Do you accept the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy?

[Pate]

How many of you accept the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy?

I personally am withholding judgement on the matter, but I am perhaps more inclined to accept the position that the Bible is not inerrant, though historically reliable.

[GrayPilgrim]

Pate:
How many of you accept the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy?

I personally am withholding judgement on the matter, but I am perhaps more inclined to accept the position that the Bible is not inerrant, though historically reliable.

I hold to inerrancy for a number of reasons, if correctly defined:


The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in hte original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to factGrudem, Systematic Theology pg. 90.
or for a fuller treatmen and definitiont seethe Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html)



I have seen many who try to say that if you hold to innerancy then you have to believe that the texts we have today are100% correct, which is obviously tenuous at best. For we have many textual problems. In the OT area the main problem comes from the fact that Hebrew as a living language died out early on (during the time of the Exile to Babylon), which means that it was maintained as Lingua Sacra (similar to Latin in the Catholic Church) this meant that certain forms became formulaic and others were lost and so when the early scibes copied them they attempted to smooth at out the text, or they changed things that they found offensive thus there are intentional changes made by scribes, e.g. Merabaal (1Chron) becomes Mephibosheth (1&2 Sam). However there are also accidental copying errors. For a treatmetn of this see Ellis Brotzman's Old Testament Textual Criticism. When you study this you find that even those who disregard inerrancy still speak of an "Ur-text" or source text which the later manuscripts derived so to speak of the original autographs is not as ludicrous as some opponents believe.

[GrayPilgrim]

BTW Brotzman holds to inerrancy, for a non-inerrantist's work on Text Criticism see Emanuel Tov's Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible.

[Solly]

Yes, with CSBI. But Im am prepared to listen to other views, ie C S Lewis. I can see the reasoning behind Job being a pious fiction. See Ursula LeGuin: Always Coming Home

[Pilgrim]

But the quesiton of Job is not a questin of innerency, rather a question of genre.

I go with the "in it's original autograps" statement. But even that is a bit of a cop out because then you have to figure out what those were and no one really knows so...

[Sozo]

Pate:
How many of you accept the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy?


The bible is perfectly reliable for it's intent and purpose.

[smilax]

Pilgrim:
But the quesiton of Job is not a questin of innerency, rather a question of genre.Shameless distraction: what do you think of the rabbinical theory that Job was identically Jobab in Genesis xxxvi, 33-34?
I go with the "in it's original autograps" statement. But even that is a bit of a cop out because then you have to figure out what those were and no one really knows so...That's what textual criticism is for. Maybe you could even say it's to inerrancy as human responsibility is to divine sovereignty.

[Robyn Banks]

To believe in 'inerrancy' of the Bible requires the most twisted and contorted interpretations of Scripture.

It is only held by those who see no other basis for faith than the rational basis of an (imaginary) inerrant Bible. It is thus a thoroughly 'modernist' approach, and inconsistent with the history of Christian orthodoxy.

As former inerrantist Clark Pinnock has said:
"I defended the strict view of inerrancy in my earlier years because I desperately wanted it to be true"

Robyn

[GrayPilgrim]

Robyn Banks:
To believe in 'inerrancy' of the Bible requires the most twisted and contorted interpretations of Scripture.

It is only held by those who see no other basis for faith than the rational basis of an (imaginary) inerrant Bible. It is thus a thoroughly 'modernist' approach, and inconsistent with the history of Christian orthodoxy.

As former inerrantist Clark Pinnock has said:
"I defended the strict view of inerrancy in my earlier years because I desperately wanted it to be true"

Robyn

Funny coming from a guy who belongs to the Evangelical Theological Society who every year has to sign a sheet stating that he holds to inerrancy.

BTW, it is not thoroughly modern, you should look at the ECF. Clement of Rome in his "First Epistle to the Corinthians” advocated a view of inerrancy, c. 100AD.

And later in Church History Barth accused Beza of this view, because he did not wish to see it Calvin or Luther, who he wanted to paint as Neo-orthodox. Sir Isaac Newton may have had a touch of Arianism, which he saw as a part of his Biblical Inerrancy.

Warfield may have coined the term, but he was only using it to refer ot what had long been the common position. In fact in one debate by the ECF their view of inerrancy was so strong that even obvious scribal errors were held as necessarily inerrant. So I am sorry, it is not a new view. I don't think it needs to be an essential, but an honest study will show there is nothing new about the teaching

[Robyn Banks]

Robyn
As former inerrantist Clark Pinnock has said:
"I defended the strict view of inerrancy in my earlier years because I desperately wanted it to be true"

Gray Pilgrim
Funny coming from a guy who belongs to the Evangelical Theological Society who every year has to sign a sheet stating that he holds to inerrancy.
I don't know about what Clark Pinnock may sign every year. But I do know that mid last year Clark Pinnock stayed with a close friend of mine for a week, and that it was clear that he no longer holds to the doctrine of 'inerrancy' as it is set out in the 'Chicago Statement' or like documents. He still considers the Bible to be reliable, though.


Gray Pilgrim
BTW, it is not thoroughly modern, you should look at the ECF. Clement of Rome in his "First Epistle to the Corinthians” advocated a view of inerrancy, c. 100AD.
The way inerrancy is today formulated is quite new. There have, I agree, always been statements about the lack of error in the Bible. I recall Augustine refuting Jerome on the very point. But these statements usually fell back on allegorical meanings of Scripture, where the literal meaning (ie. authorially intended meaning) was seen to lead to contradiction or error. Now that fundamentalists inerrantists are modernist interpretors, the literal meaning only must always be inerrant. That was never the case before recent centuries. The more ancient Christian interpretors recognised literal errors in the Bible, and therefore concluded that an allegorical interpretation must hold. In fact, the presence of literal errors was seen as one of the 'proofs' of the need for an allegorical reading.

"Inerrancy" as currently defined was not followed for most of Christian history. The interpretation of the Bible as perfect, although allowing for it to contain literal errors, always was a part of Christianity. eg Irenaeus, Adv Haer 2.28.2: "the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the
Word of God and His Spirit"


Gray Pilgrim
Warfield may have coined the term, but he was only using it to refer ot what had long been the common position.
Inerrancy of one of the four modes of interpretations of scripture, including the loose 'allegorical' method, is completely and categorically different from inerrancy of the author's intended meaning as found in modern hermeneutics. The continuity is more apparent than what is actually the fact.


Gray Pilgrim
In fact in one debate by the ECF their view of inerrancy was so strong that even obvious scribal errors were held as necessarily inerrant.
That's nothing! In the sixteenth century, Matthias Flacius Clavis Scripturae Sacrae 2.8.62 went so far as to attribute the Hebrew pointing in the Old Testament to the activity of the Holy Spirit! ;-)
"If the churches allow the devil to posit this theory [of the belated addition of the Hebrew vowels], then will not the entire scripture as such become uncertain for us?"

Christian orthodoxy was not based on the concept of a perfect bible, as modern fundamentalism is. It was based on the joint authorities of the Church (succession of bishops, particularly), the creeds, and the Bible, and in faith in God via these together. Yet the reason that Fundamentalists support an inerrant Bible, and a literally inerrant Bible only, is that they have replaced the orthodox basis for faith with a new innovation. That is what is truly new about the modern concept of Biblical Inerrancy.

Robyn

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey robyn, tight post :thumb:
especially re the sense in which the ancients understood Scritpure's innerrancy.
peace in Christ.

[Jaltus]

Inerrancy of one of the four modes of interpretations of scripture, including the loose 'allegorical' method, is completely and categorically different from inerrancy of the author's intended meaning as found in modern hermeneutics. The continuity is more apparent than what is actually the fact.Do you have any proof for this?

I know Origen holds to the historical reliability of the entire Bible. Please list ECFs that did not hold to the total reliability of the historical nature of the Bible.

As for what Pinnock may or may not have said, he has stated in print at least a dozen times that he holds to inerrancy. Unless he, in print, says otherwise, I am going to disregard what he may have said to a friend of yours.


To believe in 'inerrancy' of the Bible requires the most twisted and contorted interpretations of Scripture.

It is only held by those who see no other basis for faith than the rational basis of an (imaginary) inerrant Bible. It is thus a thoroughly 'modernist' approach, and inconsistent with the history of Christian orthodoxy. What is really inconsistent is those who believe the Bible to be God's word and yet still wrong. If God cannot lie, then how can the Bible be wrong? Let me put it this way:

P1. God cannot lie.
P2. The Bible is God's word.
P3. The Bible then comes from God.

C. Therefore, the Bible cannot be wrong for God cannot lie.

You must deny one of these premises in order to deny the conclusion. P2 leads to P3, and P1 + P3 = C.

Either the bible is inerrant, or else it is not God's Word.

[Robyn Banks]

Jaltus:
Do you have any proof for this?
Proof that the ancient's used allegorical method, and modern fundamentalists don't? Hmmm. One only has to read them. Try Origen


Jaltus:
I know Origen holds to the historical reliability of the entire Bible.
Of course he did. And he did so by interpreting it allegorically - in ways that we would consider absurd.

For instance, the servants of Abraham in Gen 14.14 were 318. This number in Greek consists of two letters: the iota (i), and the eta (T). The iota is the first letter for the name of the Saviour (Isos), and the letter iota, is the type of the Lord's sign, i.e. the cross. Therefore, according to Origen (and I think Clement before him), the number 318 is to be interpreted as saying that victory is realized by those who follow the Crucified Jesus.


Jaltus:
Please list ECFs that did not hold to the total reliability of the historical nature of the Bible.
They all held to the total reliability of the Bible. But not to its "inerrancy" as defined by modern inerrantists.

Hmmm. Jerome may not have held to the total reliability of the historical nature of the Bible, if Augustine's letter is anything to go by.


Jaltus:
As for what Pinnock may or may not have said, he has stated in print at least a dozen times that he holds to inerrancy. Unless he, in print, says otherwise, I am going to disregard what he may have said to a friend of yours.
It is stated in print.

The quote was from Frame, Battle on the Bible, p44 - not from my friend.

Pinnock no longer holds to the idea of inerrancy he espoused in his early days.


Jaltus:
What is really inconsistent is those who believe the Bible to be God's word and yet still wrong. If God cannot lie, then how can the Bible be wrong? Let me put it this way:

P1. God cannot lie.
P2. The Bible is God's word.
P3. The Bible then comes from God.

C. Therefore, the Bible cannot be wrong for God cannot lie.

You must deny one of these premises in order to deny the conclusion. P2 leads to P3, and P1 + P3 = C.
Quite right - one of your premises is faulty! You identified it yourself. I don't really need to say more.

I will agree with your premise P1 that God cannot lie. But your premise P2 is vague and undefined. If you mean by God's Word that it was literally dictated, so that the human authors were little more than amanuenses, then your argument is valid. But there are many more ideas of how the Bible was inspired held by various Christians - many more ideas of what "God's Word" means. It is only the fundamentalist idea of divine dictation (or ideas close to it) that cause the problem you have so well set out in syllogism.

But the process of inspiration is not that clear-cut.

The books of the Bible are called simpliciter “the word of God” because of their inspiration by God. But there are many theories of inspiration:
- Of the very words
- Of the readers as they come to recognize God’s work in Scriptures
- Of the Church that gave birth to NT

What is more, none of these theories are sufficient to explain:
- the long history of composition of the Bible
- the diversity among biblical books, including disagreements between them

As Christian scholar Raymond Brown explains:

“If one discovers religious errors, one does not seek to explain them away; one recognizes that God is willing to work with human beings in all their limitations, and that each author’s contribution is only part of a larger presentation of biblical truth.”

“We have spent too much time protecting the God who inspired the Scriptures from limitations that He seems not to have been concerned about. The impassioned debate about inerrancy tells us less about divine omnipotence (which presumably allows God to be relaxed) than about our own insecurity in looking for absolute answers.”

Given this uncertainty about the extent of 'inspiration', your syllogism does not hold. Your P2 is possibly wrong, and that possibility means that the conclusion of your syllogism is not necessarily true.

All that a belief in inspiration necessarily requires is that:
"The Books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.”

“Everything in Scripture is inerrant to the extent to which it conforms to the salvific purpose of God.”
- Dei Verbum 11




Jaltus:
Either the bible is inerrant, or else it is not God's Word.
As demonstrated, the bible's very concept of inspiration does not necessitate inerrancy. Your conclusion is therefore not correct.

Hope that helps.

- Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

phantaz sunlyk:
**8** say hey robyn, tight post :thumb:
Ta!

phantaz sunlyk:
especially re the sense in which the ancients understood Scritpure's innerrancy.
peace in Christ.
Some people seem to think that doctrines developed in the last 150 years or so held for all time. But they conveniently forget some of the new assumptions that were made along the way, I think. :rofl:

Robyn

[Jaltus]

Quite right - one of your premises is faulty! You identified it yourself. I don't really need to say more.

I will agree with your premise P1 that God cannot lie. But your premise P2 is vague and undefined. If you mean by God's Word that it was literally dictated, so that the human authors were little more than amanuenses, then your argument is valid. But there are many more ideas of how the Bible was inspired held by various Christians - many more ideas of what "God's Word" means. It is only the fundamentalist idea of divine dictation (or ideas close to it) that cause the problem you have so well set out in syllogism.
Actually, your conclusion here is faulty. You are assuming that unless God dictates, men will get it wrong. However, that is a truly faulty assumption! Remember that Peter claims the Bible was written by prophets (I Peter 1:20-21) and that Deuteronomy tells us that if a prophet gets something wrong, he is not from God. Therefore, if there is something wrong in the Bible, it is not God's word!

Let me ask this, in what way is the Bible God's word, or in what way is it not? You do a wonderful dance around defining it yourself. Most Christians agree that the Bible is coauthered by God and man, but to what extent? I would say that it is the message of God filtered through human personality. Just because man is fallen does not assure that EVERYTHING he does is wrong.

The Bible's concept of inspiration literally means "God-breathed." inspiration is a word WE made up to define the literal "God-breathedness" of the Bible.

In other words, you are just avoiding the real issue. Is the Bible God-breathed or not?

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey robyn, i got a quick question for ya--

Some people seem to think that doctrines developed in the last 150 years or so held for all time. But they conveniently forget some of the new assumptions that were made along the way, I think.

**7** so where do you draw the line, then? you don't mean to suggest that it is okay to scrap, for example, the entire historical reliability of the gospels, but affirm them nonetheless as being a good spiritual metaphor, do you?
peace in Christ.

[Robyn Banks]

Jaltus:
Actually, your conclusion here is faulty. You are assuming that unless God dictates, men will get it wrong.
No. I'm not assuming that.


Jaltus:
However, that is a truly faulty assumption!
I agree! But it is not mine.

Your syllogism failed, because you failed to take account of the nature of 'inspiration'. Inspiration can contemplate human input, which need not be 'assumed' to be erroneous in order to disprove your syllogism. One only needs to admit that errors are possible with the degree of inspiration provided to the human author.

The 'faulty assumptions' here are yours.


Jaltus:
Remember that Peter claims the Bible was written by prophets (I Peter 1:20-21) and that Deuteronomy tells us that if a prophet gets something wrong, he is not from God. Therefore, if there is something wrong in the Bible, it is not God's word!
1. I think you made a mistake: that is in 2 Peter 1.20-21, not 1 Peter 1.20-21.

2. Your second mistake is to think that this relates to the 'Bible' as a whole, rather than to 'prophets'. 2 Peter's reference is only to prophets (in the Bible, and also to the prophets in the Church, whether included in the NT or not).

3. So 2 Peter only refers to prophets. And as has been recognised by a hundred and one scholars - it is extremely hard to actually work out when a prophet 'gets it wrong'.

Deut 18 provides an empirical test of whether a prophetic word is from Yahweh, in that predictive prophecies of woe that do not come to pass are not true prophecies. Non-fulfilment is on the face of it a sure test of whether a prophecy is false (although this overlooks cases where God intentionally wishes to deceive). Conversely, yet logically providing only inductive proof, fulfilment of prophecy is applied as a positive test for true prophecy by Samuel, the man of God from Judah, Micaiah, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel

Several criticisms of this test may be put forward, however:
a) The test is narrowly limited to predictive prophecy, which is only a part of what prophecy is.
b) Paradoxically, the test can only be applied retrospectively – often long after the time for deciding the truth of it has passed – which limits its value. What is more, all failed prophecies could easily be projected into some indefinite future.
c) The test of fulfilment is also devalued, if not fundamentally undermined, due to the inherently ambiguous and general nature of both prophecy and its canonical interpretation. What might appear to be abject failure can be reinterpreted and rationalized – until the prophet and his community is persuaded of the truth of the failed prophecy.
d) Further, the test of fulfilment has to deal with Yahweh’s tendency to simply change his mind. The story of Jonah’s non-repentance in contrast to the change of mind of Yahweh and the repentance of the Ninevites and their animals is a ready example. In other cases the divine change-of-mind extends to situations where the prophecy has simply failed to eventuate because of historical circumstances, such as Ezekiel’s prophecy against Tyre, and perhaps even of the Egyptian prophecy which replaced it.

And so the scholars conclude, the test of 'truth' or 'falsity' of prophecy is practically impossible to measure:

“It is now widely held that criteria for distinguishing true from false were, and are, illusive and subjective, quite incapable of generalisation”
- Long, Burke O “Social Dimensions of Prophetic Conflict” in Gordon, Robert P The Place is Too Small for Us – The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 308-331, p309

“There is no clearly defined criterion to distinguish true and false prophecy, or to identify the true prophet in a debate”
- Sanders, James A “Hermeneutics in True and False Prophecy” in Coats, George W & Burke O Long (Eds.) Canon and Authority – Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977) 21-41, 23.

“Prophetic literature gives testimony to a wide range of claims and couterclaims among the various biblical prophets that leaves the reader bewildered about just what is true or false.”
- Brenneman, James E Canons in Conflict – Negotiating Texts in True and False Prophecy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), p14

“The truth of God makes itself fully known, but there are no external norms by which its entrance can be tested”
- Childs, Brevard S Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (London: SCM Press, 1985), p135.


Jaltus:
Let me ask this, in what way is the Bible God's word, or in what way is it not?
This has already been answered:

All that a belief in inspiration necessarily requires is that:
"The Books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.”
- Dei Verbum 11

The Bible is 'God's Word' based on the belief that God inspired its writing.



Jaltus:
You do a wonderful dance around defining it yourself.
Well, I certainly danced over the grave of your syllogism. :rofl:

Your syllogism failed, because you failed to take account of the nature of 'inspiration'.


Jaltus:
Most Christians agree that the Bible is coauthered by God and man, but to what extent? I would say that it is the message of God filtered through human personality.
That's not bad, Jaltus!


Jaltus:
Just because man is fallen does not assure that EVERYTHING he does is wrong.
Of course not. I quite agree. That would be an absurd assumption to make - almost as absurd as not recognising that a Jew writing 2000 years ago would hold to different scientific views, for example. :rofl:



Jaltus:
The Bible's concept of inspiration literally means "God-breathed." inspiration is a word WE made up to define the literal "God-breathedness" of the Bible.
Quite: God-breathed! Not God-dictated. :rofl:



Jaltus:
In other words, you are just avoiding the real issue. Is the Bible God-breathed or not?
Yes!

God-breathed simply means 'inspired'. And you are avoiding the real issue: is this inspiration or 'God-breathing' claimed to be word-by-word or not?

Hope that helps.

- Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

phantaz sunlyk:
**8** say hey robyn, i got a quick question for ya--

Some people seem to think that doctrines developed in the last 150 years or so held for all time. But they conveniently forget some of the new assumptions that were made along the way, I think.

**7** so where do you draw the line, then? you don't mean to suggest that it is okay to scrap, for example, the entire historical reliability of the gospels, but affirm them nonetheless as being a good spiritual metaphor, do you?
peace in Christ.
My point was that some doctrines thought to originate in the first century are actually quite innovative. I was criticising fundamentalists who have changed their belief in what 'interpretation' is, yet still hold that they make the same claims about 'inerrancy' as say Origen did in the third century.

The fact is that Origen recognised literal errors, which he then used the allegorical or typological method to interpret. But fundamentalists restrict themselves to the literal (authorially intended) meaning, and say that the literal meaning must always be inerrant.

That's a whole different kettle of fish! :)

Robyn

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Robyn:


And so the scholars conclude, the test of 'truth' or 'falsity' of prophecy is practically impossible to measure:



With all due respect, nonsense.

And you might want to alter that statement of ambush by authority to.... "and so some scholars conclude...."

If I wished to multiply citations I could find scholars who disagree. I am not generally impressed by such lists.

If you would like to discuss whether or not it is impossible to apply the Deut. 18 test to determine a false prophecy (which is the nonsensically strong stand you are advocating), then I am game. I will not be citing any scholars, but using my noodle and the Biblical text. I will not also be concerning myself as to whether any particular prophecy did or did not come true, for if you claim that one has not, you have disproven your own hypothesis that it is impossible to administer that test. It appears that when we get down to brass tacks, all you have really proven is that people can be skilled rationalizers which then means pretty much a hill of pork and beans as to whether or not the Deut 18 test can or cannot be applied.

