Is inerrancy essential for salvation? I say no what is your opinion?

[Blake Reas]

I do not think that it is, for instance I believe that we will see Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoffer in heaven! Just some random thoughts I also know C.S. Lewis held out on inerrancy.

I ask this question becasue I am struggling with the doctrine for one reason the Census of Quirinus in Luke. From all the evidence it appears Luke made a blunder but I am willing to wait for more evidence. Here is a link to an article by a person who is skeptical of the counters problem. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html. If Jaltus or JP wants to help me out on this it would be nice.

Also what are the theological implications of an errant scripture?

In Christ,
Blake Reas

P.S. we as christians cannot be afraid to ask the tough questions.
:help:

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Blake Reas:
I do not think that it is, for instance I believe that we will see Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoffer in heaven! Just some random thoughts I also know C.S. Lewis held out on inerrancy.

I ask this question becasue I am struggling with the doctrine for one reason the Census of Quirinus in Luke. From all the evidence it appears Luke made a blunder but I am willing to wait for more evidence. Here is a link to an article by a person who is skeptical of the counters problem. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html. If Jaltus or JP wants to help me out on this it would be nice.

Also what are the theological implications of an errant scripture?

In Christ,
Blake Reas

P.S. we as christians cannot be afraid to ask the tough questions.
:help:

There is a great article on this very issue, I believe on Glen Millers site. I will look for a link for you.

However, I agree that inerrancy is not essential to salvation, even though I do hold to it.

And by all means, keep asking the tough questions. I have found that the more I ask the stronger my faith becomes.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Here is a link to an artcle on the census from Glen Miller, but it is not the article I thought.


Census Artlicle (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html)

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

I will keep looking for the artlicle that I am thinking about, but I may not be able to find it.

[Jaltus]

Blake,

I PMed you.

[Blake Reas]

Faramir:


There is a great article on this very issue, I believe on Glen Millers site. I will look for a link for you.

However, I agree that inerrancy is not essential to salvation, even though I do hold to it.

And by all means, keep asking the tough questions. I have found that the more I ask the stronger my faith becomes.

I have read about 90% of Glenn's site!:thumb: He is awesome! I have read his article on the dilemma and it is not quite up to date but it does answer my questions to an extent. Everytime I have ever had a tough question it has been answered so that is how I feel about this one. That is why I am willing to hold out on this issue. Jaltus told me that Ben Witherington deals with this in his book "New Testament History".


In Christ,
Blake Reas

[Blake Reas]

Jaltus:
Blake,

I PMed you.

Thanks you have been a big help on various Issues!:joy:

In Christ,
Blake Reas

[Blake Reas]

Faramir:
I will keep looking for the artlicle that I am thinking about, but I may not be able to find it.

There is another one!!:huh: I did not know that, must have missed it!

In Christ,
Blake Reas

P.S. I know that Joseph Fitzmyer in his commentary says that he with holds opinion on the issue.;)

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Blake Reas:


There is another one!!:huh: I did not know that, must have missed it!

In Christ,
Blake Reas

P.S. I know that Joseph Fitzmyer in his commentary says that he with holds opinion on the issue.;)

I'm not sure. About 2 months ago I was in a debate with a skeptic over this issue. I quoted an article, I thought was from Miller. However, I do not think that that is the same article. I may have gotten it from somewhere else. I will keep looking.

[dizzle]

That Miller article I thought explained the issue well.

[Blake Reas]

Dee Dee Warren:
That Miller article I thought explained the issue well.

Carrier's article has some different twists to it. I do not really trust his articles since he has been caught with his pants down many times. He tends to misuses or is dishonest with his sources as Glenn Miller showed in regards to the empty tomb.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/shellgame.html Miller totally demolishes Carrier's arguments in this one. Also in his Kooks and Quacks in the Ancient World article on www.infidels.org he totally abuses ancient sources Miller catches him on that one also http://www.christian-thinktank.com/mqfx.html.
In Christ,
Blake Reas

[jpholding]

Hey bud,

If you're gonna talk to me you better make sure I know you're calling. ;) So far I agree with the above. And I don't think inerrancy is necessary as a belief to be saved.

