, going against the tolerance of such that existed in the roman empire.

But that doesn't mean Paul's teaching dealt exhaustively with every ethical situation that we may face and the knowledge we have of the constitutional nature of some homosexuality is a development that didn't exist in biblical times. That is why we must be careful in how we exegete biblical teaching to deal with this situation, instead of just reading a solution/notion of homosexuality into the Bible.



I said community of scholars. Ultimately, it is within faith-communities that we deliberate on the meaning of scripture and Christian traditions and consider how the latter may be adapted to take into account our progressive knowledge of the world we live in.

dlw
You missed what I said. The modern translators saw it as appropriate to translate the word homosexual as just that. I'm not sure what you're thinking here. Do you think the translators are ignorant of the culture of the language they're translating. Homosexuallity has always been understood to be just this. Sex between a pair of people of the same sex.
Paul goes on to talk about men burning in lust toward each other. This seems to describe homosexual attraction to me.
You also missed that I pointed out the concept of divine inspiration of the scriptures. You have to do linguistic gymnastics to read homosexuality out of that text. You accuse fundamentalists of having a distorted view of scripture but you are doing everything you can to avoid the strait forward repeated message of scripture on this subject. Plus you ignore the work of many of the worlds finest linguists. You can challange their interpritation if you like, you have the right, but to say that the fundamentalists have it wrong is placing the blame in the wrong place.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny:
It would probably be helpful if you were able to access my other posts. I'm not sure you would be able to find them in this paper chase of ours. I've explained this before. If you look at the sciences they have changed constantly in terms of it's theories. The Bible has not. You will notice that the Bible quite often has been right when the theory was quite wrong. You need to keep this in mind during your studies. If you understand that the Bible is the Words Of God, then you need to trust the Scriptures over the tenative theories of men/women in the sciences.
As a fundamentalist I don't generally need to bring many assumptions to the table. The Scriptures can usually be taken in a pretty strait forward way.

~Electric
Point one - Thank goodness science changes constantly over time, because the knowledge of science changes. We did not have the computer 100 years ago, or our modern medicine. Change has been benificial to humanity. This should not construed as a weakness,the changes have built on previous knowledge and made the foundation stronger.

Point 2 - The bible has changed, we do not have the same Bible as we had in about 300 AD, in fact in the early years as well as today there is not a complete agreement as to what the Bible should contain.

Fortunately some of the morality of the Bible has been abandoned. For example we do not practice slavery any more. The bible cannot be practiced as is in the modern world partly because of the resistence to change.

Point 3 - When is the Bible right and science wrong? An archeac document 2000 and more years old is hardly capable of judging science wrong.

[OckhamsRazor]

Point one - Thank goodness science changes constantly over time, because the knowledge of science changes. We did not have the computer 100 years ago, or our modern medicine. Change has been benificial to humanity. This should not construed as a weakness,the changes have built on previous knowledge and made the foundation stronger.

Point 2 - The bible has changed, we do not have the same Bible as we had in about 300 AD, in fact in the early years as well as today there is not a complete agreement as to what the Bible should contain.

Fortunately some of the morality of the Bible has been abandoned. For example we do not practice slavery any more. The bible cannot be practiced as is in the modern world partly because of the resistence to change.

Point 3 - When is the Bible right and science wrong? An archeac document 2000 and more years old is hardly capable of judging science wrong.

#1 I never said that change is weakness. I'm pointing out that people involved in the sciences try to invalidate the Bible with their theories and they keep changing where as the Bible doesn't have that ablity. So I'm saying that the current findings are especially interesting because the Bible is comfortable with the known facts and the scientists doing the attacking aren't.

#2 On this point you are demonstrating severe ingnorance of the facts about how we came to have the Bibles we have now. The cannon wasn't determined by the council of Nicea it was codified offically. The cannon was already established before that. If you study the history of it you'll see that. Check out a book called The Case For Christ. You'll have your questions about how the cannon was formed.

#3 The slavery you're talking about was equivalent to being in jail now. You were often paying off a debt. It wasn't modern slavery. In the Bible Paul gives advice to slaves on how to serve God in their life as it is then. He also warns masters about the consequences of mistreating a slave. He also teaches that slaves and masters have no distinction before Christ. They are equally valuable. This is quite diffrent from modern slavery.

One final peice of advice: science isn't a body of information that is looming out there like an entity. It is a method. Or any number fields of study. It makes not sense to speak of "Science" being right or wrong.

~Electric

[Tickle Me Goody]

Is somebody a wee bit sensitive? No need to apologize, Spidy



Now, if your meaning to say that the KJV and or NIV are errant, based on modern Science, I would suggest that your interpretation of an interpretation is incorrect. Furthermore, the Bible is not a Science textbook, and empiracists overanalyze certain texts right out of context. Glad to hear that.


I'm not hostile to your question, I am trying to avoid commiting a fallacy if you don't mind. And why is the tone of my response become the main subject, why am I the primary subject of your response? Are your buttons THAT sensitive?I responded to your post which spoke of biblical innerancy. Just wanted to see what you meant & now I know

Go back to spinning webs and climbing buidings and I'll leave you alone for a while.

GG

[Jezz]

The first revision of the KJV was published in 1611, the KJV is a translation of the Latin Vulgate, and William Tyndale's tranlation of the New Testament based on what few MSS he had access to. The KJV has a rich history and is a beautiful translation, is one of the most literal, and accurate English translations, even though it's from a different family of MSS, even though it's a translation of a tranlation.
This is not correct. The New Testament of the KJV was translated from Stephen's Textus Receptus (written in AD 1550), which was Greek. The KJV OT was based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text available at the time. None of it was based on the Vulgate, to my knowledge.

You're perhaps getting confused with the Wycliffe Bible, translated into English by John Wycliffe in ~AD 1380. It was based on the Vulgate.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
If you wish to respond, OckhamsRazor, I suggest you do it in the Apologetics section.


OckhamsRazor (to shunyadragon):
I have two challanges for Shuny

#1 produce a passage where the fundamentalists have it wrong.

#2 show me an example of inaccuracy in Albrights work do to bias.


POWELL:
I'll take the first "challange," that the Bible is inerrant in Mark 2:25-26.

Mark 2:25-26 (KJV):
25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

POWELL:
I see at least three errors here.

1. AFAICT, Abiathar was never "high priest," but only "priest."

2. AFAICT, Abiathar was not directly involved in the shewbread incident, but it was his father Ahimelech.

3. AFAICT, David didn't have men with him at the time. David claimed that the king had sent men ahead, but this was just a lie so Ahimelech would help David out. David was alone, fleeing from the king.

If you think Abiathar was "high priest," OckhamsRazor, then please post the Old Testament passage that justifies that belief.

If you think that Abiathar was involved in the shewbread incident, OckhamsRazor, then please post the Old Testament passage that justifies that belief.

If you think David did have men with him at Nob to whom he gave shewbread, OckhamsRazor, then please post the Old Testament passage that justifies that belief.

John Powell

[OckhamsRazor]

POWELL:
If you wish to respond, OckhamsRazor, I suggest you do it in the Apologetics section.



POWELL:
I'll take the first "challange," that the Bible is inerrant in Mark 2:25-26.

Mark 2:25-26 (KJV):
25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

POWELL:
I see at least three errors here.

1. AFAICT, Abiathar was never "high priest," but only "priest."

2. AFAICT, Abiathar was not directly involved in the shewbread incident, but it was his father Ahimelech.

3. AFAICT, David didn't have men with him at the time. David claimed that the king had sent men ahead, but this was just a lie so Ahimelech would help David out. David was alone, fleeing from the king.

If you think Abiathar was "high priest," OckhamsRazor, then please post the Old Testament passage that justifies that belief.

If you think that Abiathar was involved in the shewbread incident, OckhamsRazor, then please post the Old Testament passage that justifies that belief.

If you think David did have men with him at Nob to whom he gave shewbread, OckhamsRazor, then please post the Old Testament passage that justifies that belief.

John Powell
Well.. let's take a look at your claims here. One the priest that goes in with the sacrafice in a particular year is called the high priest and was determined by casting lots. So that's not a problem.
I will check out your claims further.
DO NOT TELL ME WHERE TO POST MY ANSWERS ON MY OWN POST!!!!!!