[Robyn Banks]

Dee Dee Warren:
With all due respect, nonsense.

And you might want to alter that statement of ambush by authority to.... "and so some scholars conclude...."
The conclusion that the prophecy tests are practically inconclusive is quite dominant in the literature. Again and again you find each of the main works on biblical prophecy - from all areas of scholarship - agreeing with this.


Dee Dee Warren:
If I wished to multiply citations I could find scholars who disagree. I am not generally impressed by such lists.
What is 'impressive' about this list is that it is thoroughly representative of what the main works agree on, concerning the failure of the prophetic tests. If it were not representative, I would agree with your objection to citing lists of scholars.


Dee Dee Warren:
If you would like to discuss whether or not it is impossible to apply the Deut. 18 test to determine a false prophecy (which is the nonsensically strong stand you are advocating),
Actually, Deut 18 is non-applicable to all but prophecies of woe. It is not even intended to be universal. It may actually work in respect of one propecy of woe - but the problems listed above show that it is never conclusive.


Dee Dee Warren:
then I am game. I will not be citing any scholars, but using my noodle and the Biblical text.
I think you'll find that I cited the broad consensus in scholarship after writing down 4 reasons for the test's failure.


Dee Dee Warren:
I will not also be concerning myself as to whether any particular prophecy did or did not come true, for if you claim that one has not, you have disproven your own hypothesis that it is impossible to administer that test. It appears that when we get down to brass tacks, all you have really proven is that people can be skilled rationalizers which then means pretty much a hill of pork and beans as to whether or not the Deut 18 test can or cannot be applied.
And that people can be skilled rationalizers is one of the reasons for the test's failure.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Robyn:

I am sorry but I find your answer completely unsatisfactory to my post. I could find scholars that disagree with you, and that is a fact. I have found that your posts contain a great deal of appeal to authority. I would prefer to interact more with the person I am speaking to rather than their library.


Actually, Deut 18 is non-applicable to all but prophecies of woe. It is not even intended to be universal. It may actually work in respect of one propecy of woe - but the problems listed above show that it is never conclusive.


Completely and utterly incorrect. And you just talked out of both sides of your mouth.. either it may work, or it is never conclusive. You cannot have it both ways.



I think you'll find that I cited the broad consensus in scholarship after writing down 4 reasons for the test'sa failure.


Nope. The test has not failed... people have failed. There is a difference. Your strong stand that the test is impossible to administer is indefensible.

[Robyn Banks]

Dee Dee Warren:
I am sorry but I find your answer completely unsatisfactory to my post. I could find scholars that disagree with you, and that is a fact. I have found that your posts contain a great deal of appeal to authority. I would prefer to interact more with the person I am speaking to rather than their library.
You will find that my quotes are supported by reasons. And I reject your assertion that there is 'appeal to authority' - I have only cited representative and respected authorities, which as you may know is not a fallacious 'appeal to authority'.



Dee Dee Warren:
Completely and utterly incorrect. And you just talked out of both sides of your mouth.. either it may work, or it is never conclusive. You cannot have it both ways.
If a prophecy of woe comes to pass in a single case, the test in Deut 18 'works'. But it is still not conclusive. That the test works may be a coincidence, for example. IF you like - it only 'seems' to work.


Dee Dee Warren:
Nope. The test has not failed... people have failed.
Ha! I think you'll find that, as the test is administered by 'people', the test must fail if people fail.


Dee Dee Warren:
There is a difference.
Not at all. If the test requires human judgment of prophecy, that human judgment (whether spiritually discerned or not) may possibly be clouded, and fail.


Dee Dee Warren:
Your strong stand that the test is impossible to administer is indefensible.
To the contrary, it is quite defensible. That is why there is a broad scholarly consensus on the matter - which you may recognise is not an 'appeal to authority fallacy', understood properly.

The test fails to be conclusive for the following reasons:
a) The test is narrowly limited to predictive prophecy, which is only a part of what prophecy is.
b) Paradoxically, the test can only be applied retrospectively – often long after the time for deciding the truth of it has passed – which limits its value. What is more, all failed prophecies could easily be projected into some indefinite future.
c) The test of fulfilment is also devalued, if not fundamentally undermined, due to the inherently ambiguous and general nature of both prophecy and its canonical interpretation. What might appear to be abject failure can be reinterpreted and rationalized – until the prophet and his community is persuaded of the truth of the failed prophecy.
d) Further, the test of fulfilment has to deal with Yahweh’s tendency to simply change his mind.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Robyn:

I will be back to this. I have other committments to honor first. But I will be back... in the interim, if anyone else wants to jump in.. feel free.

[bar Jonah]

Robyn links modern inerrantists with fundamentalis. Ironic that I am a self-described fundamentalist and I reject Biblical inerrancy. I wholeheartedly agree with Sozo that the Bible is infallible in accomplishing its purpose. But to say it is inerrant is ridiculous and either incredibly naive or willfully ignoring the manuscripts we have. (We also know that not all of the Bible is inspired, but that's another discussion.)

I do think, though, that we must be a little more specific, and this has been touched only only very briefly. We can say that the Bible was inerrant in the original autographs... but that does little good, because we don't have any autographs. I agree, I believe they were 100% inerrant in the original autographs, but that is taken on faith by me and (I would bet) every person here.

GrayPilgrim, please help me understand your position. You seem to be admitting there are clerical errors... but you then turn around and say the Bible is inerrant. Do you mean infallible? How can it have errors, and yet be inerrant? If our definition of "inerrant" is that it has only a few errors, or that the only errors present have no impact on theology, then sure, the Bible is inerrant. :shrug:

Also, I would assume everyone would agree that we're talking about the inerrancy of currently available manuscripts, and not the English (or other) translations we have of those manuscripts? Because any claim that any English translation we have today is inerrant is even more indefensible (by far) than a claim of inerrancy in currently available manuscripts.

[bar Jonah]

Just a side note, but the view espoused above is the view held by everyone (as far as I know, possibly excepting one of the newest members) in the GODISNOWERE apologetics ministry. We strongly believe that in order for Christians to defend their faith effectively, they must avoid pitfalls like this fallacious "inerrancy" belief, because they will only end up getting soundly refuted by non-believers.

[geebob]

His four reasons are quite reasonable.

For example, how could've the people have applied the test to Ezekial for Ezekial 26? Nebuchadnezzer did not level Tyre. Alexander did and that was hundreds of years after ezekial was dead.

However, it seems to me that the test would be easily applied to the kind of prophecy Saul was seeking from Samuel (I think) before he became a king.

So you go to see the prophet about your missing sheep. He says at dawn look over such and such hill. If you go there and don't find your sheep, obviously the prophet failed the test.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Geebob:

I hope to be getting back over here, but I do not think the four points are valid in the context of the point being proved. But you have with your example proven my main point, and that the test is not impossible as a blanket statement which is what Robyn was stating. For the missing sheep example, it is simple to apply, and I am sure that we could dream up hundreds more.

[geebob]

Well in a sense it was impossible with Ezekiels prophecy in that you couldn't test Ezekiel himself. The test calls for the false prophet to be stoned. It is for the imediate circumstance and treatment of the prophet.

But I do disagree that it is in general impossible.

[geebob]

from RightIdea
Robyn links modern inerrantists with fundamentalis. Ironic that I am a self-described fundamentalist and I reject Biblical inerrancy. I wholeheartedly agree with Sozo that the Bible is infallible in accomplishing its purpose.

And you, my friend, represent the new kind of fundamentalist, THE POSTMODERN FUNDAMENTALIST!

:cheers: :yipee:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Geebob:

That was my point... not that in toto it could ever be impossible, for of course it could... but Robyn was taking tact that it could never be truly possible, which is indefensible.

[bar Jonah]

geebob:


And you, my friend, represent the new kind of fundamentalist, THE POSTMODERN FUNDAMENTALIST!

:cheers: :yipee:
Man, sometimes I feel like we Acts 9 open dispensationalists are some of the most misunderstood Christians on the face of the earth. LOL

I absolutely reject postmodernism and its relativistic, across-the-board anti-authoritarianism. Just because I recognize that human involvement in the maintenance of the Bible introduced a non-God variable into scripture, thereby opening the door for clerical errors... doesn't mean I am postmodern by any stretch of the imagination. :)

[geebob]

I absolutely reject postmodernism and its relativistic, across-the-board anti-authoritarianism.

Which of course is not the kind I had in mind. I had the fundamentalistic kind in mind.

[bar Jonah]

But fundamentalism is mutually exclusive to postmodernism. Po-mo necessarily rejects fundamentalism, by definition. :)

[geebob]

one of the reasons why it is such a fun word.

[Kris]

Is th bible inerrant or errant? I would certainly have to say it is errant, it does certainly contain errors. But at the same time it is Inerrant, it deals with the human condition and offers a cure for it. The bible is a spiritual book dealing with spiritual concerns.

Sometimes I feel that claiming the bible to be innerrant in the sense some people do is a odd form of idolotry, you are making claims for it that only God is worthy to be given.

As a christian my hope and joy is in the life and ressurection of christ. My desire is to follow in his path he started and that was continued by his Apostles which taught love and the ultimate brotherhood and equality of humanity.

1 Corinthians 13


Love

1If I speak in the tongues[1] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[2] but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

I suspect you have figured out I am a different kind of Christian then that which you are used to Robin

[bar Jonah]

Kris, that's why we would say the Bible is infallible, and not inerrant. :)

[Jaltus]

Robyn,

First, I will not believe what you say about Pinnock until PINNOCK puts it in print. How intellectually dishonest is it to quote someone ELSE about Pinnock's beliefs! Frame has been after Pinnock for years, why should I buy what he says? Honestly, that is just ludicrous.

Second, you still did not define God-breathed/inspiration. I gave you my definition. If it is God's words filtered through human personality, it would still have to be inerrant, for God's words cannot be wrong. You make a false distinction in saying that the Bible has to be dictated in order to ensure inerrancy.

Next, the idea of all writers of scripture being prophets is really quite easy. The definition of a prophet is FORTHtelling what God says, not foretelling. Therefore, all the authors of the Bible are prophets since they are putting down the very word of God. (and you are right that it is II Peter, for some reason I thought I was in I Peter)


God-breathed simply means 'inspired'. And you are avoiding the real issue: is this inspiration or 'God-breathing' claimed to be word-by-word or not?
Again, false dichotomy. The Bible does not have to be word for word from God in order to be inerrant. As for God-breathed meaning inspired, you are going circular, since we get the word inspired from the Greek meaning God-breathed! Not a helpful definition by you at all, especially since you QUOTED me saying what inspiration comes from.

So, in what way is the Bible inspired/God-breathed? As for your definitions from "scholars," I don't buy those either.

As for what you said about a jew having different scientific views, I agree! But what part of the Bible, other than creation (which I am not about to debate here), assumes a different scientific view? For goodness sake, pi is quoted in the Bible! To this day we still speak of sunrises and sunsets, so how is that different? Just because they had different scientific views does not mean the Bible backs up those views.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey robyn--
while i appreciate your bringing to light the allegorical style exegesis of the early padres (from Alexandria), i think you're jumping to something of a false conclusion. this is not to say that i'm behind the modern day fundamentalism-scientistic method of exegesis, however.
the early fathers believed in the prophetic character of Scripture (probably to an exaggerated degree) in the sense that placing the text beside and event would make it clear that the two were related. hence (sofar as i can tell) the view you advance re prophecy isn't in sync with the fathers.
next, it is not true that the early Alexandrians (such as Origen) simply used Scripture (esp. the OT) as a sort of spiritual matrix wherein they could interact with the written Logos of God, disregarding the literal nature of all historical (and the sometimes embarassing ethical) claims in the text. for first, Alexandria wasn't the only school of exegesis. Gregory Nazianzen preferred the literal method, not to mention the (orthodox members of) the school of Antioch, etc. next, even those who DID go for the allegorical interpretation either WANTED to be able to affirm a literal interpretation insofar as possible, OR their denial of the literal application (such as Origen) wasn't what they desired (hence if historio-critical methods could have revealed that the text actually wasn't so absurd, they would have been all ears)--a predisposition for the mystical doesn't automatically entail a denial of the literal, even though the literal might be overlooked in getting to the mystical. you quote Dei Verb. in support of your (seemingly) absolute desire to evade the supernatural character of the literal sense of the text, yet that quote is misleading as well, as the Catechism and Dei Verb. make abundantly clear that the mystical interpretation is to be grounded in the literal, alongside affirming that the text, as it stands, is as God desired it to be (DV 11).
again, i appreciate your bringing attention to mystical exegesis. it is very much missed in Christianity today. don't let it be thought that i'm a fundamentalist who, for example, thinks that Gen. 1-3 must be understood literally. i simply think that you're probably throwing too much weight against literalism, to the point that you might be bending the pole the other way.
peace in Christ.

[GrayPilgrim]

RightIdea:
GrayPilgrim, please help me understand your position. You seem to be admitting there are clerical errors... but you then turn around and say the Bible is inerrant. Do you mean infallible? How can it have errors, and yet be inerrant? If our definition of "inerrant" is that it has only a few errors, or that the only errors present have no impact on theology, then sure, the Bible is inerrant. :shrug:

I would say that in the auographs it was innerant. I do not beleive that the L19 (Codex Leningradensis) manuscript of the MT is without error. In fact there were errors in BHK (Biblia Hebraica: Kittel), which were reproduced in BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia), and that's modern print. So I don't think that anyone here is defending the fact that we have flawless copies. I hope my posts elsewhere show that I do not believe that there are any "inerrant" translations. Heck, Revelation in the TR (Jaltus correct me on that one) is just Erasmus's translation of the Latin into the Greek.

[Jaltus]

The TR has a Latin to Greek for the last 6 verses only.

[Pilgrim]

smilax:
Shameless distraction: what do you think of the rabbinical theory that Job was identically Jobab in Genesis xxxvi, 33-34?
Not really. Whether or not it is historical narrative or fictional wisdom literature or prophetic in nature, the question of innerrancy is about whether or not it has been recorded acruately. So I think the distinction is a well made one.


That's what textual criticism is for. Maybe you could even say it's to inerrancy as human responsibility is to divine sovereignty.

Even so here will always be tension. Which critic is right? What reconstructed text is true to the original in all aspects? Everything we do is only an educated guess.

I also wonder it some here are not confusing authority and inerrancy?

[Robyn Banks]

geebob:
And you, my friend, represent the new kind of fundamentalist, THE POSTMODERN FUNDAMENTALIST!
:cheers: :yipee:
I seem to run into endless people describing themselves as "postmodernist fundamentalists". And I even ran into one person who was a postmodernist fundamentalist. :rofl:

Read Grenz's "Nonfoundationalism" (his systematically unsystematic theology)? I thought it made some good points.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Kris:
Is th bible inerrant or errant? I would certainly have to say it is errant, it does certainly contain errors. But at the same time it is Inerrant, it deals with the human condition and offers a cure for it. The bible is a spiritual book dealing with spiritual concerns.
Similarly:
“Everything in Scripture is inerrant to the extent to which it conforms to the salvific purpose of God.”
- Dei Verbum 11


Kris:
Sometimes I feel that claiming the bible to be innerrant in the sense some people do is a odd form of idolotry, you are making claims for it that only God is worthy to be given.
"Bibliolatry" is the term commonly given to the inerrantist-fundamentalist's view of the Bible.


Kris:
I suspect you have figured out I am a different kind of Christian then that which you are used to Robin
I am used to a wide range of Christians, Kris. I haven't found you to be too 'different' yet - but you may yet surprise me! :)

Robyn

[The Curtmudgeon]

Robyn Banks:
Of course he did. And he did so by interpreting it allegorically - in ways that we would consider absurd.

For instance, the servants of Abraham in Gen 14.14 were 318. This number in Greek consists of two letters: the iota (i), and the eta (T). The iota is the first letter for the name of the Saviour (Isos), and the letter iota, is the type of the Lord's sign, i.e. the cross. Therefore, according to Origen (and I think Clement before him), the number 318 is to be interpreted as saying that victory is realized by those who follow the Crucified Jesus.

I'm going back quite a ways in this thread (page 1) because I'm late and catching up, and because I haven't seen this point raised by Robyn addressed in any other reply.

The whole paragraph on the Greek number for Abram's servants is wrong. The number 318 expressed in Greek consists of three letters, not two: tau (English 'T') = 300, iota (English 'I') = 10, and eta (English ... well, various transliteration methods would have it either 'long E' or 'H') = 8. The statement "the eta (T)" in Robyn's post is so wrong I have to regard it as a complete typo; perhaps Robyn was copying from some source and let his fingers get ahead of him and confused 'tau' with 'eta'. The phrase "the letter iota, is the type of the Lord's sign, i.e. the cross" is also an obvious typo for 'tau'.

Given that I believe Origen would have had at least a competent level of numeracy in Greek at his time, I have to think that Robyn was possibly typing from memory, which most of us would find troublesome.

There's then the point of why Greek numerology would even matter for a scripture written in Hebrew centuries before the Greeks had numerals, but as Robyn has made the point that some of Origen's arguments would be absurb to us I'll let that pass.

Robyn, in fairness to yourself and your argument here, could you please re-research your basis for that previous post and re-submit it more carefully? Thanx.

The (numeracy are us, because we cain't spel) Curtmudgeon

[bar Jonah]

GrayPilgrim:


I would say that in the auographs it was innerant. I do not beleive that the L19 (Codex Leningradensis) manuscript of the MT is without error. In fact there were errors in BHK (Biblia Hebraica: Kittel), which were reproduced in BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia), and that's modern print. So I don't think that anyone here is defending the fact that we have flawless copies. I hope my posts elsewhere show that I do not believe that there are any "inerrant" translations. Heck, Revelation in the TR (Jaltus correct me on that one) is just Erasmus's translation of the Latin into the Greek.
Ahhhhhhh.

In this case, I believe we may all be arguing right past each other without realizing it. I believe what we all may need to do at this point is answer two questions very clearly before continuing.

1. Were the original autographs of the Bible inerrant? Only OT, or the whole Bible? Or simply infallible?

2. Should any or all of the manuscript copies we have today considered inerrant? Or simply infallible?

[Robyn Banks]

Jaltus:
How intellectually dishonest is it to quote someone ELSE about Pinnock's beliefs!
"Dishonest"! How soon the false accusations get flung.

It would be "dishonest", if your mistaken understanding were true. But you failed to understand that Pinnock DID say that HIMSELF, and was QUOTED in a book by Frame. Hmmmm - did you get that? Frame did not write this. Pinnock said it, and Frame QUOTED it.

Once again: The quote was BY Clark Pinnock, in a book by Frame.

Do you not understand this?



Jaltus:
Frame has been after Pinnock for years, why should I buy what he says? Honestly, that is just ludicrous.
It is not what Frame said, Slow One - it is what Pinnock said.

:no:


Jaltus:
Second, you still did not define God-breathed/inspiration.
Yes I did. And I have no doubt that you are having trouble with my definition, because it destroyed your 'inerrancy syllogism', and showed it to be based on an erroneous assumption.

Here it my description of inspiration / god-breathing again for you:
“The Books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.”
- Dei verbum 11

Inspiration is the process of God allowing human writers to write that which God wanted communicated; specifically: writings "for the sake of our salvation."


Jaltus:
I gave you my definition. If it is God's words filtered through human personality, it would still have to be inerrant, for God's words cannot be wrong.
Inspiration need not be word-for-word. This is your mistaken assumption. And this is why your inerrancy syllogism does not necessarily hold. This is why you are wrong.


Jaltus:
You make a false distinction in saying that the Bible has to be dictated in order to ensure inerrancy.
How many times do I have to tell you: this is your strawman! At no time did I claim that "the Bible has to be dictated in order to ensure inerrancy". That is rubbish. And I disagree with it. Your continued repetition of this strawman demonstrates that you are having trouble grappling with my rebuttal of your 'inerrancy syllogism'. You are falling back on complete nonsense.

Your 'inerrancy syllogism' fails - because your second assumption is not necessarily true.


Jaltus:
Next, the idea of all writers of scripture being prophets is really quite easy.
The "idea" is very easy. Unfortunately, your interpretation of 2 Peter was very "bad".


Jaltus:
The definition of a prophet is FORTHtelling what God says, not foretelling. Therefore, all the authors of the Bible are prophets since they are putting down the very word of God.
Poor interpretation. 2 Peter is contrasting the true and the false prophet here. This has nothing to do with biblical authors, who are not all 'prophets'. Luke, for instance, is an historian - who compiled his book from different sources.



Jaltus:
(and you are right that it is II Peter, for some reason I thought I was in I Peter)
That was the least of your errors.


Jaltus:
Again, false dichotomy. The Bible does not have to be word for word from God in order to be inerrant.
This is your ridiculous strawman again. Here you argue against a person of your own imagination, not me.