[Carl Smuda]

Hey, it looks like all who voted are of the same mind on this. I am always suspicious of inherrant inerrancy drum beating. And that was one of the big points from 20th century fundamentalism. But more than that, the group that brought me into the research and teaching mode of studying our Father's Holy Word, I'm almost sure, abused this doctrine. I think that different denominations twist the scriptures sometimes, at critical points to their denomination, to try and make the scriptures say what they think they should say.

Sabbath-Keepers, I think, really do violence to Galatians. Pretrib-Rapturists hash to pieces 2 Thess 2:3. My group did some amazing things to reconcile the two descriptions of Judas's death, in Matthew and Acts.

And can the literalists REALLY build a harmony of the Gospels? I'm not so sure, although I haven't tried to read any. I think there are some holes here and there.

My Pastor said they like the word infallible because inerrancy will demand original autographs, as they say, and those do not exist. In one book I read the author suggested that possibly the one thing that the know-nothing fundamentalists did for us is, since they need literal inerrancy, push the demand for critical analysis of the existing texts.

And inerrancy demands some inelastic rules for interpretation which c

[Blake Reas]

jpholding:
Hey bud,

If you're gonna talk to me you better make sure I know you're calling. ;) So far I agree with the above. And I don't think inerrancy is necessary as a belief to be saved.

Didn't say that I meant that you may be able to help with the Quirinius Problem. I know your stance on inrrancy we had the conversation a while back. Sorry about the confusion!


In Christ,
Blake

[President-Elect $cirisme]

I do think the Bible is inerrant, but I don't believe that it is necessary for salvation.

I do, however, believe that it's necessary for a close relationship with Christ. :thumb:

[Jaltus]

I think inerrancy is true, but not necessary for salvation.

I think that all alleged errors in the gospel can be pretty well refuted, with maybe one or two exceptions.

Oh, Carl, we may not have the originals, but what we have to day (at least in the NT) would be about 97-99% of the originals, with only minor words possibly being wrong.

[Socrates]

Carl Smuda wrote:

"My Pastor said they like the word infallible because inerrancy will demand original autographs, as they say, and those do not exist. In one book I read the author suggested that possibly the one thing that the know-nothing fundamentalists did for us is, since they need literal inerrancy, push the demand for critical analysis of the existing texts."

Sorry, but as we Australians say, he's talking bollocks. Go to almost any disctionary, and you'll find that inerrant and infallible are basically interchangeable. And most of the inerrantists here accept the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbe.htm. This has two very important statements relevant to the issue:

Article X.

WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

Article XIII.

WE AFFIRM the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

J.P. Holding has done a great job with the last one. Too many biblioskeptics mistake inerrancy for crass hyper-literalism.

I also think the following is important, since I'm a scientist who is also a creationist:

Article XII.

WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

As for the Quirinius "problem", the New Testament scholar N.T. (Tom) Wright argues from the Greek grammar that the correct translation is the census BEFORE Quirinius.

Oh, and to answer the question in this thread, no, I don't believe inerrancy is essential for salvation. But I do believe that it's essential for the health of the Christian community (so the poll was defective since I could answer only one of the four, when I would have liked to have been able to tick two. I ticked the former). All denominations that have lapsed on inerrancy, e.g. on origins, have become completely apostate two or three generations down the track. And one key reason I believe in Biblical inerrancy is that Jesus believed it!!

[Carl Smuda]

Socrates,
great post! thanks. I recognized that too after I spoke with my Pastor. I think those words are darn close to the same meaning too. I also like those quotes from that Chicago statement of inerrancy. I think there is a balance. Before I was forced to stop friday, I was trying to say something about the violence that we do to scripture in the name of beliefs we hold too dear. I suppose that's not really an issue of inerrancy or infallibleness of scripture but an issue of dishonest interpretation.
God Bless,
Carl :cheers:

p.s. I bookmarked and saved that URL, Socrates. Thanks, LOVE it! here is a "Chicago Call" from 1977 that has been very near and close to my heart for almost two years now. I hope this link will get you there.

http://www.theceec.org/index.html Looks like it doesn't go there. I'm not into this sight itself, but please go to "statements and values" on the left margin and then open "The Chicago call" from the list. That's what I'm referring to.