[Calvinist4Him]

This is not correct. The New Testament of the KJV was translated from Stephen's Textus Receptus (written in AD 1550), which was Greek. The KJV OT was based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text available at the time. None of it was based on the Vulgate, to my knowledge.

You're perhaps getting confused with the Wycliffe Bible, translated into English by John Wycliffe in ~AD 1380. It was based on the Vulgate.

It would appear that we're both right on some points and wrong on some points...

"Erasmus depended mostly upon two twelf-century manuscripts and had no Greek manuscripts which contained the last six verses of the book of Revelation. He translated those verses from the Latin Vulgate into Greek." - http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/kjvonly.htm

"In 1516 a Roman Catholic scholar and priest, Desiderius Erasmus, published the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament. Over the course of his lifetime four more editions would come out, each differing in various ways from the other. It was this Greek text that influenced the life of Martin Luther.10 Indeed, all of the Reformers11 used this text — a point KJV Only advocates often make. We should point out, however, that their choice of the text was not due to anything other than availability. Erasmus’s text was widely published and relatively inexpensive, and hence was easily obtainable. Textual studies had not yet advanced to the point of even being able to identify different kinds of text types in the underlying Greek manuscripts. Therefore, to attempt to enlist the Reformers as advocates of one particular text type over another is to embroil them in a debate that was not theirs.

Robert Estienne, better known by his Latin name, Stephanus, continued Erasmus’s work. Theodore Beza, who succeeded Calvin in Geneva, used Estienne’s work. Beza was particularly interested in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, even collecting a few of the more important manuscripts himself. He produced a number of editions of the Greek New Testament.

All of these editions — the five of Erasmus, Stephanus’s text (primarily his 1550 edition), and Beza’s editions — were available to the King James translators while they labored between 1604 and 1611. Since these editions differed at various points,12 the translators also played the role of textual critics, weighing the various readings and making decisions as it seemed best to them, just as modern editors and translators do. It is important to note that the resultant King James New Testament text did not exist in that exact form prior to 1611. That is, there is no family of manuscripts, or even a single manuscript, that reads exactly as the King James New Testament. The translators used an "eclectic" methodology, recognizing that no single manuscript should be elevated to the status of the "standard," but that each manuscript contained scribal errors of various kinds, and that the true and original text was best sought in the plurality of texts." - http://www.equip.org/free/DK115.htm

What I really wanted to point out is that... "The Bishops’ Bible was used as the basis for this (KJV) revision/translation, but it was also examined in the light of Hebrew and Greek documents, as well as compared with all other contemporary translations in various European languages." - http://www.zondervanbibles.com/kjv.htm

:doh: It seems like I'm wrong so often that I would be better off saying nothing at all. :argh: *sigh*

[OckhamsRazor]

POWELL:
If you wish to respond, OckhamsRazor, I suggest you do it in the Apologetics section.



POWELL:
I'll take the first "challange," that the Bible is inerrant in Mark 2:25-26.

Mark 2:25-26 (KJV):
25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

POWELL:
I see at least three errors here.

1. AFAICT, Abiathar was never "high priest," but only "priest."

2. AFAICT, Abiathar was not directly involved in the shewbread incident, but it was his father Ahimelech.

3. AFAICT, David didn't have men with him at the time. David claimed that the king had sent men ahead, but this was just a lie so Ahimelech would help David out. David was alone, fleeing from the king.

If you think Abiathar was "high priest," OckhamsRazor, then please post the Old Testament passage that justifies that belief.

If you think that Abiathar was involved in the shewbread incident, OckhamsRazor, then please post the Old Testament passage that justifies that belief.

If you think David did have men with him at Nob to whom he gave shewbread, OckhamsRazor, then please post the Old Testament passage that justifies that belief.

John Powell
Hey hey I'm back already with your answers. My last posts answer at the end was wrong about high priest. But I did do some checking and you are wrong about Abiathar being High Priest. He was right after his father. And it is not unrealistic that he would be mentioned as it being his days because he was more prominent then his father. And actually yes David appeared alone but there is no reason to suppose that he didn't have the people with him that he said he did. If you know about that time period you would know that he had his own band of men. Besides why on earth would he mention young men if there weren't any? Why would he concoct something extra. It makes much more sense that he did have them with. Especially given what I pointed out above. Check out some commentaries and some of these things will be cleared up. The other explaination for this relates to the way they related stories in that day. That in transmitting sacred tradition they were aloud to vary from 10 to 40% and had to be correct in it's central facts. You are reading as a philosopher trying to disprove something rather than reading it as an historian seeking to understand something. You entirely missed the point in the passage if that's all you know about it. The point was to explain to the Pharasies that his disciples were not doing anything wrong by picking the heads of grain. There is nothing wrong with generalizing. And again you impose limits on the passage that aren't there in the OT. You seem to have missed that Jesus was right about the point He was making. And another point is that sometimes the Gosples quote the Septuagint which was a version that the common people were probably in possestion of and it reads slightly diffrently.
One should seek the meaning rather than looking for micro details in hope of criticizing the Scriptures. Historically, even if I were to grant every one of your points on the passage, would still be correct because it transmitted the central point of that event.

[John Powell]

POWELL (post 52):
If you wish to respond, OckhamsRazor, I suggest you do it in the Apologetics section.


OckhamsRazor (post 44 to shunyadragon):
I have two challanges for Shuny

#1 produce a passage where the fundamentalists have it wrong.

#2 show me an example of inaccuracy in Albrights work do to bias.


POWELL (52):
I'll take the first "challange," that the Bible is inerrant in Mark 2:25-26.

Mark 2:25-26 (KJV):
25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

POWELL (52):
I see at least three errors here.

1. AFAICT, Abiathar was never "high priest," but only "priest."

2. AFAICT, Abiathar was not directly involved in the shewbread incident, but it was his father Ahimelech.

3. AFAICT, David didn't have men with him at the time. David claimed that the king had sent men ahead, but this was just a lie so Ahimelech would help David out. David was alone, fleeing from the king.

If you think Abiathar was "high priest," OckhamsRazor, then please post the Old Testament passage that justifies that belief.

If you think that Abiathar was involved in the shewbread incident, OckhamsRazor, then please post the Old Testament passage that justifies that belief.

If you think David did have men with him at Nob to whom he gave shewbread, OckhamsRazor, then please post the Old Testament passage that justifies that belief.

John Powell


OckhamsRazor (post 53):
Well.. let's take a look at your claims here. One the priest that goes in with the sacrafice in a particular year is called the high priest and was determined by casting lots. So that's not a problem.
I will check out your claims further.


POWELL:
You seem to have reversed yourself in your next post, so I won't comment further here.


OckhamsRazor (post 53):
DO NOT TELL ME WHERE TO POST MY ANSWERS ON MY OWN POST!!!!!!


POWELL:
I thought I politely called it a suggestion.


OckhamsRazor (post 55):
Hey hey I'm back already with your answers. My last posts answer at the end was wrong about high priest. But I did do some checking and you are wrong about Abiathar being High Priest. He was right after his father.

POWELL:
If I'm wrong, OckhamsRazor, then where is the scripture showing that? Everywhere I see Abiathar mentioned in the Old Testament I see him referred to as merely "priest," never as "high priest." Where is Abiathar ever referred to as "Abiathar, the high priest" in the Old Testament? Book, chapter, and verse please.


OckhamsRazor (55):
And it is not unrealistic that he would be mentioned as it being his days because he was more prominent then [sic] his father.


POWELL:
What evidence from the Old Testament do you have that Abiathar was significantly more prominent th-A-n his father?

AFAICT, Ahimelech I, Abiathar's father, died for what he thought was right (1 Sam 22:14-18).

AFAICT, on the other hand, rather than dying with the others, Abiathar essentially responded with "to heck with the job, I'm out of here" and fled for his life (1 Sam 22:20). At the end of his career, Abiathar was shamefully removed from office by Solomon for supporting Solomon's rival, Adonijah (1 Kings 2:26-27). Apparently much earlier on, Abiathar was temporarilly removed from office and his son Ahimelech II replaced him (2 Sam 8:17). Perhaps that was for offending God or David.

AFAICT, Abiathar was mentioned by Mark because the writer / speaker mistakenly believed that Abiathar was the priest who gave the shewbread to David. When Matthew (Matt 12:3-4) and Luke (Luke 6:3-4) noticed that error (and the error about the priest being HIGH priest) they apparently decided to just drop the whole priest issue since they didn't feel like correcting Mark and it wasn't essential to their message anyways. However, they retained the "men with David" issue.