Jaltus:
As for God-breathed meaning inspired, you are going circular, since we get the word inspired from the Greek meaning God-breathed! Not a helpful definition by you at all, especially since you QUOTED me saying what inspiration comes from.
Now you are being ignorant. You are the one who introduced 'God-breathed', as though you were making some distinction from 'inspiration'. That is why I demonstrated that the terms were synonymous.

I'm wondering whether you are making these ridiculous points, and arguing against strawmen, just to cover up the fact that your 'inerrancy syllogism' has failed?


Jaltus:
So, in what way is the Bible inspired/God-breathed? As for your definitions from "scholars," I don't buy those either.
So - you do realise that I did define inspired / God-breathed, now? ROTFLOL!!!


Jaltus:
But what part of the Bible, other than creation (which I am not about to debate here), assumes a different scientific view?
Example 1: The Bible writers believed in a three-tiered universe: a flat earth, with a dome above it on which the stars, sun and moon 'stuck' into it, and God's throne resting on top of it. The dome rested on the earth, making a circle ('the circle of the earth'). Underneath the earth was the waters of the deep on which the earth 'rested', and in the deeps was sheol, the place of the dead.

This view is generally accepted now.

Try any reputable Bible Dictionary or Theology 101 student to confirm this (or, alternatively, have recourse to a ridiculous apologetic to deny the truth).


Jaltus:
For goodness sake, pi is quoted in the Bible!
Ridiculous fantasy.


Jaltus:
To this day we still speak of sunrises and sunsets, so how is that different?
Ridiculous apologetic. How is it different? When the sun is actually understood to 'rise', the words 'sunrise' and 'sunset' are literal words. When science provided more knowledge than what the Biblical writers had, the same words were retained: as metaphors.

But you may want to retain your banal apologetic, and imagine that the words are used in the same sense.


Jaltus:
Just because they had different scientific views does not mean the Bible backs up those views.
The Bible DOES back up the flat-earth views of its writers. Just check any Bible Dictionary. This is very basic and rudimetary stuff.
I feed you with milk, not solid food, for you are not ready for solid food. Even now you are still not ready.

Robyn

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Robyn:


This view is generally accepted now.


Again with your sweeping "scholarly" generalization. Phooey. Maybe generally accepted amongst certain liberal circles, but certainly not generally accepted within the scholarship that I hold to be trustworthy. This particular phrase constantly flows off of your lips, and is a fallacious appeal to authority despite your prior protests that it was not. For you elucidation, here is a subset under an explanation of the Fallacious Appeal to Authority:


There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.

If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any claim being made and "supported" by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is made and "supported" by another expert. In such cases an Appeal to Authority would tend to be futile. In such cases, the dispute has to be settled by consideration of the actual issues under dispute. Since either side in such a dispute can invoke experts, the dispute cannot be rationally settled by Appeals to Authority.

This quote can be found here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

You commit this fallacy often, which oftentimes obscures the issues and your opponents simply give up pursuing the area for they do not have the time or inclination to compile lists of opposing authorities to prove a point.

[GrayPilgrim]

RightIdea:

Ahhhhhhh.

In this case, I believe we may all be arguing right past each other without realizing it. I believe what we all may need to do at this point is answer two questions very clearly before continuing.

1. Were the original autographs of the Bible inerrant? Only OT, or the whole Bible? Or simply infallible?

2. Should any or all of the manuscript copies we have today considered inerrant? Or simply infallible?

1. All the original autographs of what has been passed down as the Protestant canon (OT/NT) were without error in their original autographs.

2. If by infallible you mean they wil accomplish the purpose that God has intended for them than I can agree to that definition.

GP

[bar Jonah]

Then I daresay, GP... you and I seem to be in perfect agreement. :)

[Pilgrim]

GrayPilgrim:


1. All the original autographs of what has been passed down as the Protestant canon (OT/NT) were without error in their original autographs.

2. If by infallible you mean they wil accomplish the purpose that God has intended for them than I can agree to that definition.

GP

In regards to #1. What were they? What do you say in regards to authorship then? I'm assuming that you would point back to singular authorship in every case then?

[GrayPilgrim]

Pilgrim:


In regards to #1. What were they? What do you say in regards to authorship then? I'm assuming that you would point back to singular authorship in every case then?

I think that would be difficult inthe case of books like Psalms or Proverbs, which are self described collections, but for most everything else (especially the NT), I would say yes. See Sailhammer's discussion in his Intro to OT Theology, in which I think he covers this quite well.

For the exception, I would say that there was a superintending of the process, but these are already in a unique class as they contain remenations to God and observations of the world as oppoesed to classic description and prescription of other segments of Scripture

[The Curtmudgeon]

Robyn Banks: [Concerning pi in the Bible:] Ridiculous fantasy.

As a somewhat-mathematician (my degree's in Computer Science, but to get there I wound up with more maths courses than CompSci courses), I'm always amused when this claim is made by skeptics, or doubt is cast on the value of pi used in the 1 Kings/2 Chronicles account.

This passage, talking about a brazen vat or bath ("molten sea") with a diameter of 10 cubits and circumference of 30 cubits, leads by simple division to a value of pi = 3. This is the correct value of pi.

Yeah, I know all about the arguments that try to show how the measurements are merely approximations, or the diameter and circumference were measured at two different points, or the like. Those arguments, while they might be completely true, are unnecessary. I repeat, in this passage, without any additional assumptions about the values stated, the value pi = 3 is correct.

In this day of push-button calculator maths, the concept of significant digits is completely forgotten; that doesn't make it obsolete or incorrect. The two measurements, 10 and 30 cubits, are only given to one significant digit each (the zeroes in the units position are insignificant; only the '1' and the '3' convey any actual information). When you divide a 1-sd number by another 1-sd number, the result can only have one significant digit.

And pi = 3.1415926535... when rounded to one significant digit is ... wait for it ... 3.

The Bible is inerrant even when it gets into maths. And it doesn't even need us to quibble over how the measurements were made or the like. :cheers:

The (next up: the Biblical value for e) Curtmudgeon

[GrayPilgrim]

:thumb:

[bar Jonah]

Awesome post, Curtmudgeon. As a street apologist, I learned something from that, and I'll remember that! Thanks muchly from the trenches! :wtg:

[Jaltus]

Here we go again!

I must have misread what you posted, for I did not know that Pinnock said that. You plan on saying what book Frame is quoting from? After all, I have done a lot of research on Pinnock, and the only thing I have seen Pinnock say is that we need a wider definition of inerrancy because we seem to exclude narrative passages from our discussion (see his Most Moved Mover introduction).

Here it my description of inspiration / god-breathing again for you:
“The Books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.”
- Dei verbum 11

Inspiration is the process of God allowing human writers to write that which God wanted communicated; specifically: writings "for the sake of our salvation."
Well, last time you posted this as A definition, not as YOUR definition. also, you are trying to win by definition. If inspiration assumes that God only wanted to communicate salvation, then why even have the debate? You are trying to win by fiat, which is a joke in itself.

Why did God want to communicate historical inaccuracies? You still do not have proper allowance in your definition. You must explain why God allowed the authors to write down what He knew was false. Please explain that.

Inspiration need not be word-for-word. This is your mistaken assumption. And this is why your inerrancy syllogism does not necessarily hold. This is why you are wrong.Are you sure you read what you quoted me saying? I explicitly DENIED word-for-word!

How many times do I have to tell you: this is your strawman! At no time did I claim that "the Bible has to be dictated in order to ensure inerrancy". That is rubbish. And I disagree with it. Your continued repetition of this strawman demonstrates that you are having trouble grappling with my rebuttal of your 'inerrancy syllogism'. You are falling back on complete nonsense. This completely contradicts what I just quoted you saying. Try for some consistency, it might help matters.

Let us look at the two quotes next to eachother:

Inspiration need not be word-for-word. This is your mistaken assumption...This is why you are wrong.
At no time did I claim that "the Bible has to be dictated in order to ensure inerrancy". Perhaps you see my confusion now. I am certain everyone else does.

Poor interpretation. 2 Peter is contrasting the true and the false prophet here. This has nothing to do with biblical authors, who are not all 'prophets'. Luke, for instance, is an historian - who compiled his book from different sources.Sorry, no. EGENONTO DE is a break, starting a new section. Oh, it is logically connected, but it is not structurally connected. 12-21 is a full section, hence the DIO at the beginning. it is all about what what Peter says is true, specifically because all he has seen and read IS FROM GOD, hence the thrust of the argument. If you think it is a dichotomy between true and false prophets, then you need some better commentaries or lessons on hermeneutics. If you don't believe me, just check Bauckham's commentary in the WBC series.

As for your garbage about flat earth theory, please show that to me FROM SCRIPTURE! your "it is in any Bible dictionary" shows how inane your comments are. first, if you plan on proving something from authority, quote someone. I am not going to believe you just because you say so. Second, I happen to be an expert in NT, so good luck arguing the Greek text with me. Third, I already have a graduate degree in theology, so your arguments from "basic stuff" does not float because I KNOW you are wrong. Try to impress someone else with your scorn, that does not fly with me.

[Robyn Banks]

Dee Dee Warren:
Again with your sweeping "scholarly" generalization.
An appeal to authority is only 'fallacious' when made to a non-recognised authority, or to an outlying viewpoint by an expert without saying so. You should check a recognised book on informal logic, to see that this is correct. Appeal to the internet, on the other hand, may well be a fallacious appeal to authority.
:rofl:

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

The Curtmudgeon:
... I'm always amused when this claim is made by skeptics, or doubt is cast on the value of pi used in the 1 Kings/2 Chronicles account.
Me too. To say that 1 Kings / 2 Chron is "in error" is an absurd position.


The Curtmudgeon:
This passage, talking about a brazen vat or bath ("molten sea") with a diameter of 10 cubits and circumference of 30 cubits, leads by simple division to a value of pi = 3. This is the correct value of pi.
I agree. 3 is the correct value of pi.


The Curtmudgeon:
Yeah, I know all about the arguments that try to show how the measurements are merely approximations, or the diameter and circumference were measured at two different points, or the like. Those arguments, while they might be completely true, are unnecessary. I repeat, in this passage, without any additional assumptions about the values stated, the value pi = 3 is correct.
Right. No dispute from me.

To get back to the point, what I was disputing was Jaltus' assertion that "pi is quoted in the Bible". Nowhere is "pi quoted in the Bible". That assertion was ridiculous. Sure - Jews measured diameters and circumferences. And good on them. But it's no great feat to measure diameters and circumferences. It is ridiculous, and quite a big leap in logic, to go on to state that "pi is quoted in the Bible". If you claim such an absurd thing, you might as well put a sign around your head saying "make fun of me".


The Curtmudgeon:
The Bible is inerrant even when it gets into maths.
Inerrancy is an incorrect human doctrine.

Robyn

[bar Jonah]

I'm seriously wondering if it is edifying to continue debate with someone who actually believes some murderous Middle-Eastern king named Antiochus IV Epiphanes from over 2,000 years ago was the Christ, the Messiah.

[Robyn Banks]

Jaltus:
Here we go again!
Well if you just admit that your 'inerrancy syllogism" is based on an assumption that is not necessarily correct, we can stop. :)


Jaltus:
I must have misread what you posted, for I did not know that Pinnock said that. You plan on saying what book Frame is quoting from?
No - I don't have Frame's article handy.


Jaltus:
After all, I have done a lot of research on Pinnock, and the only thing I have seen Pinnock say is that we need a wider definition of inerrancy because we seem to exclude narrative passages from our discussion (see his Most Moved Mover introduction).
Well, last time you posted this as A definition, not as YOUR definition.
Pinnock has said elsewhere that he believes the Bible is infallible for authority, but not inerrancy. He makes this distinction between inerrancy and infallibility.



Jaltus:
also, you are trying to win by definition. If inspiration assumes that God only wanted to communicate salvation, then why even have the debate? You are trying to win by fiat, which is a joke in itself.
Hmmmm. Let's examine what we are talking about properly.

You introduced your 'inerrancy syllogism' - which purported to prove that if the Bible was inspired by God, and if the God does not lie, then the Bible must contain no errors. However, your own inerrancy syllogism always already assumes a degree of inspiration that eliminates all error being made. So, I countered your assertion by pointing out that a different conception of divine inspiration would not guarantee a completely, plenary error-free Bible.



Jaltus:
Why did God want to communicate historical inaccuracies?
Wrong question. God wants to communicate 'salvation'. He doesn't mind about historical inaccuracies. You do, though.

Why do you mind about something God doesn't?




Jaltus:
You still do not have proper allowance in your definition. You must explain why God allowed the authors to write down what He knew was false.
Sure: because he didn't mind. You mind. He didn't.



Jaltus:
Please explain that.
I have.

“If one discovers religious errors, one does not seek to explain them away; one recognizes that God is willing to work with human beings in all their limitations, and that each author’s contribution is only part of a larger presentation of biblical truth.”
- Raymond Brown


Jaltus:
Are you sure you read what you quoted me saying? I explicitly DENIED word-for-word!
Then you won't mind about God not inspiring words that convey scientific error?


Jaltus:
This completely contradicts what I just quoted you saying. Try for some consistency, it might help matters.
Ooooh! Now, now! You go on cavilling about 'god-breathed' versus 'inspired', and 'word-by-word' versus 'plenary', or whatever - but the larger issue concerns your original assumption about the nature of 'inspiration'.

Your assumption about the nature of inspiration is not necessarily correct.

Therefore your 'inerrancy syllogism' fails.

You seem to have touble understanding how your own syllogism fails. And this misunderstanding has meant that you have gone off on a tangent of wrongly imagining that I am saying the Bible can only be inerrant through inspiration - which is quite incorrect, and utterly off the point.



Jaltus:
If you think it is a dichotomy between true and false prophets, then you need some better commentaries or lessons on hermeneutics.
My point is that the focus is not on biblical writers. It is about 'prophets'. You went off on a tangent again, emphasising the wrong part.


Jaltus:
As for your garbage about flat earth theory,
The only 'garbage' is from those who don't realise that the Bible supports a flat earth.

This is stage one stuff.


Jaltus:
please show that to me FROM SCRIPTURE!
Sure. It may be necessary to start a new thread - but if I take the trouble to look into it for you, do you promise to thank me for the effort if I do? :)


Jaltus:
your "it is in any Bible dictionary" shows how inane your comments are.
No it doesn't. It shows how basic is the knowledge. It shows how inane are people who reject it.


Jaltus:
first, if you plan on proving something from authority, quote someone.
No. One does not need to quote the basics. These should already be known. That is why I said look in any reputable Bible Dictionary.



Jaltus:
I am not going to believe you just because you say so.
Then look in any reputable Bible Dictionary. :)


Jaltus:
Second, I happen to be an expert in NT,
Now THAT is a fallacious appeal to authority.


Jaltus:
so good luck arguing the Greek text with me.
Hmmmmm. The texts about the flat earth are located almost entirely in the Old Testament. I'd prefer to deal with the Hebrew. :rofl:


Jaltus:
Third, I already have a graduate degree in theology, so your arguments from "basic stuff" does not float because I KNOW you are wrong.
Are you from the United States. From experience, the syllabus covered by certain semanaries and such in the States are quite insular and barely touch on even basic theological study.

From where did you graduate?


Jaltus:
Try to impress someone else with your scorn, that does not fly with me.
I wasn't trying to impress you, though Jaltus!

Robyn

[GrayPilgrim]

Jaltus graduated from Trinity Evangelical Divintiy School.

[Robyn Banks]

RightIdea:
I'm seriously wondering if it is edifying to continue debate with someone who actually believes some murderous Middle-Eastern king named Antiochus IV Epiphanes from over 2,000 years ago was the Christ, the Messiah.
Oh - you weren't paying attention, were you?

Antiochus was not "the Christ". Antiochus was a(n) christ / messiah / anointed / king. "The Christ", in its End-Times Eschatological, Messianic sense was Jesus (to Christians). In the Old Testament, however, there was no Messiah. There was only a messiah.

Cyrus the Persian was also a(n) christ / messiah / anointed / king, did you know:

"Thus says YHWH to his messiah, to Cyrus..."
- Isaiah 45.11

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

GrayPilgrim:
Jaltus graduated from Trinity Evangelical Divintiy School.
Yes - definitely insular.

I once did a course under Professor Murray J Harris, an old lecturer in NT at Trinity, you know. Now that man's knowledge of Greek I may have considerable time for - it is very good. His doctrinal stance left a lot to be desired, though :)

Agape love,
Robyn

[Dee Dee Warren]

And Robyn we finally agree on something. Harris' doctrinal stance in some areas has much to be desired.

[Jaltus]

Pinnock has said elsewhere that he believes the Bible is infallible for authority, but not inerrancy. He makes this distinction between inerrancy and infallibility.This is a total fabrication. He has made the distinction betwen the two, but he clearly holds to inerrancy. Your "friend" may have heard him say otherwise, but I myself heard him say he believes in inerrancy. Also, all of his books in print dealing with scripture say he believes in inerrancy (mind you, of the autographs, not translations). Until you show some evidence, you are not going to win this one.

Try reading this article:

Pinnock, Clark H. “There Is Room For Us: A Reply to Bruce Ware.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. Vol. 45, No. 2. Ed. Andreas J. Kostenberger. Lynchburg, VA: Evangelical Theological Society: 2002, 213-219.

He explicitly defends his stance on inerrancy.


Wrong question. God wants to communicate 'salvation'. He doesn't mind about historical inaccuracies. LOL. How do you know what God wants to communicate? Again, argument by assertion does not fly. Try some argumentation and evidence instead of "I so declare."

What your method of inspiration boils down to is that some parts of the Bible contain error, but we don't know what parts. Sure, the truth is somewhere in scripture, but how do we know what parts humans added to God's message of salvation? Eventually, you can weed out any part of the Bible you wish, saying it is not what "God" wants, which is just an exercise in turning the Bible into what you want it to be, not what God made it to be!

If God did not care about historical accuracies, then why does Jesus quote episodes from Genesis and call them true? Of course, you could just say that Jesus is not God, but then you have lost salvation, for the Bible clearly teaches the divinity of Christ. If the entire Bible is useful, then why is it that according to you we can throw parts out as fallacious? Clearly salvation is one of the issues implied by Paul, and he ties it together with scripture as a whole.


Are you from the United States. From experience, the syllabus covered by certain semanaries and such in the States are quite insular and barely touch on even basic theological study. :rofl:

This reeks of desperation. The old "well even if you are trained, you aren't trained well." LOL.

By the way, I never had Harris. He was retired by the time I went to TEDS. his exegesis is good, but I have never been a big fan of his other works. I have had Carson, Osborne, Schnabel and Pao, though.

[Pilgrim]

Are you from the United States. From experience, the syllabus covered by certain semanaries and such in the States are quite insular and barely touch on even basic theological study.

Which ones? Most of my collegues have had very in depth theological training. Of course the academic course of study does more than the pastoral course in most institutions but even so I would argue that the majority of accredited and recognized schools do an adequate job.

Gordon-Conwell, for example, requries theology 101, 102, and 103 as it's minimum for the M.Div. program. The Master of Theology and the Th.M programs go even further, which of course means that the syllabus used by the latter is available to students in the former in terms of electives and audits.

Plus Gordon-Conwell participates in and encourages registration to the Boston Theological Institute which is a consortium of theological and divinity schools in the Boston area. As a result I was able to cross-register at Harvard for a semester to study Ancient Near Eastern history and theology from a totally different perspective than GCTS.

I know that TEDS and FTS also participate in simular programs as well as the Graduate Theological Union in San Fran.

Short of it is, your assertion is only that, an assertion.

[Pilgrim]

GrayPilgrim:


I think that would be difficult inthe case of books like Psalms or Proverbs, which are self described collections, but for most everything else (especially the NT), I would say yes. See Sailhammer's discussion in his Intro to OT Theology, in which I think he covers this quite well.

For the exception, I would say that there was a superintending of the process, but these are already in a unique class as they contain remenations to God and observations of the world as oppoesed to classic description and prescription of other segments of Scripture

do you accept singular Mosaic authorship of the Torah? I have held that postion but the more I look at it, the less I am convinced. And if we don't hold to Mosaic or singular authorship of the Torah, what does that do for innerancy? It may be no problem at all, but if you begin to go the route of source criticism and redaction and editing, is there a problem?

[Robyn Banks]

Dee Dee Warren:
And Robyn we finally agree on something.
I always suspected that, deep down, we are kindred spirits.



Dee Dee Warren:
Harris' doctrinal stance in some areas has much to be desired.
His interpretation of the resurrection body is quite correct, though. I was referring to his conservatism.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Jaltus:
How do you know what God wants to communicate?
I don't 'have' to 'know'. What I have to know is that your assumption in P2 that 'inspiration' extends to practically every jot and tittle of the Bible is not necessarily true.

And that is why your 'inerancy syllogism' fails. And that is why you cannot 'prove' by logic that the Bible must be inerrant.