[MJCoate]

Socrates:
All denominations that have lapsed on inerrancy, e.g. on origins, have become completely apostate two or three generations down the track. And one key reason I believe in Biblical inerrancy is that Jesus believed it!!

I am not an inerrantist, so please watch it with the broad generalizations. Also, I am currious as to where it is recorded that Christ held to innerancy. Can you please give me a source or two?

[Carl Smuda]

I think I could take a crack at that "Jack" :p but I try and show some manners and give the dude from down under answer. :cheers:

Now see? MJCoate "Jack" is not an inerrantist. Right away I'm going: "see, see that?" MJCoate, what does that make you? Are you liberal? are you "Jesus Seminar" ilk?

Now I'm wondering, How do you approach canon?

respectfully,
Carl :read:

[MJCoate]

Carl Smuda:
Are you liberal? are you "Jesus Seminar" ilk?

Not really. It depends on how you define liberal. And no, I detest the Seminar. Pick up Philip Jenkins' Hidden Gospels.
I will respond later to the rest. For now, I have to goto work.

-M

[Pate]

I'm a kind of agnostic on the matter of inerrancy. It may not be the case that there's any absolutely provable error in the Bible, but even establishing that would require a very large amount of work. I do have respect for those who are willing to use their time for that purpose, and if I will some day be convinced that the inerrancy of the book of Genesis can be defended sufficiently well (and for me, this would mean accepting the progressive creationist view), then I might give more consideration to accepting the inerrantist position. But I'd NEVER claim that belief in Inerrancy is necessary for salvation. Neither would I make inerrancy anything like a central issue when debating the validity of Christian faith. That would be a very big mistake, I think.

[MJCoate]

Ahh. Off work for the next two days... Now its time to get crack'n.

Carl Smuda:
Now I'm wondering, How do you approach canon?


Qualify your statement a bit more. I am confused as to what exactly you are looking for.

[Socrates]

Socrates:
All denominations that have lapsed on inerrancy, e.g. on origins, have become completely apostate two or three generations down the track. And one key reason I believe in Biblical inerrancy is that Jesus believed it!!


MJCoate responded
I am not an inerrantist, so please watch it with the broad generalizations. Also, I am currious as to where it is recorded that Christ held to innerancy. Can you please give me a source or two?

Watch it yourself. I referred to denominations not individuals. And there is such amazing proof that Jesus lived and breathed inerrancy, e.g.


"Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35)
His repeated "It is written ..." that absolutely settled matters His acceptance of the most heavily criticised parts of the Bible as historical fact, e.g. Genesis 1 and 2 (Mt. 19:3-6), including people being there "from the beginning of creation" not 15 billion years after some "big bang", Noah's Flood and Ark (Luke 17:26-27), Jonah really being swallowed by a great sea creature (Mt. 12:39 ff.).


See also the Answers in Genesis article The Authority of Scripture (www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4306apol_v3n21994.asp). This also addresses the charge of circular reasoning. Fact is, even liberals agree that Jesus actually believed in Biblical inerrancy, but they just claim He was wrong.

[Carl Smuda]

MJCoate:
Ahh. Off work for the next two days... Now its time to get crack'n.



Qualify your statement a bit more. I am confused as to what exactly you are looking for. Well, I was sincerely impressed that you declared yourself to not be an inerrantist, since there are things in the canon that I wonder about, I was first curious how you look at scripture. When I was leaving my childhood catholicism and coming of age in protestantism I was taught literal interpretation where ever possible and when statements were not true to fact then I was to look for figures-of-speech. But that didn't work in every case and over the years I began to suspect (rightly or wrongly) that maybe that literal harmonizing of the gospels wasn't literally possible? Maybe those genelogies aren't entirely accurate? Maybe some things in the OT cannot be literally explaned. I began to think that sometimes these people were twisting things too much in the name of "the integrity of the Word". There are clearly two different descriptions of Judas' death. David's lineage was clearly annihilated by the captivity, right? What does NOT an inerrantist mean to you?
sincerely,
Carl :read:

[MJCoate]

Socrates:
Watch it yourself. I referred to denominations not individuals. And there is such amazing proof that Jesus lived and breathed inerrancy, e.g.