OckhamsRazor (55):
And actually yes David appeared alone but there is no reason to suppose that he didn't have the people with him that he said he did.


POWELL:
But, OckhamsRazor, David is LYING to Ahimelech. Isn't that a good reason to doubt his word?

AFAICT, David lied to Ahimelech about being on the king's mission (1 Sam 21:2). David lied to Ahimelech about the royal mission being one of haste (1 Sam 21:8). David lied about the king sending men for David to join up with (1 Sam 21:2). The king surely said nothing of the sort. Apparently, it was all a lie to get food and a weapon from Ahimelech.

Something I find odd about this story is why wasn't Ahimelech wondering why David didn't have a horse? If it's supposed to be a mission of haste then why is David running cross country?

It's too bad that Ahimelech didn't ask David why he didn't have a horse. Ahimelech might have avoided helping the king's enemy and thus avoided the death of himself, the priests, and all the people and animals of Nob. (1 Sam 22:18-19).


OckhamsRazor (55):
If you know about that time period you would know that he had his own band of men.


POWELL:
If David did have a band of men then they were likely given to David by a king who distrusted David and, so, likely to have allegiances to the king if not outright employment as royal informants.

Where is the scripture clearly implying that David had a band of men with him at this time? AFAICT, David is supposed to be alone fleeing for his life.

David likely could not trust anyone in the area of Gibeah except people like Jonathan and his wife Michal. That's probably why he heads south towards his family and friends in Bethlehem. Jonathan, for example, did not share the secret with his own servant, but sent him away before David revealed himself in the field (1 Sam 20:39-40).


OckhamsRazor (55):
Besides why on earth would he mention young men if there weren't any?

POWELL:
Probably because that's the first thing that Ahimelech asks him. David doesn't want to blow his chances for food so he makes up a lie about being on a secret mission and that he's on his way to meet with some men sent by the king.


OckhamsRazor (55):
Why would he concoct something extra.


POWELL:
It's not "extra" OckhamsRazor, it's the question at the forefront of Ahimelech's mind: "Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?" (1 Sam 21:1)


OckhamsRazor (55):
It makes much more sense that he did have them with. Especially given what I pointed out above. Check out some commentaries and some of these things will be cleared up.


POWELL:
If you're willing to defend them then quote some commentaries and we'll see what they clear up.


OckhamsRazor (55):
The other explaination for this relates to the way they related stories in that day. That in transmitting sacred tradition they were aloud to vary from 10 to 40% and had to be correct in it's central facts. You are reading as a philosopher trying to disprove something rather than reading it as an historian seeking to understand something. You entirely missed the point in the passage if that's all you know about it. The point was to explain to the Pharasies that his disciples were not doing anything wrong by picking the heads of grain.


POWELL:
Sort of. It was to point out that doing that which is illegal can be justified if you're doing it to satisify a great hunger.


OckhamsRazor (55):
There is nothing wrong with generalizing. And again you impose limits on the passage that aren't there in the OT. You seem to have missed that Jesus was right about the point He was making. And another point is that sometimes the Gosples quote the Septuagint which was a version that the common people were probably in possestion of and it reads slightly diffrently.


POWELL:
Well then, quote the LXX and let's see if it makes much of a difference, ok?


OckhamsRazor (55):
One should seek the meaning rather than looking for micro details in hope of criticizing the Scriptures. Historically, even if I were to grant every one of your points on the passage, would still be correct because it transmitted the central point of that event.


POWELL:
Listen carefully, OckhamsRazor. If Jesus was wrong about things like Abiathar being high Priest and Abiathar being directly involved in the shewbread incident and David having men with him then apparently either Jesus was not omnigod or Mark was not inspired by omnigod in the way you think.

Isn't that a more important issue to you than whether a starving man is justified in breaking the law to get some food?

John Powell

[OckhamsRazor]

POWELL:
You seem to have reversed yourself in your next post, so I won't comment further here.



POWELL:
I thought I politely called it a suggestion.



POWELL:
If I'm wrong, OckhamsRazor, then where is the scripture showing that? Everywhere I see Abiathar mentioned in the Old Testament I see him referred to as merely "priest," never as "high priest." Where is Abiathar ever referred to as "Abiathar, the high priest" in the Old Testament? Book, chapter, and verse please.



POWELL:
What evidence from the Old Testament do you have that Abiathar was significantly more prominent th-A-n his father?

AFAICT, Ahimelech I, Abiathar's father, died for what he thought was right (1 Sam 22:14-18).

AFAICT, on the other hand, rather than dying with the others, Abiathar essentially responded with "to heck with the job, I'm out of here" and fled for his life (1 Sam 22:20). At the end of his career, Abiathar was shamefully removed from office by Solomon for supporting Solomon's rival, Adonijah (1 Kings 2:26-27). Apparently much earlier on, Abiathar was temporarilly removed from office and his son Ahimelech II replaced him (2 Sam 8:17). Perhaps that was for offending God or David.

AFAICT, Abiathar was mentioned by Mark because the writer / speaker mistakenly believed that Abiathar was the priest who gave the shewbread to David. When Matthew (Matt 12:3-4) and Luke (Luke 6:3-4) noticed that error (and the error about the priest being HIGH priest) they apparently decided to just drop the whole priest issue since they didn't feel like correcting Mark and it wasn't essential to their message anyways. However, they retained the "men with David" issue.



POWELL:
But, OckhamsRazor, David is LYING to Ahimelech. Isn't that a good reason to doubt his word?

AFAICT, David lied to Ahimelech about being on the king's mission (1 Sam 21:2). David lied to Ahimelech about the royal mission being one of haste (1 Sam 21:8). David lied about the king sending men for David to join up with (1 Sam 21:2). The king surely said nothing of the sort. Apparently, it was all a lie to get food and a weapon from Ahimelech.

Something I find odd about this story is why wasn't Ahimelech wondering why David didn't have a horse? If it's supposed to be a mission of haste then why is David running cross country?

It's too bad that Ahimelech didn't ask David why he didn't have a horse. Ahimelech might have avoided helping the king's enemy and thus avoided the death of himself, the priests, and all the people and animals of Nob. (1 Sam 22:18-19).



POWELL:
If David did have a band of men then they were likely given to David by a king who distrusted David and, so, likely to have allegiances to the king if not outright employment as royal informants.

Where is the scripture clearly implying that David had a band of men with him at this time? AFAICT, David is supposed to be alone fleeing for his life.

David likely could not trust anyone in the area of Gibeah except people like Jonathan and his wife Michal. That's probably why he heads south towards his family and friends in Bethlehem. Jonathan, for example, did not share the secret with his own servant, but sent him away before David revealed himself in the field (1 Sam 20:39-40).



POWELL:
Probably because that's the first thing that Ahimelech asks him. David doesn't want to blow his chances for food so he makes up a lie about being on a secret mission and that he's on his way to meet with some men sent by the king.



POWELL:
It's not "extra" OckhamsRazor, it's the question at the forefront of Ahimelech's mind: "Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?" (1 Sam 21:1)



POWELL:
If you're willing to defend them then quote some commentaries and we'll see what they clear up.



POWELL:
Sort of. It was to point out that doing that which is illegal can be justified if you're doing it to satisify a great hunger.



POWELL:
Well then, quote the LXX and let's see if it makes much of a difference, ok?



POWELL:
Listen carefully, OckhamsRazor. If Jesus was wrong about things like Abiathar being high Priest and Abiathar being directly involved in the shewbread incident and David having men with him then apparently either Jesus was not omnigod or Mark was not inspired by omnigod in the way you think.

Isn't that a more important issue to you than whether a starving man is justified in breaking the law to get some food?

John Powell

I'm sorry man but you're going to have to dive into a commentary your self. The commentators usually have a strong knowledge of history that's why they are able to say what they do. If you really want answers why don't you go to the authorities on the subject. I dont' think you give a wit about the answers. I think you are desperately trying to find excuses to attack the Bible. Read my digi signiture and take it as advice. I would engage in this with you further and I''m certain you won't buy what I'm about to say but with your last lines you establshed to me beyond a reasonable doubt what your goal is. There is no point in me trying to explain to you what the truth is because you're going to blow it off. You already think you're smarter than Biblical scholars in my camp. You certainly aren't going to listen to me.