Jaltus:
Again, argument by assertion does not fly.
Then why did you assert one view of inspiration, and one only? :rofl: You're not saying that you didn't realise this at the time you attempted your inerrancy syllogism, are you?


Jaltus:
Try some argumentation and evidence instead of "I so declare."
I will - if you defend your assertion / assumption that 'inspiration' extends to every jot and tittle of the Bible, including scientific matters that the Biblical writers knew nothing about, such as the shape of the earth.

You made the assertion about 'inspiration'. I challenged it, with reference to different interpretations of biblical inspiration, including Vatican II's biblical interpretation of 'inspiration'. Now you are aware that you made an assumption about the nature of 'inspiration'. So if you think you can prove that the Bible conceives of only one mode of inspiration (your personal one), then prove it. If not, your assumption is not necessarily true, as an alternative has been provided, and your inerrancy syllogism fails.


Jaltus:
What your method of inspiration boils down to is that some parts of the Bible contain error, but we don't know what parts. Sure, the truth is somewhere in scripture, but how do we know what parts humans added to God's message of salvation?
Wrong. If God wished to inspire a message of salvation, he used the whole of the inspired writing to do so. And it is apparent that the human writers made a few errors.


Jaltus:
Eventually, you can weed out any part of the Bible you wish, saying it is not what "God" wants, which is just an exercise in turning the Bible into what you want it to be, not what God made it to be!
Nonsense. All interpretation is by a community. The community is the church.


Jaltus:
If God did not care about historical accuracies, then why does Jesus quote episodes from Genesis and call them true?
They are 'true'. They convey the truth of salvation. :)


Jaltus:
Of course, you could just say that Jesus is not God, but then you have lost salvation, for the Bible clearly teaches the divinity of Christ.
No need to do this.


Jaltus:
If the entire Bible is useful, then why is it that according to you we can throw parts out as fallacious?
No parts may be 'thrown out'. You see things as 'black or white' - typical of fundamentalists. Why can't God use that which is imperfect to further His Cause?


Jaltus:
Clearly salvation is one of the issues implied by Paul, and he ties it together with scripture as a whole.
"Scripture as a whole". Yes.



Jaltus:
By the way, I never had Harris. He was retired by the time I went to TEDS. his exegesis is good, but I have never been a big fan of his other works. I have had Carson, Osborne, Schnabel and Pao, though.
Oh well - I'm not a fatalist - so I believe that no matter what a person's background, he or she may turn and 'see the light'.

Robyn

[Dee Dee Warren]

His interpretation of the resurrection body is quite correct, though. I was referring to his conservatism.

Bzzt. Raspberry. I have to withdraw any previous agreement I gave to your prior statement.

[Dee Dee Warren]

They are 'true'. They convey the truth of salvation.

Bzzt. Double raspberry.

[Pilgrim]

Robyn:
Nonsense. All interpretation is by a community. The community is the church.

Amen to that. It seems most people forget that. Faith and interpretation are always intended to be a community wide thing.

[Jaltus]

LOL, "ALL scripture is God-breathed..."

Case closed.


Wrong. If God wished to inspire a message of salvation, he used the whole of the inspired writing to do so. And it is apparent that the human writers made a few errors.If....more assertion. Oh, I disagree there are any errors in the original. Feel free to come up with some errors (no, the numbers in Samuel-Kings don't count do to all the text critical problems in those books), though that should be a different thread.

Let me ask this, does the Bible ask us to believe all it says, or only what it says in regards to "faith matters?"

I would argue that it asks us to believe all of it, though genre-specifically (not some hyper-fundy who reads everything literally).

[GrayPilgrim]

Pilgrim:


do you accept singular Mosaic authorship of the Torah? I have held that postion but the more I look at it, the less I am convinced. And if we don't hold to Mosaic or singular authorship of the Torah, what does that do for innerancy? It may be no problem at all, but if you begin to go the route of source criticism and redaction and editing, is there a problem?

I would say that a vast amjority of the Torah was penned by Moses. Obvioulsy not of say the death of Moses, nor later interpolations, such as in Genesis where it says "these were the kings that ruled in Edom before htere was a king in Israel". IMHO Moses was the complier of the different traditions into the whole as directed by the Holy Spirit. Sailhammer does a good job on this, IMHO. A view of OT inerrancy that does not take into account later accretions to the text is foolhardy. I think most of these interpolations and additions though are of the sort mentioned above, that is identifiable pericopes and comments that place them after the larger body was built.

Averbeck (OT prof at TEDS who specialized in Sumeriology) has done some excellent studies that shows that the source critical hypothesis lacked an understanding of the manner in which ancient texts were compiled, and as I am reading Wellhausen, I am more enclined to agree with Averbeck's position). Especially as I compare the Torah to the epics of Kirta, Aqhat and Baal from Ugarit. The general "problems" that Welhausen and source-critics (beofre and since) have identified are generally leitmotifs and methods of communication, which are lost on them.

In sum, even if you reject Mosaic authorship of the entire corpus, I do not think you have to reject inerrancy. Like I said inerrancy and autographs of the OT is much more highly nuanced than for the NT.

GP

[Jaltus]

In sum, even if you reject Mosaic authorship of the entire corpus, I do not think you have to reject inerrancy. Yeah you would.

Mark 12:
24 Jesus replied, "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God?
25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
26 Now about the dead rising-- have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'?

[GrayPilgrim]

Moses did not write about his death did he?

The interpolations are there about having kings in Israel, which there weren't any when Moses wrote it. So you have to handle these passages somehow.

[GrayPilgrim]

of--Okay Jaltus let's go back to Schnable's Exegesis class--

[German Accent]Do not translate a genive vis of.[/German accent]

Obviously you understand this to be a subjectiv genitive, but could it not be an epexegetical genitive, or an objective genitive, or an number of the other ad nauseum genitives. There is no preposition that would necisitate agency on the part of Moses. So I still say you arguemtn (another old one;)) does not hold water.

[dmills]

Christian orthodoxy was not based on the concept of a perfect bible, as modern fundamentalism is. It was based on the joint authorities of the Church (succession of bishops, particularly), the creeds, and the Bible, and in faith in God via these together. Yet the reason that Fundamentalists support an inerrant Bible, and a literally inerrant Bible only, is that they have replaced the orthodox basis for faith with a new innovation. That is what is truly new about the modern concept of Biblical Inerrancy.


Robyn are you Roman catholic by any chance? Just curious.

[Dee Dee Warren]

And I would say that statement is misleading up to a point. I have no problem with the "community" idea of interpretation.. but that "community" interpretation by no means presupposes or lead to an errant Bible or is damaging to inerrancy. A good illustration given by a dear Pastor friend of mine likens the role of the community of faith to an errant Court who has entrusted to its care the application of an inerrant Constitution. The two work together and from such flow the creeds and confessions of the Church.

[Robyn Banks]

Jaltus:
Let me ask this, does the Bible ask us to believe all it says, or only what it says in regards to "faith matters?"
'Fundamental' mistake. The Bible does not 'ask us to believe' in what the Bible says. The Bible asks us to believe in the reality which it points to.

"Being Christian... is not about believing in the Bible or about believing in Christianity. Rather, it is about a deepening relationship with the God to whom the Bible points, lived within the Christian tradition as a sacrament of the sacred."
- Marcus J Borg "Reading the Bible again for the first time"
(New York: HarperCollins, 2001), p18


Jaltus:
I would argue that it asks us to believe all of it, though genre-specifically (not some hyper-fundy who reads everything literally).
It "asks" us to believe in the entire reality to which it points.

It does not "ask" us to treat it as inerrant.

"For many people, believing "iffy" claims to be true became the central meaning of Christian faith. It is an odd notion - as if what God most wants from us is believing highly problematic statements to be factually true. And if one can't believe them, then one doesn't have faith and isn't a Christian."
- Marcus J Borg "Reading the Bible again for the first time"
(New York: HarperCollins, 2001), p16

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Robyn:
Christian orthodoxy was not based on the concept of a perfect bible, as modern fundamentalism is. It was based on the joint authorities of the Church (succession of bishops, particularly), the creeds, and the Bible, and in faith in God via these together. Yet the reason that Fundamentalists support an inerrant Bible, and a literally inerrant Bible only, is that they have replaced the orthodox basis for faith with a new innovation. That is what is truly new about the modern concept of Biblical Inerrancy.


dmills:
Robyn are you Roman catholic by any chance? Just curious.
No. Are you?

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Dee Dee Warren:
... a dear Pastor friend of mine likens the role of the community of faith to an errant Court who has entrusted to its care the application of an inerrant Constitution.
Or an errant Court entrusted with an errant Constitution by an inerrant King. :)

Robyn

[Jaltus]

The Bible does not 'ask us to believe' in what the Bible says. The Bible asks us to believe in the reality which it points to. And the difference is in your opinion....?

And your proof for this is....?

Hmm, not sure who Marcus Borg is (okay, I have actually heard of him), but I noticed that he is not quoting the Bible a whole lot.

What does the bible say about how it should be used?

II Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

John 20:29-30
30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
31 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.

[Robyn Banks]

Robyn
The Bible does not 'ask us to believe' in what the Bible says. The Bible asks us to believe in the reality which it points to.

Jaltus
And the difference is in your opinion....?
I would have thought that was clear.

The Bible does not ask for 'belief in the Bible'. The Bible asks for belief in God. The former is a doctrinal requirement of inerrantist fundamentalists. The latter is the purpose of the Bible in construting a worldview.


Jaltus
And your proof for this is....?
This was a counter-assertion to your assertion. When you start talking about 'proofs', I will start, too. :)


Jaltus
Hmm, not sure who Marcus Borg is (okay, I have actually heard of him), but I noticed that he is not quoting the Bible a whole lot.
You noticed that from two short quotes? Or you notice that from your own prejudices?



Jaltus
What does the bible say about how it should be used?

II Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
'Useful' for teaching. Right. It is useful. It is not an ends in itself, however.



Jaltus
John 20:29-30
30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
31 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.
A purpose of believing in that to which it points? Undoubtedly.

Robyn

[GrayPilgrim]

So which color bead did Borg cast on John 20:29-30? What color did he cast for Thomas 114? [Jaltus, he's part of the Jesus Seminar, which is as insular as they come!]

[bar Jonah]

Robyn is with the so-called Jesus Seminar???

Holy cow, that sure does explain a lot! LOL

[Dee Dee Warren]

Or an errant Court entrusted with an errant Constitution by an inerrant King.

And that does not sound discordant to you? Oh well. Well this inerrant King taught us certain interpretations of Daniel that you disagree with. Since He was the Author, I think He knows a bit better.

[GrayPilgrim]

RightIdea:
Robyn is with the so-called Jesus Seminar???

Holy cow, that sure does explain a lot! LOL

I did not say that. Jaltus said that he could not place Marcus Borg, and so I was just identifyinhg him so that Jaltus could place him.

[Pilgrim]

In a sense I think Robyn is on to something. It has always been true that our final authority is God, not scripture.

And it is interesting that just like "sola scriptura" is not scriptural, I can find no place in scripture where it is explicitily stated that scripture is innerant. This is troubling because those arguing for innerancy argue it from a scriptural basis.

Bottom line, I go for infallable and authoritative and reserve for Christ the place of status often given wrongly to the written word.

[bar Jonah]

Pilgrim:
In a sense I think Robyn is on to something. It has always been true that our final authority is God, not scripture.

And it is interesting that just like "sola scriptura" is not scriptural, I can find no place in scripture where it is explicitily stated that scripture is innerant. This is troubling because those arguing for innerancy argue it from a scriptural basis.

Bottom line, I go for infallable and authoritative and reserve for Christ the place of status often given wrongly to the written word.
Agreed, Pilgrim. It comes down to knowing that 1) we don't have any original autographs, so while we can take it on faith that they were inerrant, we cannot strongly defend that belief, 2) the manuscripts we have today are definitely not inerrant. Heck, they don't even agree with each other, so it is wholly impossible for them to be inerrant. But 3) we know the Bible is infallible in accomplishing its purpose according to God's will.

GODISNOWHERE teaches apologetics classes and seminars to local churches. You should see the faces on a class when we tell them the Bible isn't inerrant. LOL Utter shock and disbelief. But we believe this is an important thing to know. Because when they go out and try to defend their faith and make the claim that the Bible is inerrant, the atheist or Buddhist or Wiccan or Muslim is going to whip out some hard proof this claim is false, and suddenly the Christian will be left bewildered and disillusioned. We spend a significant amount of time teaching how not to defend Christianity.

[bar Jonah]

Point taken about Robyn. I misunderstood your post. Thanks.

I didn't even realize until recently just how screwed up and heretical the "Jesus Seminar" is... believing that Jesus was married, was a rabbi who practiced the Khabbalah, and so forth. Insanity.

[Faramir]

RightIdea:

GODISNOWHERE teaches apologetics classes and seminars to local churches. You should see the faces on a class when we tell them the Bible isn't inerrant. LOL Utter shock and disbelief. But we believe this is an important thing to know. Because when they go out and try to defend their faith and make the claim that the Bible is inerrant, the atheist or Buddhist or Wiccan or Muslim is going to whip out some hard proof this claim is false, and suddenly the Christian will be left bewildered and disillusioned. We spend a significant amount of time teaching how not to defend Christianity.

A friend of mine teaches a simlar class at my church. Same reaction. But there are so many Christians who just don't have a clue. :no:

[Pilgrim]

Yes, I have real issues with the Jesus seminar. There seems to be an underlying agenda that influneces them too strongly. Although I could not say for sure...it's just this feeling I get.

[Dee Dee Warren]

CRI has some really intensive writeups on the biases and problems with the Jesus Seminar.

[Robyn Banks]

RightIdea:
Robyn is with the so-called Jesus Seminar???

Holy cow, that sure does explain a lot! LOL
Marcus Borg is a member of the Jesus Seminar. not me.

I quoted Marcus Borg - who I think is the first 'liberal' scholar that I qoted here, because I have concentrated on more conservative ones - and the Rabid Ones seized on the man, rather than his content. Ah - sibling rivalry! :rofl:

Robyn

[Jaltus]

The Bible does not ask for 'belief in the Bible'. The Bible asks for belief in God. The former is a doctrinal requirement of inerrantist fundamentalists. The latter is the purpose of the Bible in construting a worldview. If we don't believe the Bible, why should we believe in the worldview it presents?

If a physics book is full of grammatical mistakes, it makes me wonder about the rest of the book.

if a book which is from God is full of mistakes, it makes me wonder about the author. How can I be sure they got spiritual things right if they cannot even get earthly things right?


'Useful' for teaching. Right. It is useful. It is not an ends in itself, however. the key word is "all." According to you, only the parts that deal with salvation are useful. Inerrancy assures (or assumes) that all of scripture is useful, not just doctrinal sections.

I can't help but think that your form of exegesis leads to allegorical understandings and not literal, which is highly problematic.

[bar Jonah]

Jaltus, just for clarification (as this thread has become very complicated), what is your view regarding the seemingly unarguable fact that the manuscripts we have today don't even match each other; they aren't even the same as each other? (This is described in McDowell's "Evidence," among a myriad of other sources.) It seems to me this is primae facie evidence of errancy in currently existing manuscripts. So your last post loses a good deal of punch when taken in this light.

Your thoughts?

[GrayPilgrim]

RI,

Jaltus and I hold basically to the same view.

[Dee Dee Warren]

And to add to what Jaltus said (and I think that GP, Jaltus, and I all hold to the same view)

Jesus said that if He told us of earthly things and we do not believe, how can we believe when He tells us of heavenly things.

And there is a really, really bad problem with what Robyn is advocating... let's just noodle-ize a bit here together. Let's say that I have no problem with some of the stuff that mere man says in the Bible being wrong. Let's just say they were ignorant and messed some stuff up. But... these so-called errors do not merely appear in the text in the allegedly infallibly recorded errant words of man, they are ascribed as coming directly from God Himself in verses that ascribe the words and phrases to Him, not as man's word, but as man recording God's words. So, either God screwed up (not an option), or the men who penned these errant words allegedly of God were either LYING or DELUDED. Not good options here folks.

[Robyn Banks]

Jaltus:
If we don't believe the Bible, why should we believe in the worldview it presents?
1. The errantist Christian still 'believes the Bible'.

2. The 'why' of belief is not reducible to the Bible.



Jaltus:
If a physics book is full of grammatical mistakes, it makes me wonder about the rest of the book.
I agree. It makes me wonder, too. But better to wonder than to cling to your imagined and false 'certainty'.



Jaltus:
if a book which is from God is full of mistakes, it makes me wonder about the author. How can I be sure they got spiritual things right if they cannot even get earthly things right?
Good question. The ultimate question is, do you have faith in God or not?

“We have spent too much time protecting the God who inspired the Scriptures from limitations that He seems not to have been concerned about. The impassioned debate about inerrancy tells us less about divine omnipotence (which presumably allows God to be relaxed) than about our own insecurity in looking for absolute answers.”
- Raymond Brown



Jaltus:
the key word is "all." According to you, only the parts that deal with salvation are useful.
Not according to me. All the Bible is useful. All of it is 'inspired'. But the process of inspiration allowed errors. These errors are manifest and obvious. It only makes Christianity appear ridiculous in the eyes of honest men and women to provide tendentious explanations for them.


Jaltus:
I can't help but think that your form of exegesis leads to allegorical understandings and not literal, which is highly problematic.
Not at all. The literal interpretation is the first interpretation.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Dee Dee Warren:
And there is a really, really bad problem with what Robyn is advocating...
Only in your mind, Dee Dee. But you may be able to free yourself from those shackles... :rofl:


Dee Dee Warren:
Let's say that I have no problem with some of the stuff that mere man says in the Bible being wrong. Let's just say they were ignorant and messed some stuff up. But... these so-called errors do not merely appear in the text in the allegedly infallibly recorded errant words of man, they are ascribed as coming directly from God Himself in verses that ascribe the words and phrases to Him, not as man's word, but as man recording God's words.
This is a dictation theory of inspiration. This is Jaltus' problem. This is the problem with the 'inerrancy syllogism'. It rests on assuming a particular method of 'inspiration'. If there is another way of interpreting the Bible's description of 'inspriation', then that assumption does not necessarily hold. The Bible itself has a wide range of genres, with modes of inspiration quite different from 'dictational'. And so the 'inerrancy syllogism' fails. That is why Jaltus' 'inerrancy syllogism' fails.



Dee Dee Warren:
So, either God screwed up (not an option), or the men who penned these errant words allegedly of God were either LYING or DELUDED.
Your invented dichotemy only 'exists' where you have made the prior assumption of a dictational method of 'inspiration'. This is not necessarily the case.



Dee Dee Warren:
Not good options here folks.
And a false dichotemy.

“We have spent too much time protecting the God who inspired the Scriptures from limitations that He seems not to have been concerned about. The impassioned debate about inerrancy tells us less about divine omnipotence (which presumably allows God to be relaxed) than about our own insecurity in looking for absolute answers.”
- Raymond Brown

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** say hey coolman--

“We have spent too much time protecting the God who inspired the Scriptures from limitations that He seems not to have been concerned about. The impassioned debate about inerrancy tells us less about divine omnipotence (which presumably allows God to be relaxed) than about our own insecurity in looking for absolute answers.”
- Raymond Brown

**8** i dig that. on the other hand, have you ever seen Fr. Brown's commentaries on Scripture approach the spiritual heights of Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, or Richard of St. Victor?

Not at all. The literal interpretation is the first interpretation.

**7** ya got me all misty-eyed. i don't know whether to hug ya or hit ya :thumb:
just try not to put your weight too far toward one side in your zeal to enlighten fundametalists.
pray tell, what Church do you belong to?
peace in Christ.

[Robyn Banks]

From a letter to Clyde S. Kilby, May 7, 1959, from C. S. Lewis


Whatever view we hold of the divine authority of Scripture must make room for the following facts:

1. The distinction which St. Paul makes in 1 Cor vii between ouk ego all' ho kurios [not myself but the Lord] (v. 10) and ego lego oux ho kurios [I myself say, not the Lord] (v. 12).

2. The apparent inconsistencies between the genealogies in Matt. i and Luke ii; with the accounts of the death of Judas in Matt. xxvii 5 and Acts i 18-19.

3. St. Luke's own account of how he obtained his matter (i 1-4).

4. The universally admitted unhistoricity (I do not say, of course, falsity) of at least some of the narratives in Scripture (the parables), which may well also extend to Jonah and Job.

5. If every good and perfect gift comes from the Father of lights, then all true and edifying writings, whether in Scripture or not, must be in some sense inspired.

6. John xi 49-52 Inspiration may operate in a wicked man without him knowing it, and he can then utter the untruth he intends (propriety of making an innocent man a political scapegoat) as well as the truth he does not intend (the divine sacrifice).