Unless you are going to argue that individuals are completely divorced from the denominations they represent, your statement may still apply to me. And secondly, since you seem to be a man of logic, you should realize that a broad generalization is a form of logical fallacy.

And thanks for the list. I will have to spend some time on it.

[InquisitorKind]

-edited to add a word

cirisme:
I do think the Bible is inerrant, but I don't believe that it is necessary for salvation.

I do, however, believe that it's necessary for a close relationship with Christ. :thumb:

Hello cirisme,

Why do you think belief in inerrancy is necessary for a close relationship with Christ?

~Matt

[InquisitorKind]

this site:

http://www.geocities.com/metacrock2000/Bible/Models_rev.htm

What are your thoughts?

~Matt

[Socrates]

InquisitorKind:

this site:

http://www.geocities.com/metacrock2.../Models_rev.htm

What are your thoughts?

Yeah, it's certainly crock. Verbal inspiration is a logical deduction from Biblical passages that Scripture was God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16), the constant identification with "the Word of God", and the way many NT writers make a lot of the meaning of individual words, e.g. Paul on seed (singular) in Galatians 3:16.

Having said that, in logic, truth and falsity apply to propositions, i.e. the meaning of declarative statements. Inerrancy applies to the propositions affirmed by the author as they would have been understood by the original audience. I.e. it's pathetic to follow the likes of Feral McTill and his buddy Dan Barker with crass hyperliteralism and derive propositions not intended by the authors. E.g. Jesus' remark about "hating" one's family -- given the Semitic mindset with its tendency to hyperbole, the propositional revelation here is that one ought to love less one's family. Nor is it proper to denigrate this mindset with modern chauvinistic chronological snobbery as Feral does frequently.

Further back in this thread I've pointed to clauses in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbe.htm) which many inerrantists here adhere to.

[Socrates]

Carl Smuda:

When I was leaving my childhood catholicism and coming of age in protestantism I was taught literal interpretation where ever possible and when statements were not true to fact then I was to look for figures-of-speech.
Yes indeedy, and this sometimes requires contextual studies of the times, e.g. the concepts of client-patron relationship, honor/shame, Semitic hyperbole, etc. as explained on Tekton (http://www.tektonics.org/)


But that didn't work in every case and over the years I began to suspect (rightly or wrongly) that maybe that literal harmonizing of the gospels wasn't literally possible?
Depends what you mean. But remember that an omission is not a contradiction, and the Semitic tendency not to be as precise as modern Westerners on inconsequential details. J.P. Holding quotes (http://www.tektonics.org/gospelprecision.html) The Syrian Christ, by Abraham Rihbany, a Syrian from about the turn of last century familiar with our culture, as follows:


There is much more of intellectual inaccuracy than of moral delinquency in the Easterner's speech. His misstatements are more often the result of indifference than the deliberate purpose to deceive. One of his besetting sins is his ma besay-il-- it does not matter. He sees no essential difference between nine o'clock and half after nine, or whether a conversation took place on the housetop or in the house. The main thing is to know the substance of what happened, with as many of the supporting details as can be conveniently remembered.CS continues

Maybe those genelogies aren't entirely accurate? Maybe some things in the OT cannot be literally explaned. I began to think that sometimes these people were twisting things too much in the name of "the integrity of the Word".
It's difficult to respond when there are no specifics.


There are clearly two different descriptions of Judas' death.
There is a thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=618) on this topic right now.

David's lineage was clearly annihilated by the captivity, right?
Wrong. Matthew's genealogy of Jesus via his stepfather Joseph shows the continuation of David's royal line, which had a curse on Jehoichin/Jeconiah. Luke's genealogy gives Mary's line, through another son of David, Nathan.