[John Powell]

OckhamsRazor:
I'm sorry man but you're going to have to dive into a commentary your self. The commentators usually have a strong knowledge of history that's why they are able to say what they do.


POWELL:
Maybe they do, but if you won't defend their opinions against an informed opponent how will you know that they're correct about Mark 2:25-26?


OckhamsRazor:
If you really want answers why don't you go to the authorities on the subject.


POWELL:
Because the issue is controversial, important, and I can understand the evidence. Under those circumstances an appeal to authority is inappropriate. Under those circumstances one should scrutinize the reasons people believe the way they do rather than relying on their voiced opinions. Otherwise, you can quote an authority who says Mark 2:25-26 is inerrant and I can quote an authority who says it's errant. The issue remains unresolved.


OckhamsRazor:
I dont' think you give a wit about the answers.


POWELL:
Yes I do, but I think you're feeling uncomfortable about discovering what the correct answers are. Perhaps a little bit of doubt has resulted in your mind and you want to restrain the monster from growing.

Perhaps you see the hammer of my position on Mark 2:25-26 hitting the anvil of your position on Biblical inerrancy, but the hammer doesn't break as quickly as you expect. Furthermore, you hear something that fearfully sounds like the anvil cracking so you decide to terminate the experiment prematurely before you lose your precious anvil. You grab the anvil and run away with it while saying "well, the hammer would have broken against the anvil if we had kept at it." How will you know if you won't let the experiment run its course?


OckhamsRazor:
I think you are desperately trying to find excuses to attack the Bible.


POWELL:
I think you are desperately trying to find excuses to avoid discovering the truth about this issue.


OckhamsRazor:
Read my digi signiture and take it as advice.


POWELL:
I'm giving you an opportunity to make this shewbread issue another one of those hammers worn out by the anvil of the Bible. Could this be a hammer that breaks the inerrancy anvil of the Bible in your mind? It looks that way to me. Why don't you show me with reasoning that isn't the case rather than just blowing it off with something like "go read a fundamentalist commentary on the Bible"?


OckhamsRazor:
I would engage in this with you further and I''m certain you won't buy what I'm about to say but with your last lines you establshed to me beyond a reasonable doubt what your goal is. There is no point in me trying to explain to you what the truth is because you're going to blow it off.


POWELL:
So my goal is to show that Mark 2:25-26 is errant, so what? Your goal should be to show that it's inerrant.

Perhaps you realize that what you have to say about this issue doesn't sound that convincing to yourself.

I'm not going to merely "blow it off," OckhamsRazor, by merely saying something like "you're wrong, go read a liberal commentary on the Bible," but rather my intention is to give you good reasons to think your current opinion is wrong and mine is right.


OckhamsRazor:
You already think you're smarter than Biblical scholars in my camp. You certainly aren't going to listen to me.


POWELL:
Well, I have a Ph.D. in a physical science so maybe I am smarter than the Biblical scholars in your camp. On the other hand, maybe I'm not. So what?

The important thing is that I am willing to listen to you and to respond to your arguments and to try to give you good reasons to believe that you're wrong and I'm right about this issue.

Why aren't you willing to give me good reasons for your hope that the Bible is inerrant in Mark 2:25-26?

John Powell.

1 Pet. 3: 15
. . . be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

[Calvinist4Him]

POWELL:Why aren't you willing to give me good reasons for your hope that the Bible is inerrant in Mark 2:25-26?

If I may intervene, I would like to add to this subdiscussion.

I cannot speak for OckhamsRazor, but although I am an inerrantist, I wouldn't claim that any particular English translation is THE inerrant word of God or THE Bible. If you'll read Article X of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html you'll notice that inerrancy applies to the original autographs which are not known to exist anymore...papyrus doesn't last forever.

Now, I don't want to leave you with what may seem to be "dodging" the "issue". So, the following quote is from the translator notes of the NET Bible...

52tn "A decision about the proper translation of this Greek phrase (ejpiV *AbiaqaVr ajrcierevw", ejpi Abiaqar ajrcierew") is very difficult for a number of reasons. The most natural translation of the phrase is “when Abiathar was high priest,” but this is problematic because Abiathar was not the high priest when David entered the temple and ate the sacred bread; Ahimelech is the priest mentioned in 1 Sam 21:1-7.

Three main solutions have been suggested to resolve this difficulty.

(1) There are alternate readings in various manuscripts, but these are not likely to be original: D W {271} it sys and a few others omit ejpiV *AbiaqaVr ajrcierevw", no doubt in conformity to the parallels in Matt 12:4 and Luke 6:4; {A C Q P S F 074 Ë13 and many others} add tou' before ajrcierevw", giving the meaning “in the days of Abiathar the high priest,” suggesting a more general time frame. Neither reading has significant external support and both most likely are motivated by the difficulty of the original reading.

(2) Many scholars have hypothesized that one of the three individuals who would have been involved in the transmission of the statement (Jesus who uttered it originally, Mark who wrote it down in the Gospel, or Peter who served as Mark’s source) was either wrong about Abiathar or intentionally loose with the biblical data in order to make a point.

(3) It is possible that what is currently understood to be the most natural reading of the text is in fact not correct. (a) There are very few biblical parallels to this grammatical construction (ejpiv + genitive proper noun, followed by an anarthrous common noun), so it is possible that an extensive search for this construction in nonbiblical literature would prove that the meaning does involve a wide time frame. If this is so, “in the days of Abiathar the high priest” would be a viable option. (b) It is also possible that this phrasing serves as a loose way to cite a scripture passage. There is a parallel to this construction in Mark 12:26: “Have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush?” Here the final phrase is simply ejpiV tou' bavtou (ejpi tou batou), but the obvious function of the phrase is to point to a specific passage within the larger section of scripture.

Deciding upon a translation here is difficult. The translation above has followed the current consensus on the most natural and probable meaning of the phrase ejpiV *AbiaqaVr ajrcierevw": “when Abiathar was high priest.” It should be recognized, however, that this translation is tentative because the current state of knowledge about the meaning of this grammatical construction is incomplete, and any decision about the meaning of this text is open to future revision." - NET Bible translators notes

Hope that helps. :smile:

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Why aren't you willing to give me good reasons for your hope that the Bible is inerrant in Mark 2:25-26?

Apologist4Him:
If I may intervene, I would like to add to this subdiscussion.


POWELL:
Of course you're welcome.


Apologist4Him:
I cannot speak for OckhamsRazor, but although I am an inerrantist, I wouldn't claim that any particular English translation is THE inerrant word of God or THE Bible. If you'll read Article X of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html

you'll notice that inerrancy applies to the original autographs which are not known to exist anymore...papyrus doesn't last forever.


POWELL:
How convenient. The Bible is inerrant in a written form that is not available for scrutiny. You might as well claim that the original version in God's personal library is the only inerrant one. The problem for inerrantists is that if the Hebrew and Greek versions they have available are errant then what absolute confidence can they have in what those versions say? They don't have the original autographs.

However, some of the errors I'm dealing with here are the kind of error that is unlikely to have been introduced as a minor scribal error. For example, the issue of the men with David. Without that point the entire polemic matching the men of Jesus with the men of David is seriously altered. On the other hand, it's more possible that someone erred in putting Abiathar instead of Ahimelech and adding "high" to priest. However, the differences seem to be too great to have been a simple accident.


Apologist4Him:
Now, I don't want to leave you with what may seem to be "dodging" the "issue". So, the following quote is from the translator notes of the NET Bible...

52tn "A decision about the proper translation of this Greek phrase (ejpiV *AbiaqaVr ajrcierevw", ejpi Abiaqar ajrcierew") is very difficult for a number of reasons. The most natural translation of the phrase is "when Abiathar was high priest," but this is problematic because Abiathar was not the high priest when David entered the temple and ate the sacred bread; Ahimelech is the priest mentioned in 1 Sam 21:1-7.


POWELL:
It's problematic BECAUSE the translator realizes that Abiathar was not high priest at the time of the shewbread incident. In fact, Abiathar apparently NEVER was "high priest." No translator would have such troubles with the passage if it had said "epi Ahimelech hiereus." They would have been happy to translate it as something like "when Ahimelech was priest" or maybe even "before Ahimelech the priest."


Apologist4Him:
Three main solutions have been suggested to resolve this difficulty.