It seems to me that 2 and 4 rule out the view that every statement in Scripture must be historical truth. And 1, 3, 5, and 6 rule out the view that inspiration is a single thing in the sense that, if present at all, it is always present in the same mode and the same degree. Therefore, I think, we may rule out the view that any one passage taken in isolation can be assumed to be inerrant in exactly the same sense as any other: e.g., that the numbers of O.T. armies (which in view of the size of the country, if true, involve continuous miracle) are statistically correct because the story of the Resurrection is historically correct. That the over-all operation of Scripture is to convey God's Word to the reader (he also needs his inspiration) who reads it in the right spirit, I fully believe. That it also gives true answers to all the questions (often religiously irrelevant) which he might ask, I don't. The very kind of truth we are often demanding was, in my opinion, not even envisaged by the ancients.

- Quoted in Michael J. Christensen, C. S. Lewis on Scripture
(Abingdon, 1979), Appendix A.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Robyn:

Your belittlement is duly noted.


Your invented dichotemy only 'exists' where you have made the prior assumption of a dictational method of 'inspiration'. This is not necessarily the case.

You are the one making an assumption. I hold to no such thing. I suggest you reread my point without that false assumption about me. It am relying upon the informational content, not a word for word transcription. And you have then inherited the whirlwind.

[Robyn Banks]

phantaz sunlyk:
**7** say hey coolman--
Yo dude.


Raymond Brown:
“We have spent too much time protecting the God who inspired the Scriptures from limitations that He seems not to have been concerned about. The impassioned debate about inerrancy tells us less about divine omnipotence (which presumably allows God to be relaxed) than about our own insecurity in looking for absolute answers.”
- Raymond Brown

phantaz sunlyk:
**8** i dig that. on the other hand, have you ever seen Fr. Brown's commentaries on Scripture approach the spiritual heights of Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, or Richard of St. Victor?
Yes - frequently. :) In fact, probably because of the time I live in, Brown's commentaries are much more realistically spiritual than these earlier Christian commentators. Spiritual-then is not spiritual-now, after all.


Robyn:
Not at all. The literal interpretation is the first interpretation.

phantaz sunlyk:
**7** ya got me all misty-eyed. i don't know whether to hug ya or hit ya :thumb:
Thanks - I think. :)


phantaz sunlyk:
just try not to put your weight too far toward one side in your zeal to enlighten fundametalists.
pray tell, what Church do you belong to?
I seem to attend either a Baptist church or an Anglican church these days. The Anglican church is within walking distance, and I can hear the bells from home. The pastor likes my sense of humour - which I have only let slip here once or twice - concentrating on those serious topics...

And are you Orthodox?

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Dee Dee Warren:
Your belittlement is duly noted.
Not at all, Dee Dee. Just a friendly jab in the ribs. :)



Dee Dee Warren:
You are the one making an assumption.
Me the one? I knew someone was making an assumption somewhere along the line. And it ended up being me, eh? Well, what do you know. :rofl:


Dee Dee Warren:
I hold to no such thing. I suggest you reread my point without that false assumption about me. It am relying upon the informational content, not a word for word transcription. And you have then inherited the whirlwind.
Hmmmmm. Offended by the term 'dictational'? Let's not let words daunt us, with all their slippery connotations. Let's just say that you hold to an idea of 'inspiration' that forces all words to be The Message from God, while I allow for a little more human input into the process. CS Lewis and I acknowledge that the inspiration process possibly allows for human error in conveying God's (inspired) message. You definitely don't allow for such a possibility.

Now, that is why your assumption about 'inspiration' leads to a false conclusion about 'inerrancy'.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Robyn:

Again, I am sorry, that while you have shed one presuppositoin about what I said, you simply unearthed another.

[quote]Hmmmmm. Offended by the term 'dictational'? Let's not let words daunt us, with all their slippery connotations. Let's just say that you hold to an idea of 'inspiration' that forces all words to be The Message from God, while I allow for a little more human input into the process. [/quiote]

Incorrect. Nothing I said in my point says that for I allowed your view to guide the evaluatoin, not my point of view. You have once again imported your assumptions and are lighting the night with straw men.

Please reread my point again. I said no such thing. In fact in my point, I conceded for the point of argument (not that I in reality would concede that whole point) that all the words are NOT a message from God. Since you seemed to have missed that, you have completely failed to comprehend my point.

[Robyn Banks]

Dee Dee Warren:
I conceded for the point of argument (not that I in reality would concede that whole point) that all the words are NOT a message from God. Since you seemed to have missed that, you have completely failed to comprehend my point.
Hmmmm - you seem to be denying a lot about what your view of 'inspiration' is. But nothing very affirmative.

So - to drag it out of you:
- What is your idea of how the Bible was 'inspired'?
- Did God allow authors to make errors in transmitting His message?
- What specifically did God inspire? words? ideas? the author? The author's community?

You see, when you make the claim that errors in the Biblical text "are ascribed as coming directly from God Himself in verses that ascribe the words and phrases to Him, not as man's word, but as man recording God's words" I know that you are not holding to a very broad theory of inspiration, even for parts of the Bible - and even when you may be doing so 'for the sake of argument'. While you may be assuming a certain theory of inspiration 'for argument', your conclusions reveal the contraints of your own theory of inspiration.

Robyn

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Robyn:

Sigh. I was taking as true for sake of argument much of your view and then exploring the implictions. I was not defining my view of inspiration which Jaltus and GP have already done quite ably... thus, your questions have continued to miss my point. I would like you to address my point now that your presuppositions have been dispatched.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I repeat the paragraph in question...

And there is a really, really bad problem with what Robyn is advocating... let's just noodle-ize a bit here together. Let's say that I have no problem with some of the stuff that mere man says in the Bible being wrong. Let's just say they were ignorant and messed some stuff up. But... these so-called errors do not merely appear in the text in the allegedly infallibly recorded errant words of man, they are ascribed as coming directly from God Himself in verses that ascribe the words and phrases to Him, not as man's word, but as man recording God's words. So, either God screwed up (not an option), or the men who penned these errant words allegedly of God were either LYING or DELUDED. Not good options here folks.

[Robyn Banks]

Dee Dee Warren:
Sigh. I was taking as true for sake of argument much of your view and then exploring the implictions.
Yes, I know. But these are not the 'implications' of the view of inspiration that I have set out. Even though you say that you accepted my view of inspiration for the sake of argument, the implications are implications of a narrow 'dictational' theory of inspiration. If applied to the theory of inspiration I outlined, your 'implications' would be a false dichotemy.


Dee Dee Warren:
I was not defining my view of inspiration which Jaltus and GP have already done quite ably... thus, your questions have continued to miss my point.
No - my questions are to work out what sort of 'inspiration' you actually hold to - as this is the sort of 'inspiration' that apparently would produce the implications you wrongly ascribe to my own theory of inspiration.


Dee Dee Warren:
I would like you to address my point now that your presuppositions have been dispatched.
Your 'implications' only hold for the dictation theory of inspiration, and similar theories. This is Jaltus' problem. This is the problem with the 'inerrancy syllogism'. It rests on assuming a particular method of 'inspiration'. If there is another way of interpreting the Bible's description of 'inspriation', then that assumption does not necessarily hold. The Bible itself has a wide range of genres, with modes of inspiration quite different from 'dictational'. And so the 'inerrancy syllogism' fails. That is why Jaltus' 'inerrancy syllogism' fails.

Robyn

[Dee Dee Warren]

And I respectfully think that you are dodging the issue. I will pursue my point in more detail at my next opportunity.

[geebob]

This is kind of backtracking here but I'd like to address a concern that Jaltus brought up a few pages ago. Although we've moved on, I'm not sure it was addressed well.

I'd like to mention that there are two parts to Banks' view, one that I think is solid, and one that I think may actually suffer from Jaltus' criticism.


The part that suffers is where Banks' described that God is willing to work with human religious errors, and it is the consideration of the whole that gets around this. I think this really opens the door to the subjective more than should be the case. For example, one could take Jesus' command to hate our parents as such a religious error that is corrected by the greater theme of love presented in scripture. Now of course a well educated person knows how to handle this, but a layman taking Robyn's approach might go the route just described and miss what Jesus was getting at here ascribing it too the religious errors of one of the gospel authors. (Correct me if misinterpreted you Robyn).

I think a better approach here would be to shrug one's shoulders and say "Gee, I don't know how to handle this." and that's a perfectly reasonable way to deal with it. But to conclude that it is a religious error is premature.

Now the description of infallibility that I do like and consider more solid than has been given credit for is the notion that the scriptures are infallible in terms of God's intentions of communicating salvation. I would only add that this is too narrow. The scriptures are infallible in communicating whatever God intends to communicate to us, which I believe goes beyond mere salvation.

Now Jaltus said the problem with this is that we can just toss out anything that we don't believe is what God intends to communicate. I don't see that this is the case, because if the bible states something that directly has an effect on how we view God and our relation to him and how we should respond to him, we've got to deal with it. This view does not just allow us to willie nillie toss out what we don't like along those lines because the intention of the narration is what God intends to communicate.

Now an example to show why this does not require 100 percent historical accuracy can be found in the death of Judas. Does anyone really believe that it is important to our view of man, God, or man and God to understand in historically accurate detail how Judas died? Does it really make that much of a difference if he hung himself or jumped headfirst into the ground and splattered? Do we really have to put some nonsensical effort in trying to explain how both accounts are true? (maybe he tied a rope around his neck, and jumped off a tree branch with such a force that he swung all the way around, snapped the rope and fell to the ground and busted open :no: ) This all strikes me as absurd!

The point is that Judas betrayed the man of love and comprimised his self worth and destroyed himself. The precise details are inconsequential.


Now there was another thing that was brought up for the sake of defending the typical view of inerrency, and that is the passage in timothy saying that all scripture is useful. The interesting thing about this is that it is not necessary to assume a correspondence theory of truth (which might imply absolutely accurate historically correct scripture) to hold this and in fact, it is a pragmatic theory of truth that is being put foward here.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** say hey coolio--

Yo dude.

**8** groovy.
interesting, what ya said of Brown--

Yes - frequently. In fact, probably because of the time I live in, Brown's commentaries are much more realistically spiritual than these earlier Christian commentators. Spiritual-then is not spiritual-now, after all.

**7** i have four of his books and he bores me to death, though i admire his (for the most part) absolutely cautious reasoning (verrrrrrry rarely will he jump to a bogus conclusion, which is nice).
spiritual then ain't spiritual now?
ha! i'm one of those ressourcement cats. gimme the Philokalia and an Alexandrine commentary on an OT book and i'm good to go.

And are you Orthodox?

**8** nay, Catholic with laaaaaaarge sympathies pro-Orthodoxy.
hey, hast thou considered the relationship between the literal and the spiritual meanings in Alexandrian exegesis vis-a-vis the believers encounter with God? by which i mean, does the mystical sense turn you towards a sacramental understanding of Christian life at all?
peace.

[Robyn Banks]

phantaz sunlyk:
hey, hast thou considered the relationship between the literal and the spiritual meanings in Alexandrian exegesis vis-a-vis the believers encounter with God? by which i mean, does the mystical sense turn you towards a sacramental understanding of Christian life at all?
Hmmmm. Do you want to tell me about your thoughts and experiences on this? That may help me make an answer.

Incidentally, the Baptist church i sometimes attend is heavily into the use of icons. This is not typical of the Baptist sect. :) They are also into meditation using various techniques from various mystics - usually Christian, although with a bit of Zazen.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Dee Dee Warren:
And I respectfully think that you are dodging the issue.
Nope. Maybe you don't understand something I answered? I will gladly clarify anything I say - on and on. People sometimes tell me 'enough' - but no-one honestly tells me I am 'dodging'.

:(

Robyn

[Blake Reas]

Hi Robyn,

While I do not think inerrancy is necessary for Salvation for instance I like some of Barth's stuff. My question to you and anyone else who is a Christian and believes scripture is errant in some way, how do you know that the doctrinal content is true?

You cannot say because the Bible tells me so because you don't believe it is very reliable in the first place. Also if you do hold to orthodox Christian belief about God(which I assume you do) then how do you formulat doctrines from scripture you cannot trust? It sounds inconsistent, I just want to see someone on your side of the argument answer this.

From what I have seen with Scripture is that the "contradictions", historical "blunders", archaeology not "conforming" to the biblical record are either assumptions by the one asserting them, bad logic, or a out right disdain for scripture. Also critics tend to think that abscence of evidence is evidenc of absence you see this quite often in OT studies, to make assertions such as this with the amount of archaeology that has yet to be done is ludicrous to say the least.

For instance the Jesus Seminar says that Jesus' words in the gospels where inserted there by the early Church, but it never occurs to them that what Jesus spoke on may be exactly why the early Church believed the way it did! I have never seen any one of them deal with this, they just prance out there assertions. I may be wrong here but this is what I have seen.

Do you believe in the Trinity and affirm that Jesus was God? or do you hold to such views as panentheism or a form of Pantheism or maybe something else? :(

In Christ,
Blake Reas

[bar Jonah]

Blake Reas:
Hi Robyn,

While I do not think inerrancy is necessary for Salvation for instance I like some of Barth's stuff. My question to you and anyone else who is a Christian and believes scripture is errant in some way, how do you know that the doctrinal content is true?
I'll explain that below.

Blake Reas: You cannot say because the Bible tells me so because you don't believe it is very reliable in the first place. Also if you do hold to orthodox Christian belief about God(which I assume you do) then how do you formulat doctrines from scripture you cannot trust? It sounds inconsistent, I just want to see someone on your side of the argument answer this.
I do believe the Bible is VERY reliable. Infallible. For reasons I'll give below.

Blake Reas: From what I have seen with Scripture is that the "contradictions", historical "blunders", archaeology not "conforming" to the biblical record are either assumptions by the one asserting them, bad logic, or a out right disdain for scripture.
I don't believe archeology contradicts any scripture. I have no disdain for scripture. But here are the facts, my brother...

We have NO original autographs. No original writings. Only copies of copies of copies. That is an unarguable fact. Some of these manuscripts include several whole books of the Bible. Some are snippets written on something no bigger than a credit card. With everything in between.

It is also an unarguable fact that these 10s of thousands of manuscripts DON'T MATCH EACH OTHER. They don't agree with each other. This is fact. There are discrepancies, variances.

Why can we rely on the Bible? Because 1) there are FAR fewer such variances in the Bible, per the amount of writing, than is the case with any other ancient writings, such as Homer's Odyssee, none of which are disputed among scholars. And 2) none of these variances impact theology (unlike translational errors, which often do).

Therefore, the Bible is infallible in its purpose, in its ability to carry out God's will by conveying absolute truth in its teaching. That is why I can believe the doctrine we find there.

[Blake Reas]

RightIdea:

I'll explain that below.

I do believe the Bible is VERY reliable. Infallible. For reasons I'll give below.

I don't believe archeology contradicts any scripture. I have no disdain for scripture. But here are the facts, my brother...

We have NO original autographs. No original writings. Only copies of copies of copies. That is an unarguable fact. Some of these manuscripts include several whole books of the Bible. Some are snippets written on something no bigger than a credit card. With everything in between.

It is also an unarguable fact that these 10s of thousands of manuscripts DON'T MATCH EACH OTHER. They don't agree with each other. This is fact. There are discrepancies, variances.

Why can we rely on the Bible? Because 1) there are FAR fewer such variances in the Bible, per the amount of writing, than is the case with any other ancient writings, such as Homer's Odyssee, none of which are disputed among scholars. And 2) none of these variances impact theology (unlike translational errors, which often do).

Therefore, the Bible is infallible in its purpose, in its ability to carry out God's will by conveying absolute truth in its teaching. That is why I can believe the doctrine we find there.

I hope that you are not taking me as someone who believes that all manuscripts are equal and the like. What i have read on textual criticism is that we have about 95% of the OT and 98% of NT that we know are correct. I do not disagree on differences in certain text like you have pointed out in your post about David and Goliath.

I really hope you where not attempting to paint me as a fool when you where quoting all of your undisputed facts because I agree with all of them! It seems to me you come in here thinking of the KJV only inerrantist when in fact the real doctrine of inerrancy is nicely able to incorporate your whinings about textual variants.

Sadly Right Idea I agree with every thing you say maybe you should ask for clarification on issues I do not think we are very far from each other.

In Christ,
Blake Reas:huh:

[Robyn Banks]

geebob:
For example, one could take Jesus' command to hate our parents as such a religious error that is corrected by the greater theme of love presented in scripture. Now of course a well educated person knows how to handle this, but a layman taking Robyn's approach might go the route just described and miss what Jesus was getting at here ascribing it too the religious errors of one of the gospel authors. (Correct me if misinterpreted you Robyn).
So a well-educated person taking my approach will recognise that Jesus' injunction is consistent with other parts in Scripture, but the poor interpretor taking my approach may wrongly conclude that there is an error? Yup - that's the risk of poor interpretation. It is not the inherent risk of my approach, however.


geebob:
I think a better approach here would be to shrug one's shoulders and say "Gee, I don't know how to handle this." and that's a perfectly reasonable way to deal with it. But to conclude that it is a religious error is premature.
Hmmmm. In any one example of an apparent contradiction in the Scriptures, there are a variety of possibilities:
1. The best interpretation of the scriptures may support a contradiction with a high degree of probability.
2. The best interpretation of the scriptures may more likely than not support a contradiction.
3. The best interpretation of the scriptures may be as likely as not to support the conclusion of a contradiction.
4. The best interpretation of the scriptures may more likely than not support a harmonization.
5. The best interpretation of the scriptures may support a harmonization with a high degree of probability.
6. The best interpretation of the scriptures may be unascertainable, and so the question remains open.

In your particular example, of Jesus' injunction, a little recourse to his use of hyperbole, and his love for 'enemies' should place this injunction in context. And the conclusion is clearly (5) - the best interpretation of the scriptures supports a harmonization with a high degree of probability.


geebob:
Now the description of infallibility that I do like and consider more solid than has been given credit for is the notion that the scriptures are infallible in terms of God's intentions of communicating salvation. I would only add that this is too narrow. The scriptures are infallible in communicating whatever God intends to communicate to us, which I believe goes beyond mere salvation.
I agree it is too narrow. I was of course trying to refute Jaltus' concept of 'inspiration', in his attempted syllogism - which only required me to provide an alternative concept of 'inspiration'. So I chose one in use by the Catholic Church since Vatican II. But I don't insist on this soteriological limitation of 'inspiration' myself (although 'soteriological' is much broader in concept than just personal salvation).


geebob:
Now Jaltus said the problem with this is that we can just toss out anything that we don't believe is what God intends to communicate. I don't see that this is the case, because if the bible states something that directly has an effect on how we view God and our relation to him and how we should respond to him, we've got to deal with it. This view does not just allow us to willie nillie toss out what we don't like along those lines because the intention of the narration is what God intends to communicate.
That's right. There are still 'constraints' of interpretation.


geebob:
Now an example to show why this does not require 100 percent historical accuracy can be found in the death of Judas. Does anyone really believe that it is important to our view of man, God, or man and God to understand in historically accurate detail how Judas died? Does it really make that much of a difference if he hung himself or jumped headfirst into the ground and splattered? Do we really have to put some nonsensical effort in trying to explain how both accounts are true? (maybe he tied a rope around his neck, and jumped off a tree branch with such a force that he swung all the way around, snapped the rope and fell to the ground and busted open :no: ) This all strikes me as absurd!
It is absurd!! How much time is spent dreaming up these tendentious 'how-could-it-have-been' scenarios, in order to defend the man-made doctrine of 'inerrancy'?

"A good deal of time and effort has been spent by interpreters in such efforts, whether applied to religious errors or to the above-mentioned historical and scientific errors. This approach, in my judgment, is an unmitigated disaster, draining off energy into the creation of ingenious implausibilities and turning exegesis into apologetics.”
-Raymond Brown



geebob:
The point is that Judas betrayed the man of love and comprimised his self worth and destroyed himself. The precise details are inconsequential.
Ah - you got it!


geebob:
Now there was another thing that was brought up for the sake of defending the typical view of inerrency, and that is the passage in timothy saying that all scripture is useful. The interesting thing about this is that it is not necessary to assume a correspondence theory of truth (which might imply absolutely accurate historically correct scripture) to hold this and in fact, it is a pragmatic theory of truth that is being put foward here.
Too true.

And perhaps a little more liberally than your own sentiment, Bishop Richard Holloway:

"Since there is no way we can get in touch with the metaphysical or supernatural realm that is on the other side of the claims made about Jesus, I believe that we should now use these claims to define and characterise the way we live in this world and not as descriptions of another world beyond this one that we can have no direct knowledge of, including certain knowledge that it exists. What I want to offer as a programme of action is theological pragmatism as opposed to theological positivism. Theological positivism claims that, through revelation, we have been given true and saving information about that reality we call the supernatural, or Heaven, or the Divine realm, or the other world. The "truth" bit does not particularly bother me. If you tell me that you know that there is another heavenly reality beyond this one and that you know something about what goes on there, I hope I will have the grace to listen politely and not intrude upon convictions that are clearly important to you. If you tell me that unless I also hold the same views I cannot be "saved" and that something awful and eternal will happen to me after death, I will be less inclined to listen graciously. Moreover, I will detect in your theology not just your private opinion about unknowable matters, but a kind of religious abuse, a power-play, that is clearly designed to pressurise me into re-arranging my mind so that it can accommodate the essential items you insist on installing there.