[wienerdog]

If I may inflict my views on everyone:

Actually, my views are pretty much the same as what most of you have written. I accepted Christ without accepting inerrancy, so I obviously believe it's not necessary for salvation. In fact, given C. S. Lewis, I wouldn't say it's necessary for a close relationship with Christ. About a year or so later, after having several dozen "contradictions" resolved, it occurred to me that the problem might be with me rather than the Bible. The practical outcome of this is that if something seems like a flat out contradiction, I give the Bible the benefit of the doubt. I don't expect to have all of my problems resolved before I die, so it doesn't cause me much stress. At least theoretically. Thanks for your attention.:cool:

[dizzle]

Wienerdog is cool.

[J. J. Ramsey]

Carl Smuda:
David's lineage was clearly annihilated by the captivity, right?


Actually, no, his lineage wouldn't have been annihilated at all. Remember, after Israel split into two kingdoms after Solomon's death, it was the Southern Kingdom, Judah, that was ruled by the Davidic line. Now the Northern Kingdom was conquered by Assyria, whose policy was to mix up those it conquered with other conquered peoples, in order to disrupt the local people's identity. This is how the Samaritans came to be. The Southern Kingdom, Judah, was conquered by Babylonia and pretty much swallowed whole. The Judeans were displaced and exiled into Babylon, but kept intact as a people. Later, of course, the Jews returned to their homeland and resettled. While the Davidic line obviously did not retake the throne, genetically speaking, it remained intact.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I think we need to distinguish between what the Bible teaches and what is assumes.

Here's an example. The Bible was written in a historical context that was in many ways scientifically illiterate compared witht he present day. In this context, there was a general belief that the earth was flat. The Bible does not challenge this. In fact, at points the biblical writers seem quite willing to assume this view of the earth. I'm going to assume that you folks know this, and you have seen some of the evidence. If anyone hasn't, speak up and either myself or someone else will point it out.

And so we might say that the Bible is happy to grant the truth of an erroneous view. But I think this is very different from saying thatthe Bible TEACHES an erroneous view. If, for example, the culture had assumed the earth was a globe, it could just as easily have expressed itself in language reflecting this view as well. Such passages are not teaching about the earth, they are simply using language that people will understand. And so, in one sense the Bible contains errors, but on the other hand it does not teach errors.

Glenn:read:

[Jaltus]

Hmmm, not sure I agree here. While I know the passages you will point to, I'd also like to point out that using "idiom" is not an error. We still talk of sunrise and sunset, that does not make us "scientifically illiterate," just inconsistent or geocentric in outlook.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Jaltus:
Hmmm, not sure I agree here. While I know the passages you will point to, I'd also like to point out that using "idiom" is not an error. We still talk of sunrise and sunset, that does not make us "scientifically illiterate," just inconsistent or geocentric in outlook.

Are you saying those passages are only using an idiom? That the authors really KNEW the earth was a globe, but they were just using an idiom, in the same way that we KNOW the sun doesn't go around the earth, but we say "sunrise" anyway?

Interesting Jaltus. What evidence do you have that these authors did know about the globe? Of course, if they didn't, and they really are assuming the same model of the earth as their contemporaries, the they did indeed assume an error to be true, and express themselves in language that reflects this.

Glenn

[Socrates]

Theonomy, please don't just accept the words of someone like Seely who unequally yokes himself to Biblioskeptics, just because he's also nominally in the same "Reformed" camp (that's if he is the source -- he's the only allegedly "conservative" commentator who talks such crap). His flat earth accusation was demolished in the article Is the ’erets (earth) flat?. Equivocal language in the geography of Genesis 1 and the Old Testament: a response to Paul H. Seely (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tjv14n3flat_earth.asp)

Furthermore, as I've pointed out to your fellow Kiwi Robyn Banks, it is literally and scientifically correct to use the expressions "sunrise" and "sunset". Any physicist knows that all motion must be described with respect to a reference frame, and all choices are equally valid. The Bible and most people today in colloquial parlance use the Earth as a reference frame, as does our car's speedometer. For solar system astronomy, it is more convenient to use the center of mass of the solar system (near enough to the sun, since that has over 99% of the mass) as a reference point. In this case, the planets describe elliptical orbits around it. When asked (according to the tale), "Does the Earth move?" Galileo should have responded, "Relative to what?

[Mikeb]

This is why I don’t care if the Bible is true.