(1) There are alternate readings in various manuscripts, but these are not likely to be original: D W {271} it sys and a few others omit ejpiV *AbiaqaVr ajrcierevw", no doubt in conformity to the parallels in Matt 12:4 and Luke 6:4; {A C Q P S F 074 Ë13 and many others} add tou' before ajrcierevw", giving the meaning "in the days of Abiathar the high priest," suggesting a more general time frame. Neither reading has significant external support and both most likely are motivated by the difficulty of the original reading.


POWELL:
Perhaps some scribes realized the Abiathar error in Mark 2:25-26 and decided to correct it so that those who are fainter of faith don't have reason to doubt.

Even using this more general meaning of "in the days of X" still doesn't resolve the error, however, because Ahimelech would fit significantly better than Abiathar and because when someone says "in the days of X," unless explicitly explained to be otherwise, its implication is that it occurred during the SOCIALLY IMPORTANT part of that person's life, not anytime during their lifetime (say while they were a child or a fetus in their mother's womb).

For example in Acts 11:28 it speaks of a famine occuring "epi klaudiou kaisoros" meaning "during the days of Claudius Caesar." This implied that the famine occured during the time period that Claudius was Caesar. Surely, Luke did NOT mean to say that the famine occurred during the childhood of Claudius!

For Abiathar, the socially important time would be when he became David's priest, probably not when he was merely an apprentice priest under his father Ahimelech. It would have made a LOT more sense for Mark to imply "during the days of Ahimelech the priest."


Apologist4Him:
(2) Many scholars have hypothesized that one of the three individuals who would have been involved in the transmission of the statement (Jesus who uttered it originally, Mark who wrote it down in the Gospel, or Peter who served as Mark’s source) was either wrong about Abiathar or intentionally loose with the biblical data in order to make a point.


POWELL:
I vote for wrong.

What good purpose would be served by being "loose" with simple facts like who was the priest that gave the shewbread to David? So that Jesus could laugh at the Pharasees when they go look it up, read it, and say "Hey, it wasn't Abiathar, but Ahimelech!"? So Jesus could say: "I was just testing you, ha ha."?


Apologist4Him:
(3) It is possible that what is currently understood to be the most natural reading of the text is in fact not correct. (a) There are very few biblical parallels to this grammatical construction (ejpiv + genitive proper noun, followed by an anarthrous common noun), so it is possible that an extensive search for this construction in nonbiblical literature would prove that the meaning does involve a wide time frame. If this is so, "in the days of Abiathar the high priest" would be a viable option. (b) It is also possible that this phrasing serves as a loose way to cite a scripture passage. There is a parallel to this construction in Mark 12:26: "Have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush?" Here the final phrase is simply ejpiV tou' bavtou (ejpi tou batou), but the obvious function of the phrase is to point to a specific passage within the larger section of scripture.


POWELL:
Yes. You didn't say this, but apparently some people speculate that the Hebrew Bible was divided into sections like "The Bush" and "Abiathar the Priest" and what was meant is that you're supposed to go to those sections to read the story. However, if there were such textual markers, where did they go and why did the section on Abiathar begin a chapter before he's even mentioned? It's all very speculative and AFAICT driven SOLELY by the need to make what appears to be a typical human error into an inerrant Bible.

Even if Jesus didn't mean for them to go to certain marked sections of the text, but just to go to the part of the Bible where the issue is discussed, it would have made more sense for Jesus to tell them to look in the section on Ahimelech the priest rather than on Abiathar the priest. However, if Mark had written "epi Ahimelech hiereus" no one would be suggesting it meant "in the section on Ahimelech the priest." Rather, they'd likely translate it as something like "when Ahimelech was priest" or "before Ahimelech the priest."


Apologist4Him:
Deciding upon a translation here is difficult. The translation above has followed the current consensus on the most natural and probable meaning of the phrase ejpiV *AbiaqaVr ajrcierevw": "when Abiathar was high priest." It should be recognized, however, that this translation is tentative because the current state of knowledge about the meaning of this grammatical construction is incomplete, and any decision about the meaning of this text is open to future revision." - NET Bible translators notes

Hope that helps.


POWELL:
It does.

However, Apologist4Him, besides what I asked above, where's the Old Testament textual evidence that Abiather EVER was "high priest"? AFAICT, he's always referred to as merely "priest," never as "Abiathar, the high priest." Likewise for his father, Ahimelech.

John Powell

[Calvinist4Him]

POWELL:
Of course you're welcome.

:cool:


How convenient.

Indeed, it would seem that once again God has outsmarted the fools who say in their hearts that there is no God by making the doctrine of inerrancy non-falsifiable.


The Bible is inerrant in a written form that is not available for scrutiny.

If we had the autographs, I could imagine the appeals to claims of forgery, incorrect dating, etc, etc. The Bible is always guilty until proven innocent... other ancient documents on the hand, well that's different huh?


You might as well claim that the original version in God's personal library is the only inerrant one.

God is slick like that, I swear He gets the "get out of jail free" card everytime without exception.


The problem for inerrantists is that if the Hebrew and Greek versions they have available are errant then what absolute confidence can they have in what those versions say? They don't have the original autographs.

Actually, we could have an inerrant copy but wouldn't know it because no two MSS are EXACT 100% word for word punctuation for punctuation PERFECT. What your calling "errant" is what textual critics call "varients", and none of the varients effect a major biblical doctrine one way or the other. The scribal errors are few and minor, and even the slightest stroke of the pen, even punctuation errors and misspelled words are counted as a varient. If any ancient document is attested for and accurate, it would be the Old and New Testaments.


However, some of the errors I'm dealing with here are the kind of error that is unlikely to have been introduced as a minor scribal error. For example, the issue of the men with David. Without that point the entire polemic matching the men of Jesus with the men of David is seriously altered. On the other hand, it's more possible that someone erred in putting Abiathar instead of Ahimelech and adding "high" to priest. However, the differences seem to be too great to have been a simple accident.

What do you think of my examples below?

1Sa 21:1 Then David came to Nob to *governor George Bush*; and *George* came trembling to meet David and said to him, "Why are you alone and no one with you?"

Mar 2:26 how he entered the house of God in the time of *George Bush the president*, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?"

or how about this?

1Sa 21:1 Then David came to Nob to *George Bush*; and *George* came trembling to meet David and said to him, "Why are you alone and no one with you?"

Mar 2:26 how he entered the house of God in the time of *George Bush the president*, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?"


POWELL:
It's problematic BECAUSE the translator realizes that Abiathar was not high priest at the time of the shewbread incident. In fact, Abiathar apparently NEVER was "high priest." No translator would have such troubles with the passage if it had said "epi Ahimelech hiereus." They would have been happy to translate it as something like "when Ahimelech was priest" or maybe even "before Ahimelech the priest."

I see, because he is not titled as hight priest in 1 Sam 21, it is not possible that he could have been high priest? How can you rule out the possibility if the text does not explicitely say that he wasn't a high priest at the time? No benifits of the doubt, guilty until proven innocent?


POWELL:
Perhaps some scribes realized the Abiathar error in Mark 2:25-26 and decided to correct it so that those who are fainter of faith don't have reason to doubt.

Oh, but of course. :ahem:


Even using this more general meaning of "in the days of X" still doesn't resolve the error, however, because Ahimelech would fit significantly better than Abiathar and because when someone says "in the days of X," unless explicitly explained to be otherwise, its implication is that it occurred during the SOCIALLY IMPORTANT part of that person's life, not anytime during their lifetime (say while they were a child or a fetus in their mother's womb).

Saul = Paul
Simon Peter = Peter
How many different titles were ascribed to Christ...err...Jesus?

In the days of would solve your puzzle....check it out...Ahimelech was A priest among many priests in the "house of God" of which Abiathar was the high priest. Game over you loose John Powell.

<snip>

[John Powell]

POWELL:
How convenient.

Apologist4Him:
Indeed, it would seem that once again God has outsmarted the fools who say in their hearts that there is no God by making the doctrine of inerrancy non-falsifiable.

POWELL:
The Bible is inerrant in a written form that is not available for scrutiny.

Apologist4Him:
If we had the autographs, I could imagine the appeals to claims of forgery, incorrect dating, etc, etc. The Bible is always guilty until proven innocent... other ancient documents on the hand, well that's different huh?


POWELL:
Human-made things are assumed to contain errors unless proven otherwise. The Bible seems to be a human-made thing so it probably has errors. However, it should not be assumed that any specific passage in the Bible or any other man-made book is in error. It needs to be demonstrated that the passage is more likely to be in error than not.