Thanks for your thoughtful replies, Gee Bob.

Robyn

[Blake Reas]

For further clarification I hold to the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy.

RightIdea now that I think about you where assuming that I was going to have no Idea what you where talking about! That is quite funny considering that no one worth their salt would come in here claiming the copies of copies are inerrant!:bonk:

Maybe your assumptions are do to the lack of intellectual life in the Church! ;)

In Christ,
Blake Reas

[Blake Reas]

Robyn and Geebon said:


geebob:
Now an example to show why this does not require 100 percent historical accuracy can be found in the death of Judas. Does anyone really believe that it is important to our view of man, God, or man and God to understand in historically accurate detail how Judas died? Does it really make that much of a difference if he hung himself or jumped headfirst into the ground and splattered? Do we really have to put some nonsensical effort in trying to explain how both accounts are true? (maybe he tied a rope around his neck, and jumped off a tree branch with such a force that he swung all the way around, snapped the rope and fell to the ground and busted open ) This all strikes me as absurd!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It is absurd!! How much time is spent dreaming up these tendentious 'how-could-it-have-been' scenarios, in order to defend the man-made doctrine of 'inerrancy'?

"A good deal of time and effort has been spent by interpreters in such efforts, whether applied to religious errors or to the above-mentioned historical and scientific errors. This approach, in my judgment, is an unmitigated disaster, draining off energy into the creation of ingenious implausibilities and turning exegesis into apologetics.”
-Raymond Brown

May I ask why the idea that a rope may break or someone cutting Judas down so his rotting carcass was not in view of everyone else is implausible?

As to your quote with Raymond Brown, who I think is a first rate scholar is rather funny. Maybe mister Brown doesn't want to except inerrancy because the Liberals and their Cohorts would no longer listen to his work since it is fashionable for them not to even quote an evangelical scholar in their books or if they do they say hell he is an evangelical it is not like they have any good arguments! I do not believe that belief in inerrancy is vital to salvation. Glory to God in the Highest!( I base that on an inerrant scripture:) )

In Christ,
Blake Reas

[Robyn Banks]

Blake Reas:
My question to you and anyone else who is a Christian and believes scripture is errant in some way, how do you know that the doctrinal content is true?
You know because it was given by God to the church, and is guaranteed by his spirit.


Blake Reas:
You cannot say because the Bible tells me so because you don't believe it is very reliable in the first place.
Actually, you can believe because the Bible tells you - but remember that the Bible is part of a context already - a community.



Blake Reas:
Also if you do hold to orthodox Christian belief about God(which I assume you do) then how do you formulat doctrines from scripture you cannot trust?
Actually, you can trust the Bible - but remember that the Bible is part of a context already - a community.


Blake Reas:
It sounds inconsistent, I just want to see someone on your side of the argument answer this.
For people who believe that the 'foundation' of belief is a prior logical demonstration of the inerrancy in the Bible, and that there is no other possible basis, it may be hard to conceive. But the bible was never the foundation of belief in Christianity until more modern times.


Blake Reas:
From what I have seen with Scripture is that the "contradictions", historical "blunders", archaeology not "conforming" to the biblical record are either assumptions by the one asserting them, bad logic, or a out right disdain for scripture.
That may be so. For there are many people asserting contradictions and other errors out of virtual ignorance. However, there are also very many fine Biblical scholars who (not necessarily all of them) are primarily looking for the best meaning of the text they are examining. It sometimes happens as a consequence of this search for the best meaning, that the best meaning results in a contradiction or error. But unlike the inerrantists (with a bias towards interpretations that are inerrant) and the skeptics (with a bias towards interpretations that are errant), they are determined to find the best meaning. And even if they don't always get it right, they find dozens of cases, if not hundreds, that result in a contradiction or error. It is a credit to their lack of bias that this is a consequence of their method of ascertaining the best meaning of the text within its context - the authorial intent - without being swayed by the consequences of that search.


Blake Reas:
Also critics tend to think that abscence of evidence is evidenc of absence you see this quite often in OT studies, to make assertions such as this with the amount of archaeology that has yet to be done is ludicrous to say the least.
Absence of evidence may sometimes be a fallacious argument from silence. Sometimes, especially where silence is unusual in itself, the absence of evidence provides persuasive proof, which is not fallacious, but not conclusive either.


Blake Reas:
For instance the Jesus Seminar says that Jesus' words in the gospels where inserted there by the early Church, but it never occurs to them that what Jesus spoke on may be exactly why the early Church believed the way it did!
:) I am sure it does 'occur' to them that Jesus indeed spoke the words. But not only the Jesus Seminar claim such things. Most NT scholars will note that, as an example, Matthew's interpolations of Mark's narrative were created by Matthew, rather than said by Jesus. This is supported by the fact that they have a particular 'colour' - an emphasis of Matthew's favourite themes. This is again persuasive, but not conclusive.


Blake Reas:
I have never seen any one of them deal with this, they just prance out there assertions. I may be wrong here but this is what I have seen.
The Jesus' Seminar's assumptions are set out by them. I do not agree with them, but I do agree with some. As a result, many of their conclusions I also disagree with.


Blake Reas:
Do you believe in the Trinity and affirm that Jesus was God? or do you hold to such views as panentheism or a form of Pantheism or maybe something else? :(
I do like panentheism. Pannenberg is a blast! Teilhard is exciting!

'When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all."
- 1 Cor 15.28

Robyn

[Blake Reas]

I see that you hold to a form of postmodern relativism with all of your discussions about communities. Correct me if i am wrong. Thanks for you reply!

In God's Grace,
Blake

[Blake Reas]

It is funny that you talk about context, but have you ever considered that the early Church may have assumed that the scriptures where inerrant and took that at face value? Apparently the post-enlightenment rationalism was not around and people did not( to the best of my knowledge) go around looking for little contradictions in scripture they tried to disprove doctrines.
I also have trouble seeing how you can make the assertion that the early church did not believe in a how should we say "inerrant" scripture. They did take it as authoratative and they took the stories to be historical did they not?

In Christ,
Blake Reas

P.S. I think that your assertions about the Early Church's view on the Bible are because of your post-enlightenment assumptions. :D

[Robyn Banks]

Blake Reas:
I see that you hold to a form of postmodern relativism with all of your discussions about communities. Correct me if i am wrong.
You are wrong. I hold to critical realism in the realm of epistemology, not postmodern relativism.

But that is largely relevant. The context for 'community' is that the basis for the Faith rests on the threefold grounds of Community, Creeds & Bible. Not on any one of these. ie. my comments were an expression of 'orthodoxy'.

Robyn

[Blake Reas]

Robyn Banks:

You are wrong. I hold to critical realism in the realm of epistemology, not postmodern relativism.

But that is largely relevant. The context for 'community' is that the basis for the Faith rests on the threefold grounds of Community, Creeds & Bible. Not on any one of these. ie. my comments were an expression of 'orthodoxy'.

Robyn

Hey, we do have some common ground! I read N.T. Wright's book NT and the People of God and he lays out Critical Realism in a nice fashion. Thanks again for your curtious reply!

In Christ,
Blake Reas:idea:

[Robyn Banks]

Blake Reas:
It is funny that you talk about context,
It's not too funny. We are reffering to Biblical interpretation, after all - and context is a fairly closely related concept. :)


Blake Reas:
but have you ever considered that the early Church may have assumed that the scriptures where inerrant and took that at face value?
I have read the early church fathers on their belief in a perfect Bible. Their belief is fundamentally different from modernist inerrancy. The major reason is that the early church interpreted the Bible in a number of ways apart from the literal - even where the context of the author was literal. They also offered up typological, allegorical and metaphorical interpretations, amongst others. And where a literal interpretation provided them with difficulty, they did not seek out a tendentious 'harmonization' according to (modernist, inerrantist) literalism - instead, they just moved on to another method of interpretation. So where the literal interpretation caused problems - and the early church fathers had problems, for example, with the morality of some of the acts of Yahweh in the OT - they moved on to the allegorical interpretation.

So they responded in a way vastly different from the way modernists (of which inerrantists are a peculiar breed) would respond.



Blake Reas:
They did take it as authoratative and they took the stories to be historical did they not?
No. They took some stories to be allegorical. 'Historic' correspondence with truth is a more modernist concern. That is why (modernist) inerrantists are so keen on it. :)


Blake Reas:
P.S. I think that your assertions about the Early Church's view on the Bible are because of your post-enlightenment assumptions. :D
And I think your inerrancy is due to your post-enlightenment assumptions. In fact, I know so. :)

Robyn

[Blake Reas]

I am sure it does 'occur' to them that Jesus indeed spoke the words. But not only the Jesus Seminar claim such things. Most NT scholars will note that, as an example, Matthew's interpolations of Mark's narrative were created by Matthew, rather than said by Jesus. This is supported by the fact that they have a particular 'colour' - an emphasis of Matthew's favourite themes. This is again persuasive, but not conclusive

If you mean by "colour" Theology then I would reply in this way:

Just because Matthew may use Jesus' sayings in different places or in a manner that helps his theology does not mean that Matthew created material out of the whole cloth. I like I. Howard Marshall in dealing with this in the Gospel of Luke.

In Christ,
Blake reas

[bar Jonah]

It seems to me we have here a debate between one side which says "We don't have the original autographs, but I claim they were errant," and another side which says, "We don't have the original autographs but I claim they were inerrant."

And all that either side has to offer is a mountain of conjecture. So what's the point of all this? Nobody can prove what the autographs were. If we could... we'd haven the autographs! :)

Scripture, as we have it today, is NOT inerrant. What's left to be said?

[Blake Reas]

Robyn Banks:

It's not too funny. We are reffering to Biblical interpretation, after all - and context is a fairly closely related concept. :)

Blake: I was referring to the historical context of the believers. Sorry, if I mislead you! Knowing the way I type, I probably did.


I have read the early church fathers on their belief in a perfect Bible. Their belief is fundamentally different from modernist inerrancy. The major reason is that the early church interpreted the Bible in a number of ways apart from the literal - even where the context of the author was literal. They also offered up typological, allegorical and metaphorical interpretations, amongst others. And where a literal interpretation provided them with difficulty, they did not seek out a tendentious 'harmonization' according to (modernist, inerrantist) literalism - instead, they just moved on to another method of interpretation. So where the literal interpretation caused problems - and the early church fathers had problems, for example, with the morality of some of the acts of Yahweh in the OT - they moved on to the allegorical interpretation.

Blake: Just because they relied on a different belief in interpretation does not mean that they did not think that it was inerrant. The fact that Yahweh's acts in the OT seem extreme has always made me wonder how we could question and all powerful God! It just kills me when people say how could God do that, well he is God and he does as he pleases to bring about his purposes.


So they responded in a way vastly different from the way modernists (of which inerrantists are a peculiar breed) would respond.
Blake: The point is?



No. They took some stories to be allegorical. 'Historic' correspondence with truth is a more modernist concern. That is why (modernist) inerrantists are so keen on it. :)

Blake: again I ask you point is not proven that they DID not believe in inerrancy. What about Paul proclaiming in his letter of the TRUTH that the believers have been taught (resurrection) They certainly did not take everything allegorically.


And I think your inerrancy is due to your post-enlightenment assumptions. In fact, I know so. :)

Blake: In fact Robyn I think maybe we are all tainted with it to an extent! wouldn't you say? :rofl:

Robyn


In Christ,
Blake Reas

[Blake Reas]

RightIdea:
It seems to me we have here a debate between one side which says "We don't have the original autographs, but I claim they were errant," and another side which says, "We don't have the original autographs but I claim they were inerrant."

And all that either side has to offer is a mountain of conjecture. So what's the point of all this? Nobody can prove what the autographs were. If we could... we'd haven the autographs! :)

Scripture, as we have it today, is NOT inerrant. What's left to be said?

All to true brother! We should be thankful that God decided to send the ultimate revelation in his son Jesus Christ!

In Him,
Blake

[Robyn Banks]

Blake Reas:
May I ask why the idea that a rope may break or someone cutting Judas down so his rotting carcass was not in view of everyone else is implausible?
I have answered in a separate thread. It semed to require one.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=618


Blake Reas:
As to your quote with Raymond Brown, who I think is a first rate scholar is rather funny. Maybe mister Brown doesn't want to except inerrancy because the Liberals and their Cohorts would no longer listen to his work since it is fashionable for them not to even quote an evangelical scholar in their books or if they do they say hell he is an evangelical it is not like they have any good arguments!
After reading a number of Raymond Brown's works, including a couple on my bookshelf, I would have to express: 'hogwash'.

The reason Brown did not "accept" inerrancy is because after meticulous enquiries into the authorially intended meaning of Biblical passages, he discovered that the best meaning of several dozen passages happened to reveal significant errors.

Your slight on his motivation, rather than concentration on his methods, is fairly typical. But still very poor.

"In “The Battle for the Bible”, Lindsell contends that non-inerrantists are, finally, just perverse and impious: “May not the real difficulty be a want of biblical faith rather than a want of evidence?” If inerrancy is, as its defenders contend, as plain as the nose on one’s face, it would indeed follow that its discreditors are willfully perverse. But it is ironic that Lindsell is required to make an appeal to one’s subjective apprehension of God in order to substantiate his objectivist reading of scripture."
- Kathleen Boone



Blake Reas:
Glory to God in the Highest!( I base that on an inerrant scripture:) )
Some Christians I know "base" praise on their faith. :rofl:

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Blake Reas:
Just because Matthew may use Jesus' sayings in different places or in a manner that helps his theology does not mean that Matthew created material out of the whole cloth.
Naturally, that is true.

But at the same time, compelling arguments have been made for Matthew's creation of material in certain places. These reasons are not rebutted by a mere statement of a logical possibility. Interpretation requires evidence.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

RightIdea:
It seems to me we have here a debate between one side which says "We don't have the original autographs, but I claim they were errant," and another side which says, "We don't have the original autographs but I claim they were inerrant."

And all that either side has to offer is a mountain of conjecture.
Nonsense. Your attempt to answer the issue by your one answer of 'original autographs' is woefully inadequate. It is apparent that many errors in the Bible are deeply structural in nature. It is not an issue of a 'slip of the pen', but of a deliberately different account being constructed by the author. In such cases there is much evidence supporting an error in the 'autograph originals'. This is never a matter of "conjecture", but a matter of interpretation.


Blake Reas:
Scripture, as we have it today, is NOT inerrant. What's left to be said?
One of the reasons scripture "as we have it today" is not inerrant is that scripture was never inerrant.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[Blake Reas]

After reading a number of Raymond Brown's works, including a couple on my bookshelf, I would have to express: 'hogwash'.

The reason Brown did not "accept" inerrancy is because after meticulous enquiries into the authorially intended meaning of Biblical passages, he discovered that the best meaning of several dozen passages happened to reveal significant errors.

Your slight on his motivation, rather than concentration on his methods, is fairly typical. But still very poor.

"In “The Battle for the Bible”, Lindsell contends that non-inerrantists are, finally, just perverse and impious: “May not the real difficulty be a want of biblical faith rather than a want of evidence?” If inerrancy is, as its defenders contend, as plain as the nose on one’s face, it would indeed follow that its discreditors are willfully perverse. But it is ironic that Lindsell is required to make an appeal to one’s subjective apprehension of God in order to substantiate his objectivist reading of scripture."
- Kathleen Boone

Some Christians I know "base" praise on their faith.

Who is being impious now Robyn?

Robyn


Robyn,
If this conversation is going to turn into you bad mouthing me as you seem to be doing where I bolded your text above I think you should say it in your own words instead of hiding behind your books.

I must say to your post: HOGWASH! As I have said in the past on this forum I do not believe the text as we have them are enerrant. Also your attempt at answering my post on Raymond Brown seems to take the turn that all your discussions have so far. Also your post about Raymond Brown makes me wonder if you think he is inerrant?:p
I must also look at SCHOLARS who do accept inerrancy if we want to use your argument from authority strategy. Let's get the list started show we: F.F. Bruce, D.A. Carson, Craig Keener, Robert Stein, Dougls Moo, etc. etc. ad nauseum. So please don't give me that load of bull crap! Oh I forgot we can throw Craig Blomberg in there also. If you would like some more arguments from authority I can supply as needed "Robyn Style".
Your thing on the issue of Faith. I am sorry that I am not an irrational Fideist who can believe in things that have no basis. Go ahead and ridicule me for believing in inerrancy but you have not brought forth any convincing arguments for me to reject it. Oh yeah the Judas one got me! (sarcasm)

In Christ (even if you don't like me becasue I am an inerrantist),
Blake:)

[bar Jonah]

Point is, Robyn, if you don't have the original autographs, you CAN'T prove one way or another whether they were inerrant or not. CAN NOT.

So, yes, all you have is conjecture, what you equivocatingly call "interpretation."

[Robyn Banks]

Robyn:
After reading a number of Raymond Brown's works, including a couple on my bookshelf, I would have to express: 'hogwash'.

The reason Brown did not "accept" inerrancy is because after meticulous enquiries into the authorially intended meaning of Biblical passages, he discovered that the best meaning of several dozen passages happened to reveal significant errors.

Your slight on his motivation, rather than concentration on his methods, is fairly typical. But still very poor.

"In “The Battle for the Bible”, Lindsell contends that non-inerrantists are, finally, just perverse and impious: “May not the real difficulty be a want of biblical faith rather than a want of evidence?” If inerrancy is, as its defenders contend, as plain as the nose on one’s face, it would indeed follow that its discreditors are willfully perverse. But it is ironic that Lindsell is required to make an appeal to one’s subjective apprehension of God in order to substantiate his objectivist reading of scripture."
- Kathleen Boone


Blake Reas:
If this conversation is going to turn into you bad mouthing me as you seem to be doing where I bolded your text above
Bad mouthing you? No - I am 'bad-mouthing' your ideas.

Moreover, the bold text is q quote by an inerrantist, who is 'bad-mouthing' errantists. You appear to have completely misread the text.


Blake Reas:
I think you should say it in your own words instead of hiding behind your books.
:rofl: Hmmm... I quoted an inerrantist who assumed that all errantists reach their conclusions because of bias. Not only have you misread it, but you projected the words onto yourself in some sort of strange misreading. I trust that your biblical interpretation is a little better than that (?)


Blake Reas:
I must say to your post: HOGWASH! As I have said in the past on this forum I do not believe the text as we have them are enerrant.
What is "enerrant"?


Blake Reas:
Also your attempt at answering my post on Raymond Brown seems to take the turn that all your discussions have so far.
:rofl: What "turn" is that? 'Being misread by you'?


Blake Reas:
Also your post about Raymond Brown makes me wonder if you think he is inerrant?:p
Ridiculous banter.

If someone makes a good and relevant point, then I will quote them.



Blake Reas:
I must also look at SCHOLARS who do accept inerrancy if we want to use your argument from authority strategy. Let's get the list started show we: F.F. Bruce, D.A. Carson, Craig Keener, Robert Stein, Dougls Moo, etc. etc. ad nauseum. So please don't give me that load of bull crap!
Who is arguing from authority? Not me. I am producing good points. Some of them are in my words, some of them are in others'. If you have some good points made by others, then I would be pleased to rebut them.


Blake Reas:
Oh I forgot we can throw Craig Blomberg in there also. If you would like some more arguments from authority I can supply as needed "Robyn Style".
I am producing good points. Some of them are in my words, some of them are in others'. If you have some good points made by others, then I would be pleased to rebut them.


Blake Reas:
Your thing on the issue of Faith. I am sorry that I am not an irrational Fideist who can believe in things that have no basis.
Black-or-white fallacy. The admission that the Bible is not inerrant does not leave a void of basis.

The orthodox basis is the threefold Church, Creeds, Scripture.



Blake Reas:
Go ahead and ridicule me for believing in inerrancy
I don't want to ridicule you. I want to uncover inerrancy as an absurd position.


Blake Reas:
but you have not brought forth any convincing arguments for me to reject it. Oh yeah the Judas one got me! (sarcasm)
All biblical errors or contradictions can be 'harmonized'. All contradictions and errors in the Qur'an can be 'harmonized'.

But if your primary rule of Biblical interpretation is to find an inerrant interpretation, then you will neglect proper interpretation: which is the ascertainment of the authorially intended meaning of the text.



Blake Reas:
In Christ (even if you don't like me becasue I am an inerrantist),
Blake:)
I love you, Blake. Agape, only, though.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

RightIdea:
Point is, Robyn, if you don't have the original autographs, you CAN'T prove one way or another whether they were inerrant or not. CAN NOT.
Yes you can. All interpretation is an inductive process: providing evidence to support the best interpretation. In many cases, the evidence supports the conclusion that there is a high probability of an error in the original text. This is 'proof'.