POWELL:
You might as well claim that the original version in God's personal library is the only inerrant one.

Apologist4Him:
God is slick like that, I swear He gets the "get out of jail free" card everytime without exception.

POWELL:
The problem for inerrantists is that if the Hebrew and Greek versions they have available are errant then what absolute confidence can they have in what those versions say? They don't have the original autographs.

Apologist4Him:
Actually, we could have an inerrant copy but wouldn't know it because no two MSS are EXACT 100% word for word punctuation for punctuation PERFECT. What your calling "errant" is what textual critics call "varients", and none of the varients effect a major biblical doctrine one way or the other. The scribal errors are few and minor, and even the slightest stroke of the pen, even punctuation errors and misspelled words are counted as a varient. If any ancient document is attested for and accurate, it would be the Old and New Testaments.


POWELL:
What I mean by errant is more than merely a scribal mistake or a spelling error by a copyist. What I mean is like Jesus or Mark confusing Abiathar for Ahimelech or giving a rank to them that they didn't have or claiming David had men with him that he didn't have.


POWELL:
However, some of the errors I'm dealing with here are the kind of error that is unlikely to have been introduced as a minor scribal error. For example, the issue of the men with David. Without that point the entire polemic matching the men of Jesus with the men of David is seriously altered. On the other hand, it's more possible that someone erred in putting Abiathar instead of Ahimelech and adding "high" to priest. However, the differences seem to be too great to have been a simple accident.

Apologist4Him:
What do you think of my examples below?

1Sa 21:1 Then David came to Nob to *governor George Bush*; and *George* came trembling to meet David and said to him, "Why are you alone and no one with you?"

Mar 2:26 how he entered the house of God in the time of *George Bush the president*, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?"


POWELL:
Yes, that might work. Although the rephrase of Mark 2:26 is not false, it's misleading. It suggests to the reader that David came to George WHILE George was president.

However, to be analogous to our situation, if 1 Sa 21:1 said that David came to George's father, let's say Prescott Bush, then for Mark to imply that David came to Prescott's son, George, would be an error, yes? And furthermore, if neither George nor his father, Prescott, was ever president, then that would be another error, yes?


Apologist4Him:
or how about this?

1Sa 21:1 Then David came to Nob to *George Bush*; and *George* came trembling to meet David and said to him, "Why are you alone and no one with you?"

Mar 2:26 how he entered the house of God in the time of *George Bush the president*, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?"


POWELL:
That one might work too, unless 1 Sa 21:1 said that David came to Prescott Bush and George, Prescott's son, never was president, which is like what we have.


POWELL:
It's problematic BECAUSE the translator realizes that Abiathar was not high priest at the time of the shewbread incident. In fact, Abiathar apparently NEVER was "high priest." No translator would have such troubles with the passage if it had said "epi Ahimelech hiereus." They would have been happy to translate it as something like "when Ahimelech was priest" or maybe even "before Ahimelech the priest."

Apologist4Him:
I see, because he is not titled as hight priest in 1 Sam 21, it is not possible that he could have been high priest? How can you rule out the possibility if the text does not explicitely say that he wasn't a high priest at the time? No benifits of the doubt, guilty until proven innocent?


POWELL:
Abiathar was NEVER called "Abiathar, the high priest" but always merely priest. Neither was his father, Ahimelech. So why would you claim that either of them were high priests? Because people LATER were called high priests and so people EARLIER must have been called that too?

If George was NEVER referred to as president in history books of our time, but ALWAYS as either governor or nothing, then why would you argue that George was president?

Who was the FIRST person in the Bible referred to as "X, the high priest"?


POWELL:
Perhaps some scribes realized the Abiathar error in Mark 2:25-26 and decided to correct it so that those who are fainter of faith don't have reason to doubt.

Apologist4Him:
Oh, but of course.

POWELL:
Even using this more general meaning of "in the days of X" still doesn't resolve the error, however, because Ahimelech would fit significantly better than Abiathar and because when someone says "in the days of X," unless explicitly explained to be otherwise, its implication is that it occurred during the SOCIALLY IMPORTANT part of that person's life, not anytime during their lifetime (say while they were a child or a fetus in their mother's womb).

Apologist4Him:
Saul = Paul

Simon Peter = Peter

How many different titles were ascribed to Christ...err...Jesus?


POWELL:
I could debate some of that, but it's another issue. So what? Are you saying that because people had alternative names that maybe someone held the high priest's office, despite the fact that this was never stated and it was always stated he was merely a priest?


Apologist4Him:
In the days of would solve your puzzle....check it out...Ahimelech was A priest among many priests in the "house of God" of which Abiathar was the high priest. Game over you loose John Powell.


POWELL:
Not so fast.

Why would the son, Abiathar, outrank the father, Ahimelech? Wouldn't that violate the normal patriarchal order?

Where does the O.T. say or clearly imply that Abiathar or anyone else of his time period was high priest?

AFAICT, Ahimelech was the ranking priest at Nob.

John Powell

[shunyadragon]

#1 I never said that change is weakness. I'm pointing out that people involved in the sciences try to invalidate the Bible with their theories and they keep changing where as the Bible doesn't have that ablity. So I'm saying that the current findings are especially interesting because the Bible is comfortable with the known facts and the scientists doing the attacking aren't.

I believe the failure to change is a weakness. It is unfortunate that the Bible cannot change. That is the weakness of the Bible, change comes about by divisions in Christianity.


#2 On this point you are demonstrating severe ingnorance of the facts about how we came to have the Bibles we have now. The cannon wasn't determined by the council of Nicea it was codified offically. The cannon was already established before that. If you study the history of it you'll see that. Check out a book called The Case For Christ. You'll have your questions about how the cannon was formed. The closest mention of the Canon as we have today is about 180 AD. The Bible as we know it today was not defined during the time when the quotes were made concerning what was the word of God.


#3 The slavery you're talking about was equivalent to being in jail now. You were often paying off a debt. It wasn't modern slavery. In the Bible Paul gives advice to slaves on how to serve God in their life as it is then. He also warns masters about the consequences of mistreating a slave. He also teaches that slaves and masters have no distinction before Christ. They are equally valuable. This is quite diffrent from modern slavery. I have read the book, it offers nothing new.

The slavery your talking about is indentured servatude for Jews only. Slavery for foreigners was people bought and sold and not any different than slavery at any other time. In the south slaves were converted to Christianity and considered equal before God, but like the laws in the Bible they were not equal in any other way.


One final peice of advice: science isn't a body of information that is looming out there like an entity. It is a method. Or any number fields of study. It makes not sense to speak of "Science" being right or wrong. Science is not looming anywhere. Of course there is scientific method, unfortunately Christianity does not have an effective method to change so the result it divides many times over disagreement.

Over 90% of all scientists support evolution. Over 99% of scientist in biology and Geology support evolution. Christianity lacks unity and concensus on many issues.

[OckhamsRazor]

I believe the failure to change is a weakness. It is unfortunate that the Bible cannot change. That is the weakness of the Bible, change comes about by divisions in Christianity.

The closest mention of the Canon as we have today is about 180 AD. The Bible as we know it today was not defined during the time when the quotes were made concerning what was the word of God.


Well.. this is partially my point in this way: the theory presented by many is that the Councle of Nicea (325 A.D.) established the Cannon and conspiritorially took out certain books. That isn't historically true.



The slavery your talking about is indentured servatude for Jews only. Slavery for foreigners was people bought and sold and not any different than slavery at any other time. In the south slaves were converted to Christianity and considered equal before God, but like the laws in the Bible they were not equal in any other way.

I don't know of any distinction made in the Bible between one kind of Slave and another. Also some laws were in response to current practices. They were not endorsments of the practice. Check on teachings about divorce given by Jesus in the book of Matthew. He says the Moses granted divorce to respond to the hardness of their hearts.

I don't know of alot of commentary in the OT about taking slaves from other countries. The only mentions I'm aware of are usually in reference to endentured servitude. And when the Bible mentions strangers to the land there are leagle provisions for them in the law.

Science is not looming anywhere. Of course there is scientific method, unfortunately Christianity does not have an effective method to change so the result it divides many times over disagreement.

You're making a catagory mistake about the Bible. The Bible deals with matters of historical occurance not empirical demonstration.

Over 90% of all scientists support evolution. Over 99% of scientist in biology and Geology support evolution. Christianity lacks unity and concensus on many issues.
The above is an argument made from a majority. (considered and informal logical fallacy) The majority thought that rats and flies spontaneously generated from garbage at one time.

[OckhamsRazor]

Why on earth did you qoute scripture if you don't trust it?
And it seems to me that you don't have the slightest interest in discussing or discovering anything. I believe you are attempting to attangonize me

[OckhamsRazor]

POWELL:
Human-made things are assumed to contain errors unless proven otherwise. The Bible seems to be a human-made thing so it probably has errors. However, it should not be assumed that any specific passage in the Bible or any other man-made book is in error. It needs to be demonstrated that the passage is more likely to be in error than not.

You are in error about this. The dictum of historical textual critisizm is that the document receives the benifit of the doubt.



POWELL:
What I mean by errant is more than merely a scribal mistake or a spelling error by a copyist. What I mean is like Jesus or Mark confusing Abiathar for Ahimelech or giving a rank to them that they didn't have or claiming David had men with him that he didn't have.

Actually you have no warrrant for saying David didn't have men, only that the priest wasn't aware of them. David had men of his own because he was a military commander under Saul. (at least this is very likely)



POWELL:
Yes, that might work. Although the rephrase of Mark 2:26 is not false, it's misleading. It suggests to the reader that David came to George WHILE George was president.

However, to be analogous to our situation, if 1 Sa 21:1 said that David came to George's father, let's say Prescott Bush, then for Mark to imply that David came to Prescott's son, George, would be an error, yes? And furthermore, if neither George nor his father, Prescott, was ever president, then that would be another error, yes?



POWELL:
That one might work too, unless 1 Sa 21:1 said that David came to Prescott Bush and George, Prescott's son, never was president, which is like what we have.



POWELL:
Abiathar was NEVER called "Abiathar, the high priest" but always merely priest. Neither was his father, Ahimelech. So why would you claim that either of them were high priests? Because people LATER were called high priests and so people EARLIER must have been called that too?

If George was NEVER referred to as president in history books of our time, but ALWAYS as either governor or nothing, then why would you argue that George was president?

Who was the FIRST person in the Bible referred to as "X, the high priest"?

You are demonstrating a desire to disbelieve and disprove the Bible rather than trying to actually understand what is being said.
You clearly aren't approaching this as an historian would. The historian doesn't analyize texts the way you do. You look at the text only, the historian takes in account other imformation.



POWELL:
I could debate some of that, but it's another issue. So what? Are you saying that because people had alternative names that maybe someone held the high priest's office, despite the fact that this was never stated and it was always stated he was merely a priest?



POWELL:
Not so fast.

Why would the son, Abiathar, outrank the father, Ahimelech? Wouldn't that violate the normal patriarchal order?

Where does the O.T. say or clearly imply that Abiathar or anyone else of his time period was high priest?

AFAICT, Ahimelech was the ranking priest at Nob.

As far as your insistance that one must qoute your specific text is a bit like demanding a yes/no answer to the question "Have you stopped picking your nose yet?" It assumes part of the accusation (you pick your nose) with out that part being established.
John Powell

[John Powell]

SHUNYDRAGON (post 63):
Over 90% of all scientists support evolution. Over 99% of scientist in biology and Geology support evolution. Christianity lacks unity and concensus on many issues.


OckamsRazor (post 64):
The above is an argument made from a majority. (considered and informal logical fallacy) The majority thought that rats and flies spontaneously generated from garbage at one time.


POWELL:
It's a logical fallacy *IF* the argument is meant to be deductive (i.e. it is implied that the conclusion is certain of being true if the premises were true.) If, however, the argument is meant to be inductive (if it is implied that the conclusion is probably true if the premises were true) then the argument might NOT be fallacious.


OckhamsRazor (post 65):
Why on earth did you qoute scripture if you don't trust it?


POWELL:
Because, OckhamsRazor, you believe it and I want to use premises YOU currently believe so as to persuade you to alter your thinking to be more in line with how I believe. To do that I need to "speak your language" as much as I can.


OckhamsRazor (65):
And it seems to me that you don't have the slightest interest in discussing or discovering anything.


POWELL:
Your impressions are misleading you, OckhamsRazor. On the other hand, I suspect that you have little interest in seriously scrutinizing these problems in Mark 2:25-26 because you don't have what you consider to be really good rebuttals to my arguments.


OckhamsRazor (65):
I believe you are attempting to attangonize me


POWELL:
No, I'm trying to challenge your rational beliefs while giving little importance to your feelings about me personally.



POWELL (post 62 to Apologist4Him):
Human-made things are assumed to contain errors unless proven otherwise. The Bible seems to be a human-made thing so it probably has errors. However, it should not be assumed that any specific passage in the Bible or any other man-made book is in error. It needs to be demonstrated that the passage is more likely to be in error than not.


OckhamsRazor (post 66):
You are in error about this. The dictum of historical textual critisizm is that the document receives the benifit of the doubt.


POWELL:
I think you misunderstand the maxim.

The maxim does not mean that every work claiming to be divinely perfect is assumed to be divinely perfect unless shown to be otherwise. Nor does it mean that if the document is 90% probably wrong in its claim X and 10% possibly right then you should "give the benefit of the doubt" to the document and assume that the document is right. What the "benefit of the doubt" implies is that if the reader is pretty much split 50-50 on whether claim X in a factual-type document is true or false then he should give the benefit of the doubt to the document. However, you have yet to show that my claims about Mark 2:25-26 are pretty much split 50-50 as to whether they are true or false, so the maxim does not seem to apply yet.



POWELL (62):
What I mean by errant is more than merely a scribal mistake or a spelling error by a copyist. What I mean is like Jesus or Mark confusing Abiathar for Ahimelech or giving a rank to them that they didn't have or claiming David had men with him that he didn't have.


OckhamsRazor (66):
Actually you have no warrrant for saying David didn't have men, only that the priest wasn't aware of them. David had men of his own because he was a military commander under Saul. (at least this is very likely)


POWELL:
It's unlikely that David had any men with him since David has been hiding from Saul for days. The only place in the narrative that men are even mentioned is when David LIES to Ahimelech about his mission for the King. Any men that were given to David by Saul were likely to be loyal to Saul, so David could not trust them.

I guess I'll need to tell the story of David up to his arrival at Nob. I'll do that at the end of this post.



POWELL (62):
Yes, that might work. Although the rephrase of Mark 2:26 is not false, it's misleading. It suggests to the reader that David came to George WHILE George was president.

However, to be analogous to our situation, if 1 Sa 21:1 said that David came to George's father, let's say Prescott Bush, then for Mark to imply that David came to Prescott's son, George, would be an error, yes? And furthermore, if neither George nor his father, Prescott, was ever president, then that would be another error, yes?

. . .

POWELL (62):
That one might work too, unless 1 Sa 21:1 said that David came to Prescott Bush and George, Prescott's son, never was president, which is like what we have.

. . .

POWELL (62):
Abiathar was NEVER called "Abiathar, the high priest" but always merely priest. Neither was his father, Ahimelech. So why would you claim that either of them were high priests? Because people LATER were called high priests and so people EARLIER must have been called that too?

If George was NEVER referred to as president in history books of our time, but ALWAYS as either governor or nothing, then why would you argue that George was president?

Who was the FIRST person in the Bible referred to as "X, the high priest"?


OckhamsRazor (65):
You are demonstrating a desire to disbelieve and disprove the Bible rather than trying to actually understand what is being said. You clearly aren't approaching this as an historian would. The historian doesn't analyize texts the way you do. You look at the text only, the historian takes in account other imformation.


POWELL:
I think I am reading the Old Testament like a good historian would in the way it matters. In fact, I think if Jesus had never claimed that David had men with him you would agree with me that, based on 1 Sam, the writer meant for the reader to understand that David didn't have men with him. It's because this would make Jesus wrong that you challenge the simple reading of the text.

You didn't answer my question to Apologist4Him, OckhamsRazor.

Who was the FIRST person in the Bible referred to as "X, the high priest"?

Given what you said, OckhamsRazor, why don't you supply some of that "other information" that you think I'm ignoring that is relevant, ok?



POWELL (62):
I could debate some of that, but it's another issue. So what? Are you saying that because people had alternative names that maybe someone held the high priest's office, despite the fact that this was never stated and it was always stated he was merely a priest?