RightIdea:
So, yes, all you have is conjecture, what you equivocatingly call "interpretation."
The proper reading can be shown to be present in the original source. The David and Goliath texts are an example. Therefore, this is not, 'conjecture' in the textual criticism sense. It is compelling evidence.

It is only 'conjecture' in the sense that all interpretation of any text anywhere is made on the basis of incomplete information. And that would make absolutely everything said 'conjecture' - and therefore meaningless. It is not conjecture in the textual criticism meaning of 'conjecture'.

Robyn

[Dee Dee Warren]

Robyn Banks:

Nope. Maybe you don't understand something I answered? I will gladly clarify anything I say - on and on. People sometimes tell me 'enough' - but no-one honestly tells me I am 'dodging'.


No I understood perfectly what you said which was not responsive. I will reword my original point.

[Robyn Banks]

Dee Dee Warren:
I will reword my original point.
I was in a cafe with Lucy Lawless the other day.

Robyn

[Dee Dee Warren]

Really? That is pretty cool. Xena rocks. It will be a bit before I can reword my original point... other obligations beckon.

[Pilgrim]

But there is something we are missing in this conversation...

At some point you still have the text to deal with. Whether innerant, historical, allegorical, you still have to deal with the text.

Jonah for instance. Whether or not there was a "great fish" or a man in his belly you still have to figure out what the story is telling us about God, his will, our nature and relationship to that. And when we are dealing with that it seems to make little difference is it historical or not because the point remains the same.

Peace,
Pilgrim

[jpholding]

Robyn. I have noticed something curious...

1) Your quote of Holloway.
2) Your quote of Boone.
3) Your use of a Lego character avatar.
4) Your use of cheap psychological manipulation tactics.

All rather remind of a certain low-class imitator at

http://www.tektonics.com

Any comments? ;)

[Blake Reas]

jpholding:
Robyn. I have noticed something curious...

1) Your quote of Holloway.
2) Your quote of Boone.
3) Your use of a Lego character avatar.
4) Your use of cheap psychological manipulation tactics.

All rather remind of a certain low-class imitator at

http://www.tektonics.com

Any comments? ;)

Hey Robyn, When where you going to tell us that all you do is cut and paste off your website or someone elses? I always wondered how you typed so fast! :bonk:

In Christ,
Blake Reas

P.S. still yet to prove scripture is errant. the Judas Issue was equally ridicoulous, it can be resolved by looking at the greek or as you have admitted it could be a form of typography. If there are any other "smoking guns" please feel free to voice them so we can expose your cut and paste tactics.

;)

[Pilgrim]

1) The Goliath article that you cut and pasted is futile considering it is not in the originals.

You have the originals?!? Wow, that must be worth a fortune!:rofl:

[Faramir]

Pilgrim:


You have the originals?!? Wow, that must be worth a fortune!:rofl:

:bonk: to you pilgirm

I :rofl: so hard I :bawl: .

:thumb:

[Blake Reas]

Pilgrim:


You have the originals?!? Wow, that must be worth a fortune!:rofl:
Oops! Didn't mean to make it sound like that! I was trying to say that it may not have been there and that it can be explained by an appeal to textual criticism.:o Check out this here that deal with the article that Robyn had us read. Basically what she is dealing with is part of the JEDP theory. http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_FTF.html#1sam16

In Christ,
Blake Reas

P.S. Sorry, for the inconsistencies in my typing and posting I get in a hurry! I am trying to teach myself to slow down.

[Faramir]

Blake Reas:

P.S. Sorry, for the inconsistencies in my typing and posting I get in a hurry! I am trying to teach myself to slow down.

:huh:

No need to apologize blake, we all make mistakes (unless all we do is cut a paste ;))

[Dee Dee Warren]

I was going to say, 'cause he can't have the originals, I have them. ;)

[Faramir]

Dee Dee Warren:
I was going to say, 'cause he can't have the originals, I have them. ;)

:no:

Mr. book smiley has them.

See:


:read:

[Blake Reas]

Faramir:


:no:

Mr. book smiley has them.

See:


:read:

LMAO :rofl: I gues I could always cut and paste!;)

In His Service,

Blake Reas

[Jaltus]

But the process of inspiration allowed errors. Assumption. You have yet to offer any evidence that this is so. Your entire case for your version of inspiration is based on assertion. I at least have used biblical materials and constructed arguments from htose. plan on reciprocating any time soon? All of your quotes from Borg and Brown are not really going to do much.

And I would like to say that, since you CANNOT hold to the literal sense of scripture, since it is indeed flawed according to you, you are then forced to spiritualize it since only spiritual matters are what the Bible is trying to teach. You are equivocating if you say that you can hold to a literal interpretation and yet still believe the Bible contains errors.

I can also answer each of the issues that Lewis raises, if you feel the need.

[Jaltus]

All biblical errors or contradictions can be 'harmonized'. All contradictions and errors in the Qur'an can be 'harmonized'. True and false.

The Koran does not rely on inerrancy, it relies on the fact that only experts in Arabic are able to properly interpret.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Jaltus if you feel so inclined, I would love to see you address those Lewis issues. I am enjoying your posts.

[Gavin]

I can also answer each of the issues that Lewis raises, if you feel the need.

I accept innerancy, but I would be curious to see someone address this point that he brings up in Letters to Malcom (I assume you are referring to CS Lewis).

I Corinthians 7
10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.

How can Paul differentiate between human and divine authority in a book that is all divinely inspired?

[Jaltus]

Gavin,

It is not a differentiation between inspired and non, it is a differentiation between Jesus' specific teachings and Paul's, though both are from God.

Remember, the Lord in Paul means Jesus, not the Father.

[Robyn Banks]

jpholding:
Robyn. I have noticed something curious...

1) Your quote of Holloway.
2) Your quote of Boone.
3) Your use of a Lego character avatar.
4) Your use of cheap psychological manipulation tactics.

All rather remind of a certain low-class imitator at

http://www.tektonics.com

Any comments? ;)
It took over 90 posts. But I got thru!! Cool!!

And "low-class" imitator? Egad! No!

:rofl:

Robyn

[jpholding]

Ah,

It took over 90 posts. But I got thru!! Cool!!

It took 2 posts. The first two of yours I ever read on here. :yipee:

And "low-class" imitator? Egad! No!

Quite correct. I should have said, "lowlife imitator". :spam: :lol:

[Robyn Banks]

Jaltus:
Assumption. You have yet to offer any evidence that this is so.
Hmmmm. And I thought your P2 was an explicit assumption, with an implicit assumption about the nature 'inspiration'? :rofl:

God inspired the Bible. The Bible has not general theory of inspiration. Therefore, a wide range of theories are possible to explain its 'inspiration'.

Easy.


Jaltus:
Your entire case for your version of inspiration is based on assertion.
Actually - it's entirely based on showing that your assumption about 'inspiration' is not necessarily true. You have not yet understood this.


Jaltus:
I at least have used biblical materials and constructed arguments from htose.
And I have shown that the Bible has no general theory of 'inspiration'. You seem to think that a statement about the Bible being 'useful' and another statement about 'prophecy' explains the whole Bible. This is another of your errors.


Jaltus:
plan on reciprocating any time soon? All of your quotes from Borg and Brown are not really going to do much.
I have. I made the argument explicit above for you this time. Have you grasped it this time?


Jaltus:
And I would like to say that, since you CANNOT hold to the literal sense of scripture, since it is indeed flawed according to you, you are then forced to spiritualize it since only spiritual matters are what the Bible is trying to teach.
I am not forced to spiritulise it at all. Are you?


Jaltus:
You are equivocating if you say that you can hold to a literal interpretation and yet still believe the Bible contains errors.
"equivocation" is nonsense.


Jaltus:
I can also answer each of the issues that Lewis raises, if you feel the need.
Lewis Carroll?

I know you can 'answer' CS Lewis. I am quite aware that inerrantists can provide answers for every actual error and contradiction in the Bible. Why - Qur'an inerrantists can provide answers for every actual error and contradiction in the Bible. But should they?

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

jpholding:
I should have said, "lowlife imitator". :spam: :lol:
Ta! I'm glad that I have touched you.

By the way: I'll sell you tektonics.com for $6k.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Jaltus:
The Koran does not rely on inerrancy, it relies on the fact that only experts in Arabic are able to properly interpret.
Hmmmm. Biblical inerrantists rely on the assertion that only spiritual people (read: 'inerrantists') are able to interpret the Bible.

Robyn

[Dee Dee Warren]

Robyn Banks:

Ta! I'm glad that I have touched you.

By the way: I'll sell you tektonics.com for $6k.

Robyn

Way lame. I don't find games like that with making the same domain name except a different extension particularly honest or impressive.

[Robyn Banks]

Dee Dee Warren:
I don't find games like that with making the same domain name except a different extension particularly honest or impressive.
It's very naughty.

I repent, and promise to alter its content to an examination of plate tectonics.

Sincerely,
Robyn

[Blake Reas]

Robyn Banks:

Hmmmm. Biblical inerrantists rely on the assertion that only spiritual people (read: 'inerrantists') are able to interpret the Bible.

Robyn

Robyn,
If you could show me an instance in scripture where you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was in contradiction somewhere I would gladly give up my belief. All your complaining about harmonization, is exactly what historians do so you need to tell them to stop also! Even Farrell till agreed with me on this.
Your Goliath and David problem I have read about lately and also the Judas problem you brought up. It is funny that Jaltus nailed you on your attempt to make that a contradiction. You are either uninformed or dishonest since you have not replied to that post yet. You can go here http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_FTF.html#1sam16 the answer to your David and Goliat problem, it seems you have no concept of Oral tradition either.

In Christ,
Blake Reas

[Robyn Banks]

Blake Reas:
If you could show me an instance in scripture where you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was in contradiction somewhere I would gladly give up my belief.
"Reasonable" is vague, subjective. One may certainly discover that the best meaning of scripture shows an error. But one may never show this to one who wills not to see it.


Blake Reas:
All your complaining about harmonization, is exactly what historians do so you need to tell them to stop also!
Incorrect. My complaint is about invalid use of 'harmonization'. I agree that historians and textual critics should harmonize properly.


Blake Reas:
Even Farrell till agreed with me on this.
Tilly has an abnormally low intelligence, is untrained in what he talks about, and is more interested in catharsis than truth.

Blake Reas:
Your Goliath and David problem I have read about lately and also the Judas problem you brought up. It is funny that Jaltus nailed you on your attempt to make that a contradiction.
Incorrect. Jaltus provided a harmonization - because he was looking for one. All texts may be harmonized: whether in the Bible, the QUr'an or the Book of Mormon. The question is: should they?


Blake Reas:
You are either uninformed or dishonest since you have not replied to that post yet. You can go here http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_FTF.html#1sam16 the answer to your David and Goliat problem, it seems you have no concept of Oral tradition either.
These posts are tendentious nonsense, utterly undeserving of any comment. They are methodological wrong, which I will and have gladly explained, as that is more useful.

Robyn

[Jaltus]

Biblical inerrantists rely on the assertion that only spiritual people (read: 'inerrantists') are able to interpret the Bible. False. Just more assertion. Do you even know what evidence means?


The Bible has not general theory of inspiration. LOL, I take it you have not actually READ the Bible then. Just look at the prophets first, then get back to me. See if that clears the picture for you at all. I also highly recommend the gospel of John. Just look at the relationship of the persons of the Trinity to each other and you will begin to get the picture.


1. The distinction which St. Paul makes in 1 Cor vii between ouk ego all' ho kurios [not myself but the Lord] (v. 10) and ego lego oux ho kurios [I myself say, not the Lord] (v. 12). Dealt with above.


2. The apparent inconsistencies between the genealogies in Matt. i and Luke ii; with the accounts of the death of Judas in Matt. xxvii 5 and Acts i 18-19.They actually ARE different geneaologies. Luke explicitly denies relationship to Joseph, but since Mary was not considered remarkable enough, the man's name is still listed in the geneaology (this is an attested practice, note Matthew uses only specific women, mentioning by names the most exceptional). Most scholars agree that these are intentionally differentiated.


3. St. Luke's own account of how he obtained his matter (i 1-4).This is not an objection. Research does not negate inerrancy.


4. The universally admitted unhistoricity (I do not say, of course, falsity) of at least some of the narratives in Scripture (the parables), which may well also extend to Jonah and Job.Genre does not negate inerrancy.


5. If every good and perfect gift comes from the Father of lights, then all true and edifying writings, whether in Scripture or not, must be in some sense inspired.Not true as it specificly says PERFECT.


6. John xi 49-52 Inspiration may operate in a wicked man without him knowing it, and he can then utter the untruth he intends (propriety of making an innocent man a political scapegoat) as well as the truth he does not intend (the divine sacrifice).Truthful reporting does not negate inerrancy.

Essentially, these "marks against inerrancy" amount to nothing. C.S. Lewis was a brilliant man, but he missed the boat on this one, probably because he just did not understand the concept of inerrancy or else did not understand genres in the Bible.

[Chuck_D]

Robyn Banks:
Incorrect. My complaint is about invalid use of 'harmonization'. I agree that historians and textual critics should harmonize properly.


Incorrect. Jaltus provided a harmonization - because he was looking for one. All texts may be harmonized: whether in the Bible, the QUr'an or the Book of Mormon. The question is: should they?
Robyn

When is harmonization proper? When is it improper?

[Blake Reas]

Robyn Banks:

"Reasonable" is vague, subjective. One may certainly discover that the best meaning of scripture shows an error. But one may never show this to one who wills not to see it.


Incorrect. My complaint is about invalid use of 'harmonization'. I agree that historians and textual critics should harmonize properly.


Tilly has an abnormally low intelligence, is untrained in what he talks about, and is more interested in catharsis than truth.

Incorrect. Jaltus provided a harmonization - because he was looking for one. All texts may be harmonized: whether in the Bible, the QUr'an or the Book of Mormon. The question is: should they?


These posts are tendentious nonsense, utterly undeserving of any comment. They are methodological wrong, which I will and have gladly explained, as that is more useful.

Robyn

Robin I ask again to show me why Jaltus who is pursuing his Ph. D and JP's methdology is wrong I here a lot of "this is wrong" from you but you never back it up! I think you are kind of funny actually. Show why Jaltus is wrong, I want to see why what he says does not fit. Until you show it or at least give an attempt I will continue to think that you are about as ridicoulous as your web site. Oh yeah you need to show why JP's article was wrong on the Goliath issue. Please don't say becasue you think they where wrong that won't cut it.
In Christ,
Blake

Oh yeah Robyn you are struggling.

[Robyn Banks]

Robyn:
Biblical inerrantists rely on the assertion that only spiritual people (read: 'inerrantists') are able to interpret the Bible.

Jaltus:
False. Just more assertion.
Nonsense. I have already provided evidence of inerrantists who rely on the assertion that only spiritual people are able to interpret the Bible. It happens.

Jaltus:
Do you even know what evidence means?
Yup - and I don't hide from it, either.




Robyn:
The Bible has not general theory of inspiration.

Jaltus:
LOL, I take it you have not actually READ the Bible then.
Yes I have. And unlike you, I realised the differences in its claims to inspiration between the delivery of the commandments in Torah and parts of Jeremiah, the compilation of proverbs from Jewish and foreign folk-wisdom, and the compilation of stories about Jesus by researchers such as Paul.

Apparently, you have failed to distinguish between these genres. Or can you offer a "general theory of inspiration" like I asked?



Jaltus:
Just look at the prophets first, then get back to me. See if that clears the picture for you at all.
What is the nature of the inspiration of prophets? Is the 'inspiration' of prophets the same as the inspiration as the collector of the proverbs?


Jaltus:
I also highly recommend the gospel of John. Just look at the relationship of the persons of the Trinity to each other and you will begin to get the picture.
Do you have any idea what a "general theory of inspiration" is, or why I asked you to provide it to support you failed 'inerrancy syllogism'?


Robyn:
2. The apparent inconsistencies between the genealogies in Matt. i and Luke ii; with the accounts of the death of Judas in Matt. xxvii 5 and Acts i 18-19.

Jaltus:
They actually ARE different geneaologies. Luke explicitly denies relationship to Joseph, but since Mary was not considered remarkable enough, the man's name is still listed in the geneaology (this is an attested practice, note Matthew uses only specific women, mentioning by names the most exceptional). Most scholars agree that these are intentionally differentiated.
Absurd apologetic.

There is real no evidence to suggest that they are not intended to be paternal genealogies - just tendentious grasping at straws.


Robyn:
3. St. Luke's own account of how he obtained his matter (i 1-4).

Jaltus:
This is not an objection. Research does not negate inerrancy.
It is and objection to those who presuppose a "general theory of inspiration".


Jaltus:
Essentially, these "marks against inerrancy" amount to nothing. C.S. Lewis was a brilliant man, but he missed the boat on this one, probably because he just did not understand the concept of inerrancy or else did not understand genres in the Bible.
Or maybe he wasn't as willing as you to impose human categories ONTO the Bible. :rofl:

Robyn

[Dee Dee Warren]

A lesson in logical fallacy:

Robyn's statement number one:

Biblical inerrantists rely on the assertion that only spiritual people (read: 'inerrantists') are able to interpret the Bible.


Robyn's statement number two:

Nonsense. I have already provided evidence of errantists who rely on the assertion that only spiritual people are able to interpret the Bible. It happens.


Besides the obvious error of sayng errantists when he meant inerrantists, this is a beautiful example of sweeping generality. I suppose then we can prove that all errantists are obnoxious by quoting Robyn?

[Robyn Banks]

Blake Reas:
Robin I ask again to show me why Jaltus who is pursuing his Ph. D and JP's methdology is wrong
I answer again. It is wrong because the only defensible aim of interpretation is ascertainment of the author's intended meaning. When one replaces this aim with the specious aim of either finding a harmonious interpretation, or finding a cntradictory meaning, then one's methodology becomes incorrect.

Above all, Jaltus looks for the harmonious meaning. He then looks for the best meaning. This is a perverse hermeneutic - able to be applied to establish complete inerrancy in the Qur'an, Bible or Book of Mormon - but ultimately worthless.


Blake Reas:
I here a lot of "this is wrong" from you but you never back it up!
:rofl:

You will find more reasons for correct hermeneutics in my posts than in the entire tektonics.org site - with all of its vast disinformation.


Blake Reas:
I think you are kind of funny actually.
I knew you'd appreciate my satire in the end. :rofl:


Blake Reas:
Show why Jaltus is wrong,
I have. You have just failed to appreciate the reasons.


Blake Reas:
I want to see why what he says does not fit. Until you show it or at least give an attempt I will continue to think that you are about as ridicoulous as your web site.
I have no doubt that, even confronted with your methodologically incorrect hermeneutic, you will continue in your error. Some people take a lot of battering to get the basics through to them - especially if they have persisted in error for a long time. :bonk:



Blake Reas:
Oh yeah you need to show why JP's article was wrong on the Goliath issue.
I don't need to show anything of the sort. Inerrantists as close-minded as [edited] will never be persuaded of the correct interpretation of Scripture, even if the whole of modern scholarship is against them.

[edited]'s attempt to answer the David and Goliath issue doesn't even begin to answer the central points of my article.



Blake Reas:
Oh yeah Robyn you are struggling.
I am struggling to convince those who have closed their minds to the truth. But this is what I always expected.

Pick yourself up a copy of Hirsch's Validity in Interpretation. That would be a start, Blakey.


Robyn

Administration Note: Posted edited to remove references to JPHolding's real name

[Jaltus]

Absurd apologetic.

There is real no evidence to suggest that they are not intended to be paternal genealogies - just tendentious grasping at straws. LOL, try READING the genealogies, Luke explicitly SAYS Joseph is not related to Jesus. How more obvious could he be for you?


What is the nature of the inspiration of prophets? Is the 'inspiration' of prophets the same as the inspiration as the collector of the proverbs?Yes and no. Same source, different methods. Your use of the term "general theory of inspiration" shows that you assume that all parts of the bible are inspired the same, which is silly. John is not the same as Revelation, and they were written by the same guy! You are assuming that a general theory means that inspiration is the same for every single book, but nowhere have I stated or even implied as much.

In fact, I think that inspiration is a very different thing in different books. I think each Psalm was inspired individually, and so was the collector who arranged them. I must say that in some respects I think Childs makes a good case for Canonical hermeneutics. the text as it stands is inspired. Thus, the composition would be inspired as well, though ever part that had been of another work does not require that the other work was inspired.

You are letting your assumtions run away with you.

[Jaltus]

Hirsch is okay, but Vanhoozer is more obscure.

;)

[Dee Dee Warren]

You will find more reasons for correct hermeneutics in my posts than in the entire tektonics.org site - with all of its vast disinformation.

Which is so attractive that you have to lamely lift the name and format. Nice.

And I will thank you Robyn not to use JPHolding's real name here on this forum at his explicit request.