. . .

POWELL (62):
Not so fast.

Why would the son, Abiathar, outrank the father, Ahimelech? Wouldn't that violate the normal patriarchal order?

Where does the O.T. say or clearly imply that Abiathar or anyone else of his time period was high priest?

AFAICT, Ahimelech was the ranking priest at Nob.


OckhamsRazor (65):
As far as your insistance that one must qoute your specific text is a bit like demanding a yes/no answer to the question "Have you stopped picking your nose yet?" It assumes part of the accusation (you pick your nose) with out that part being established.


POWELL:
If I am asking complex questions, implying assumptions that you don't agree with, OckhamsRazor, then deny those assumptions and answer the question as best you can. What assumptions in what I asked above do you deny and what are your best answers to the questions?

If I have to then I can rephrase the questions so they avoid challenged assumptions. Perhaps I should do that so you don't continue to complain about the questions rather than also answering them.

1. Do you affirm that Abiathar was high priest while his father Ahimelech was alive?

2. If "yes" to 1 then what Old Testament passages do you use to support that belief?

3. Do you affirm that Abiathar outranked his father while his father was alive?

4. If "yes" to 3 then what Old Testament passages do you use to support that belief?

5. If "yes" to 1, but "no" to 3, because you believe that both Abiathar and Ahimelech were high priests at the same time, then what Old Testament passages do you use to support that belief?

6. Does the Old Testament say or clearly imply that Abiathar or anyone else of his time period was high priest?

7. If "yes" to 6 then where does the Old Testament say or clearly imply that?

Avoiding complex questions sometimes makes the questioning process more complex.

Ok, now for a brief history of David just after the slaying of Goliath to his appearance at Nob.

1 Sam 17.

David kills Goliath.

1 Sam 18.

Jonathan, the prince, loves David a lot. Saul, the king, makes David one of his military officers, but David also plays music for the king. David does very well. After a particularly successful battle, the people sing a song praising David above Saul. "Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands." Saul is jealous and later desires to kill David. Saul throws a javelin at David, but David escapes. David does not permanently leave, so they somehow resolve their differences.

Saul decides to promote David, hoping that the Philistines will kill him. Saul promises one of his daughters as a wife to David, but then gives her to someone else. Saul discovers that another daughter, Michal, loves David, so he offers her. David is persuaded to become the king's son-in-law. Saul asks David for 100 Philistine foreskins as part of the marriage deal. David AND HIS MEN slay twice that number and deliver the bloody things to Saul. (Notice the mention of David's men.)

1 Sam 19.

Saul shares his murderous desires with his advisors. Jonathan warns David. Jonathan persuades his father to swear not to kill David. "As the LORD liveth, he shall not be slain," swears the king. David has a great victory over the Philistines. Perhaps the people sing that offensive song again because Saul decides to kill him. The javelin misses and David flees to his home.

Saul sends servants to watch David's home with orders to kill him in the morning. Michal warns David to flee that night or he'll be killed. She helps her husband escape. In the morning, Michal LIES when she tells Saul's servants that David is sick and they apparently see an image with goat's hair that they think is David so they return to Saul with the bad news. Saul orders them to return and bring David in his sick bed so Saul can kill David himself.

I can just imagine the dialog. "Uh, Sire we did what you told us, we watched the house all night and in the morning we went to kill David, but the man is sick in bed. What do you want us to do now?"

Saul asks Michal why she helped David. She LIES to her father by telling him that David threatened her life if she wouldn't. (Lying by the good guys is an important element of this narrative.)

David flees to Samuel, the prophet. Saul is told that David is at Naioth in Ramah. Saul sends some men to get David, but when they see the prophets doing their prophetic thing they are overcome by the magic and join in. Saul learns of the failure and sends a second company. They also succumb to the prophetic spell. Saul sends a third company with the same results. So, Saul goes himself. He asks where David and Samuel are and is told that they are at Naioth in Ramah. (Didn't Saul remember?) While on his way, Saul is overcome by the magic. Saul prophecies before Samuel in the nude and then lays down naked the rest of the day and the following night. Apparently, when the spell wears off Saul returns home to Gibeah.

Apparently, Samuel has some HEAVY magic.

1 Sam 20.

Perhaps Samuel encourages David to try again to be Saul's servant because David returns to the area of Gibeah and speaks to Jonathan. "What have I done? what is mine iniquity? and what is my sin before thy father, that he seeketh my life?" David asks. Jonathan assures David that he will help David. David asks that Jonathan LIE to his father. The multi-day feast of the new moon is to begin the next day and David is supposed to be there. David asks that if Saul asks about David that Jonathan tell the king that David asked leave to go to his family in Bethlehem for a yearly all-family feast there.

What's up here? Saul tries to kill David. David flees to Samuel in Ramah. Saul can't get David due to Samuel's magic and Saul is supposed to wonder why David isn't at his post in Gibeah? This is an odd story.

Anyway, David figures that based on Saul's response to Jonathan's lie it might be safe for David to return. If Saul gets mad then David's chances are pretty hopeless. If Saul says good things about David then it's safe for David to return.

David and Jonathan go to a field to make a covenant. Jonathan has concluded that God has favored David and vows to help David now in return for David sparing his life and the life of his descendants when David becomes King.

David is to hide in the field. On the third day, Jonathan is supposed to give the sign with an arrow and certain words whether it's safe to return or if David should flee for his life. Probably, this is in case Saul sends spies to watch Jonathan.

Where in any of this is it implied that David has men with him?

On the first day of the feast of the new moon, Saul thinks David is likely missing because of some religious uncleanliness. (What about considering the likely case that David is still with Samuel?) The second day, however, Saul asks Jonathan about David. Jonathan tells the lie and adds that David's brother commanded that David be at the family reunion. Saul doesn't believe the story and blames Saul's mother for giving birth to a disobedient son. (Yea right, it's the woman's fault!) Saul throws a javelin at his son, but misses. Jonathan leaves in shame.

On the third day, Jonathan takes a lad with him to the field to give the appointed sign to David. After giving the sign he sends the lad away with his bow and arrows.

David comes out of his hiding place and embraces Jonathan. They kiss each other and cry a lot. Jonathan returns to his home. David heads south towards Bethlehem but stops at Nob on the way and seeks help from Ahimelech I, the priest, probably because he's so hungry.

I'll stop there where 1 Sam 21 begins.

Where in any of this is it implied that David has men with him?

The implication is that David is alone fleeing for his life from Saul. There is no one in the area of Gibeah that he can trust except for people like Jonathan and Michal. His family are south in Bethlehem.

John Powell

[Jezz]

John Powell and Shunydragon,

This forum is Ecclesiology - not Apologetics. This is a forum for discussing orthodox, Christian issues - like doctrines that differ between denominations. It is not a place for Christian vs atheist debate. Please cease. Remember, as a general rule this forum is for Christians only - if your comments are antagonistic towards Christianity, then this is not the forum for them. (See here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22422) for a more in-depth description of the rules of this forum.)

Apologist4Him and OckhamsRazor: I understand your desire to respond to defend Christianity by replying to such off-topic accusations, but please don't. Instead, report the offence so that it can be moderated.

There is too much off-topic stuff here for me to moderate it, so I won't. Instead, please take any further responses into a relevant forum (eg, Apologetics).

[David Hayward]

1. Do you affirm that Abiathar was high priest while his father Ahimelech was alive?

2. If "yes" to 1 then what Old Testament passages do you use to support that belief?

3. Do you affirm that Abiathar outranked his father while his father was alive?

4. If "yes" to 3 then what Old Testament passages do you use to support that belief?

5. If "yes" to 1, but "no" to 3, because you believe that both Abiathar and Ahimelech were high priests at the same time, then what Old Testament passages do you use to support that belief?

6. Does the Old Testament say or clearly imply that Abiathar or anyone else of his time period was high priest?

7. If "yes" to 6 then where does the Old Testament say or clearly imply that?


Hi,

Sorry if I'm posting in the wrong place - I am unsure whether the Moderator prohibition is for John Powell and Shunyadragon only, or general (ie thread terminated); nor have I found a continuation in Apologetics.

Just a reminder from Numbers 8:23 - 25 that a priest served from age 25 and at age 50 served no longer.

Would Abiathar have taken over then, on Ahimelech's obligatory retirement?

David