[Robyn Banks]

Jaltus:
Your use of the term "general theory of inspiration" shows that you assume that all parts of the bible are inspired the same, which is silly.
:bawl: Now you're going backwards. I find quite different types of 'inspiration' in the Bible. I am trying to establish what YOU consider to be the mode or modes of inspiration.

It feels like talking to a brick wall.


Jaltus:
John is not the same as Revelation,
Astute.


Jaltus:
and they were written by the same guy!
Revelation was written by another guy, actually. Possibly the 'Presbyter John'.


Jaltus:
You are assuming that a general theory means that inspiration is the same for every single book, but nowhere have I stated or even implied as much.
Very good! And in fact, 'inspiration' varies from book to book.


Jaltus:
In fact, I think that inspiration is a very different thing in different books.
Right! (and now I wonder why you earlier tried to apply a statement about 'prophets' to all Biblical writers...)


Jaltus:
I think each Psalm was inspired individually, and so was the collector who arranged them. I must say that in some respects I think Childs makes a good case for Canonical hermeneutics. the text as it stands is inspired. Thus, the composition would be inspired as well, though ever part that had been of another work does not require that the other work was inspired.
And again I will ask my question: what was the nature of these 'inspirations'? eg. was it word-by-word? was it inspiration of the author, who could still add in his (sometimes limited and erroneous) input?


Jaltus:
You are letting your assumtions run away with you.
er... no.... I am asking you about YOUR assumptions.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Dee Dee Warren:
Which is so attractive that you have to lamely lift the name and format. Nice.
That is the very least of my plans.
mwuhhh ha haaa mwuuaaahhhhh ha haaarrrrrrrr!!!


Jaltus:
And I will thank you Robyn not to use JPHolding's real name here on this forum at his explicit request.
Sure.

Robyn

[Jaltus]

Above all, Jaltus looks for the harmonious meaning. He then looks for the best meaning. LOL, total fabrications.

You have attacked inerrancy, and I am defending it. I have not stated my hermeneutical approach, nor have I ever done exegesis for you in a case where I was not defending inerrancy. How can you possibly hope to know how I do theology or exegesis?

That would be like I claim that you read the Bible in order to find errors. It would be a comment totally out of character for this discussion. Are you truly that stupid, or are you just really that dishonest?

[Robyn Banks]

Jaltus:
I have not stated my hermeneutical approach, nor have I ever done exegesis for you in a case where I was not defending inerrancy. How can you possibly hope to know how I do theology or exegesis?
By observing your erroneous appraoch in practice. It is rather easy, actually. I'm surprised you couldn't understand how I knew this about you.

Robyn

[Jaltus]

Revelation was written by another guy, actually. Possibly the 'Presbyter John'.
False, but no need to get into that here (you are basing this argument on a misquote by Eusebius which has since been taken care of, you need to stay more up to date on scholarship).

As for the statement about prophets to all biblical writers, I made a case for that which was never responded to.


And again I will ask my question: what was the nature of these 'inspirations'? eg. was it word-by-word? was it inspiration of the author, who could still add in his (sometimes limited and erroneous) input?
For the umpteenth time, IT IS NOT WORD FOR WORD! I believe that inspiration is God's message filtered through human personality. Thus, every word is inspired, but not every word was specifically chosen by God.

Are you actually going to read what I wrote this time, or do I need to repeat myself yet again?

In your post 2 or 3 above, you are quoting Dee Dee but used my name. I think you are having problems.

[Dee Dee Warren]

That is the very least of my plans.
mwuhhh ha haaa mwuuaaahhhhh ha haaarrrrrrrr!!!


I find such tactics pathetically lame.

[Jaltus]

By observing your erroneous appraoch in practice. It is rather easy, actually. I'm surprised you couldn't understand how I knew this about you. Ok, intellectually dishonest, just as I thought.

[Blake Reas]

In Robyn's attempt to portray all evangelicals as forced Harmonizers she/he never takes into consideration what evangelical scholars are saying.


"Of course, the individuality of different writers must be respected, and the distinctive aims of different works (where these can be discerned) must be taken into account. Forced harmonizing is worthless. The tendency today, however, is the opposite--to force the New Testament writings into disharmony, in order to emphasize their individuality. The current analytical approach to the gospels often has the effect of making scholars more and more uncertain at more and more points, till eventually their view of Jesus and his teaching is lost in haze. The harmonistic approach, on the other hand, enables one to ponder long and conscientiously over every detail of the narrative and to see how one account illuminates and modifies another. Gradually (without fudging) people and events take shape and grow in solidity and the scenes come to life in one's mind. Such study is beautifully constructive and helps to vindicate the presuppositions on which it is based. It is sad and strange when immense learning leads to little knowledge of the person studied. One thing is certain: Jesus was a concrete, complex and fascinating figure of history, and any method of study which fails to reveal him as such is working on the wrong lines"

[EE] Easter Enigma--Are the Resurrection accounts in conflict? 2nd. ed., John Wenham, Baker: 1992

It appears he agrees that we should not force harmonizations but that people are to easily rejecting it with a slight of hand.

In Christ,
Blake

P.S. Agape
:thumb:

[bar Jonah]

I wholeheartedly agree that Robyn is way off on his ridiculous claim that the original autographs were definitely errant.

However, I still fail to understand why any of the rest of you would want to call yourself inerrantists when, if you are pressed on it, you admit that the Bible we have today is errant.

I would never call myself inerrantist.
My ministry warns Christians not to claim inerrancy.
We even disagree with references to Biblical inerrancy in statements of faith.

It just sets you up for a fall when a nonbeliever attacks you on the claim of inerrancy. They can readily show the Bible to be errant. And when that happens, this is exactly the kind of thing that can damage Christians who are young in their faith. If they are unprepared to see the Bible proven to be errant, it can be a devastating experience.

[GrayPilgrim]

RightIdea:
I wholeheartedly agree that Robyn is way off on his ridiculous claim that the original autographs were definitely errant.

However, I still fail to understand why any of the rest of you would want to call yourself inerrantists when, if you are pressed on it, you admit that the Bible we have today is errant.

I would never call myself inerrantist.
My ministry warns Christians not to claim inerrancy.
We even disagree with references to Biblical inerrancy in statements of faith.

It just sets you up for a fall when a nonbeliever attacks you on the claim of inerrancy. They can readily show the Bible to be errant. And when that happens, this is exactly the kind of thing that can damage Christians who are young in their faith. If they are unprepared to see the Bible proven to be errant, it can be a devastating experience.

Remember there are basically two reasons and ways to write a doctrinal statement. The first is to incluide the second is to exclude, e.g. thus the Nicene Creed would be viewed as an anti-Arian creed thus it was written to exclude.

So now let's look at the historical context that has lead this to be a topic or issue in Creedal Satements. It dates back to the 20's and 30's when the Modernists were able to finnaly rest control of the main line denominations from the Conservatives, through some stupid steps on the part of Conservatives in the late 1800s and some astute one on the part of the modernists.

The concervatives under men like J Gresham Machen started their own schools and denominations. There were two or three statements that would seperate a conservative from a modernist, depending on the persons theology


view of the Bible
virgin birth

eschatology (I set htis apart because while the majority of the concervatives were dispy, Machen and Westminster both being Princetonian maintained a more Presbyterian view)


The denoms formed at that time put either a dispy plank, a virgin birth point or an inerrancy statmetn in to exclude the modernists. So viewed from a historical conext to remove them shows that there is some historical warrant behind why it was included. See if you had asked any other question they modernists could use the exact same language and mean something diametrically opposed to what you thought you heard. Thus these point blank statements were seena s a litmus test of whether or not you believed in the God revealed in the Bible, as opposed to some other lesser deity that was a poor refelction of him.

As Machen repeatedly said in Christianity & Liberalism, which can be found at http://www.markers.com/ink/jgmchrandlib.htm


It is no wonder, then, that liberalism is totaly different from Christianity, for the foundation is different. Christianity is founded on the Bible. It bases upon the Bible both its thinking and its life. Liberalism on the other hand is founded on the shifting emotions of sinful man, (79).

Machen forcegfully makes the argument that modernism/ liberalism are a new religion that uses the older language devoid of its content to propell itslef.

One more thing of relavence from Machen:



According to that fundamental principle, language is truthful, not when meanin attached to the words by the speaker, but when the meaning intended to eb produced in the mind of the particular person addressed, is in accordance with the facts...Christian ethics do not abrogate common honesty: no possible desire of edifying the Church and avoiding offense can excuse a lie. (112)


And as I see it, inerrancy properly defined (which you agree with my definition) it is a true statement, and if it takes a little intellectual work to understand a concept correctly then so what, the Church by-in-large is IMHO too intellectually complacent anyways.

[bar Jonah]

But this is exactly why I would stand on the infallibility and inspiration of the Bible. But to stand on inerrancy is to stand on quicksand, and only sets you up for a fall.

[GrayPilgrim]

As well ask why use a term like the Trinity. It is a term that we have inherrited from the past (not saying good or bad). A word is a lexical unit that has a certain communitive value. Evangelcials have invested this morphological unit with a particular definiton that has a certain communicative value, that is different from infallibility, but by just a hair's breadth IMHO. So I use it because I inherited it through a tradition that I am apart of. Robyn speaks for a different interprative community and so he thus uses the language of his community with it's particular semantic connotations, which differs from the semantic connotations of the community I am part of. Some of this is geographical, he's from NZ (correct?) which has its own distinctive dialect of the English lanuage that differs from the dialect of a midwesterner in the US. This starts the barriers to communication. Then we have within these larger geographical distincitons, smaller community semantic dialects, thus when I har the term Trinity I have a particualr conception, i.e. the One God who has three distinct persons, whereas a Muslim would beleive it means three different gods. So should we not speak of the Trintiy to a recent convert from Islam in fear of distrubing his faith? No, we should use sensitivity and work this term out so that he can see the fuller more restricted semantic domain that an orthodox Christian sees when he speeks of the Trinity.

[jpholding]

Robyn Banks:

Ta! I'm glad that I have touched you.

By the way: I'll sell you tektonics.com for $6k.

Robyn

The Black Plague also touched many. :D You're not making enough money as a pigsty manager, I take it? :p

As of now tektonics.com as a domain name is damaged goods. Your offer may be considered if you remove two ciphers.

The FIRST two. :rofl:

[Dee Dee Warren]

GP - good points. Thank you.

[Socrates]

Robyn Banx continued his baseless assertions and appeals to authority:

"Example 1: The Bible writers believed in a three-tiered universe: a flat earth, with a dome above it on which the stars, sun and moon 'stuck' into it, and God's throne resting on top of it. The dome rested on the earth, making a circle ('the circle of the earth'). Underneath the earth was the waters of the deep on which the earth 'rested', and in the deeps was sheol, the place of the dead.

"This view is generally accepted now.

"Try any reputable Bible Dictionary or Theology 101 student to confirm this (or, alternatively, have recourse to a ridiculous apologetic to deny the truth)."

Yeah, yeah. I bet Robyn still thinks that WAshington Irving's fable about Columbus battling flat-Earth belief is real history :duh: Perhaps Robyn would like to actually deal with P.H. Holding's actual arguments against the likes of Seely at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tjv14n3flat_earth.asp instead of merely playing juvenile copycat games.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jaltus:
To this day we still speak of sunrises and sunsets, so how is that different?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RB once more treats us to his debating tactics :rant:
Ridiculous apologetic. How is it different? When the sun is actually understood to 'rise', the words 'sunrise' and 'sunset' are literal words. When science provided more knowledge than what the Biblical writers had, the same words were retained: as metaphors.

Jaltus was perfectly correct. If Banx had the slightest knowledge of physics, he would realise that ALL motion must be described RELATIVE to a REFERENCE FRAME, and ALL reference frames are EQUALLY VALID!

Therefore the Bible was NOT wrong to use the Earth as a reference frame, and Jaltus demonstrated that we do the same now! Certainly, from the reference frame of the center of mass of the solar system, the Earth describes an elliptical orbit, as the Bible-believing astronomer Kepler showed. Just a shame that Galileo upset the scientific establishment which believed in Ptolemaic astronomy, and the Church alas was persuaded to join in with the Aristotelian scientists at the universities in condemning him.

Perhaps, the next time Banx has a client caught for speeding, he can try to get him off the following way. Claim that the speed limit signs are invalid because they use the reference frame of the EARTH, and everyone knows that the Earth and everything on it is zapping through space far quicker.

I wonder if Banx influenced the pathetic Skeptic's Annotated Bible to claim that the Bible's mention of the light of the moon was an error. As JPH points out, will Banx go to a concert pianist who plays Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata just to complain about the scientific error in the name?

[Ric]

Yes! Absolutely! :thumb:

[Seasanctuary]

Nothing like resurrecting old corpses. :cackle:

Polls are fun. Are we voting or are we just spouting unjustified opinion? Is there a difference?

[shunyadragon]

Nothing like resurrecting old corpses. :cackle:

Polls are fun. Are we voting or are we just spouting unjustified opinion? Is there a difference?I will propose that the modern movement for Biblical inerrancy for Genesis is a relatively recent belief. Before 1915 most evangelical leaders had endorsed the Old earth concept and some believed in theistic evolution.

[Jayrok]

absolutely no way is the bible inerrant. The only way it would be inerrant is if it was written by God himself. Unfortunately, men wrote the bible, so therefore there are errors in it.

[shunyadragon]

absolutely no way is the bible inerrant. The only way it would be inerrant is if it was written by God himself. Unfortunately, men wrote the bible, so therefore there are errors in it.
Christians feel the errors are superficial and skepics exaggerate the errors to challege the foundation of their belief. Logic, reason and science is a conspiracy against truth unless it agrees with the Bible.

[Jayrok]

Christians feel the errors are superficial and skepics exaggerate the errors to challege the foundation of their belief. Logic, reason and science is a conspiracy against truth unless it agrees with the Bible.
Some are superficial, granted.. but errors none-the-less. Therefore, it's not inerrant. Some errors are irreconcilable.

Logic and reason have no place in the bible, as most of it is unreasonable and illogical. It all boils down to faith of the individual. And at the end of the day, this is what the believer finds himself behind.

[Robert's s/n]

There are errors in the Bible, though I think most of the internal contradictions are overplayed. For example, the resurrection narratives can be easily harmonized using simple principles common to other historical endeavors, while Jesus' attribution of the office of high priest to Abiathar is an unequivical error, whether by him or Mark's author. However, errancy doesn't pose a problem to my faith. Inerrancy would be nice, but that's itself an extremely high bar, one that no fallible person could ever meet, guided by God or not. The gospels meet a lower level of truth, one of general accuracy, which is itself enough to prompt a decision.

[shunyadragon]

Some are superficial, granted.. but errors none-the-less. Therefore, it's not inerrant. Some errors are irreconcilable.

Logic and reason have no place in the bible, as most of it is unreasonable and illogical. It all boils down to faith of the individual. And at the end of the day, this is what the believer finds himself behind.
I agree except for what I call selfish logic, which can be very powerful in justifying anything and everything.

[John Powell]

THE CURTMUDGEON:
As a somewhat-mathematician (my degree's in Computer Science, but to get there I wound up with more maths courses than CompSci courses), I'm always amused when this claim is made by skeptics, or doubt is cast on the value of pi used in the 1 Kings/2 Chronicles account.

This passage, talking about a brazen vat or bath ("molten sea") with a diameter of 10 cubits and circumference of 30 cubits, leads by simple division to a value of pi = 3. This is the correct value of pi.


POWELL:
If the diameter was measured to be 10 cubits to the nearest cubit then why wasn't the circumference measured to be 31 or 32 or 33 cubits to the nearest cubit? Are you suggesting that the diameter was probably 9.7 or 9.6 or 9.5 cubits to the nearest tenth of a cubit?

I wonder if the men did measure it to be 31 cubits, but the scribe wouldn't allow it because he thought pi was equal to a perfect three.

John Powell

[shunyadragon]

POWELL:
If the diameter was measured to be 10 cubits to the nearest cubit then why wasn't the circumference measured to be 31 or 32 or 33 cubits to the nearest cubit? Are you suggesting that the diameter was probably 9.7 or 9.6 or 9.5 cubits to the nearest tenth of a cubit?

I wonder if the men did measure it to be 31 cubits, but the scribe wouldn't allow it because he thought pi was equal to a perfect three.

John Powell
This not a very good point of contention in the bible. I shows simply that our knowledge of math evolved over time.

There are much bigger skeletons in the Bible closet that show it is a cut and paste book writen by men. Inspired by God with a message, but most assuridly writen by men and not literal inerrant in any form.

[John Powell]

POWELL (to THE CURTMUDGEON):
If the diameter was measured to be 10 cubits to the nearest cubit then why wasn't the circumference measured to be 31 or 32 or 33 cubits to the nearest cubit? Are you suggesting that the diameter was probably 9.7 or 9.6 or 9.5 cubits to the nearest tenth of a cubit?

I wonder if the men did measure it to be 31 cubits, but the scribe wouldn't allow it because he thought pi was equal to a perfect three.


Shunyadragon:
This not a very good point of contention in the bible. I shows simply that our knowledge of math evolved over time.


POWELL:
Perhaps you think God knew what the value of pi was, but didn't care enough whether His inspired words in 1 Kings 7 reflected that knowledge.


Shunyadragon:
There are much bigger skeletons in the Bible closet that show it is a cut and paste book writen by men. Inspired by God with a message, but most assuridly writen by men and not literal inerrant in any form.


POWELL:
I agree with the "not literal inerrant" part. Apparently, this pi issue is just another nail in the coffin of literal inerrancy. It's a place where surprisingly early Jewish mathematical knowlege could have been noted if things had been quoted differently, but instead we just see the normal crude knowledge of the day.

John Powell

[The Creep]

Biblical inerrancy is for the birds. Actually birds are far smarter than that. They spend their time eating yummy worms, tormenting the local tom cats with their songs, and sittin' on eggs. The Bible is so full of holes I can only conclude that people are inerrantists for psychological reasons. M.Scott Peck of all people provided a stages of spiritual development in one of his books. The highest state was the mystical state. A step down was the scientific state. Fundamentalism came only one step above criminality. The hard cold outside of biblical literalism in all of its frightening order conceals a heart of pure chaos.
sorry to intrude, respectfully, The Creep:eek:

[shunyadragon]

Biblical inerrancy is for the birds. Actually birds are far smarter than that. They spend their time eating yummy worms, tormenting the local tom cats with their songs, and sittin' on eggs. The Bible is so full of holes I can only conclude that people are inerrantists for psychological reasons. M.Scott Peck of all people provided a stages of spiritual development in one of his books. The highest state was the mystical state. A step down was the scientific state. Fundamentalism came only one step above criminality. The hard cold outside of biblical literalism in all of its frightening order conceals a heart of pure chaos.
sorry to intrude, respectfully, The Creep:eek:
Okay intrusion, M. Scott Peck is an interesting source.

[The Creep]

Shunyadragon: Glad you liked the source. Do you agree with my post in general? Disagree?
sincerely, The Creep

[shunyadragon]

Shunyadragon: Glad you liked the source. Do you agree with my post in general? Disagree?
sincerely, The CreepI share many of the goals and dreams of Peck. They are similar to the Baha'i Faith. He shows great insight into the fragile cracked egg shell of stability and sanity of western culture proped up by outdated doctrines and materialism.

Peck does need to reach out for a broader base if he is going to be successful. He does tend to attack certain elements of the community. This may be justified, but I think there are better less agressive ways to try and inspire a more diverse united community.

[The Creep]

My friend: I myself am probably too agressive for your tastes. Perhaps I should not be. I see from your profile you are from China. You may be interested to know I purchased a copy of "The Analects" the other day. I have not quite had time to read it though.
I wonder how much your approach to things is inspired by B'Hai and how much comes from the Confucian culture of China?
sincerely, The Creep

[shunyadragon]

My friend: I myself am probably too agressive for your tastes. Perhaps I should not be. I see from your profile you are from China. You may be interested to know I purchased a copy of "The Analects" the other day. I have not quite had time to read it though.
I wonder how much your approach to things is inspired by B'Hai and how much comes from the Confucian culture of China?
sincerely, The Creep
I am from the US, but I grew up in Latin America and I have lived in China for eight years. I consider myself a World Citizen. I study the Arts of the Way (Martial Arts) and Jade culture in China.

The Analects is good to study, but be careful of conclusions because of translation problems. Confucius is the compiler of the ethical standards of China for relationships in the family, community and government. He is not the source of these teachings. He compiled these teachings from more ancient sources to perserve the heritage of China. Taoism/Buddhism/Primal beliefs are the soul and spirit of the people. The Communist revolution was just a violent adjustment to the modern world and the rejection of western colonialism, missionaryism, manipulation and control. The China of Confucius, Lao Tze, Buddha and the ancient sages is still alive and strong. Unfortunately modern western materialism is having a considerable negative impact on China.

As far as empathy I am closer to Lao Tze and Buddha. Confucius is a consistent moral code older than any known record of the Bible, and confirmed by archeology. It is not totally relavent to today and that is the reason I am a Baha'i.