It is not that I think less of the Bible, I think less of truth. After studying truth for many years in all its epistemic and mythological manifestations, I am convinced that the Bible offers more. The Bible is of God, and the gift it offers is life and life everlasting, not through the truths it reveals, but through the stories it tells.

Before all else, there were stories. In Eden, as hunter gathers we sat around flickering campfires and told our stories to one another. God was there, our compatriot, His presence was our light and His Tree of Life our food. We were alive and shared our life with one another through our stories. Unlike the cold truth and myth and knowledge we were left with after eating the awful Fruit of death, stories are themselves alive. They come from the life of the teller, and they grow in the life of the listener. The young child, hearing his father’s stories of the hunt, gives life to these stories as he grows. In his first hunt his own experience gives substance and breath to his father’s tales making them a part of his life. The touch, the smell, the thrill, the sounds, and the colors of the hunt animate his father’s words and bring the father’s life into the son. The story is the pre-mythic, pre-Socratic, pre-epistemic way we communicated, the way we shared our life, the way we talked before we ate the awful Fruit and had only death to share.

The stories in the Bible are the stories of our life, of your life and of mine, of all people everywhere. As those stories to grow within us, the Tree of Life begins to flower once again. To be sure, the Bible holds within its pages wonderful wisdom, and truth, and knowledge, but, in every case, the function of that wisdom has been to preserve the stories of the Bible, to pass those stories down from generation to generation, and sow them anew in every time until they find root and grow. In particular, the Bible preserves its two great stories, the Story of Eden where we lost our life, and the Gospel where Christ reclaimed it for us. In these stories resides the fruit of Life, and life everlasting.

A story is a living, breathing thing, like a tree that is fed and grows and bares fruit. We can cut a tree down and make lumber out of it. From this lumber we can build a home or fashion a chair or create any number of useful items. Yet when we do so, we loose the living value of the tree. We loose the oxygen it produces for us to breathe, the fruit it grows for us to eat, and the shade, and the smell, and the beauty of the living tree itself. In the same way, we can harvest our stories, and draw from them rules, archetypes, beliefs, and principals. With these rules and beliefs we can fashion a congregation, a city, or a civilization. Yet as we do so, we loose the living value of the story itself. We loose the way a story lives within us feeding on our experience and growing to inform us about what we are and be itself formed and sustained by what we become.

[TheFiveSolas]

Theonomy wrote:

Here's an example. The Bible was written in a historical context that was in many ways scientifically illiterate compared witht he present day. In this context, there was a general belief that the earth was flat.


Jeffrey Burton Russell, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of California, Santa Barbara, has written a book attempting to dispel the myth (that most of us were taught) that in the past people thought that the Earth was flat.

The title of his book is "Inventing the Flat Earth". In it Dr. Russell proves that the belief in a "flat Earth" was virtually non-existent. To quote him, "It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat."

A summary given by Dr. Russell at Westmont college can be read here:
http://www.id.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html

Hope that helps!

[TheFiveSolas]

On a different tangent, you might find the following quote from Dr. Russell to be of interest (quoted from the link above):

The reason for promoting both the specific lie about the sphericity of the earth and the general lie that religion and science are in natural and eternal conflict in Western society, is to defend Darwinism. The answer is really only slightly more complicated than that bald statement. The flat-earth lie was ammunition against the creationists. The argument was simple and powerful, if not elegant: "Look how stupid these Christians are. They are always getting in the way of science and progress. These people who deny evolution today are exactly the same sort of people as those idiots who for at least a thousand years denied that the earth was round. How stupid can you get?"

But that is not the truth.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Socrates:
Theonomy, please don't just accept the words of someone like Seely who unequally yokes himself to Biblioskeptics, just because he's also nominally in the same "Reformed" camp (that's if he is the source -- he's the only allegedly "conservative" commentator who talks such crap).

OK, I won't rely on him. I've never read him, as it happens. I see no need to associate my position with "biblioskeptics." As I've said, I don't think the fact that the Bible uses the language of a scietifically flawed culture means that it teaches that culture's views to be true.

Furthermore, as I've pointed out to your fellow Kiwi Robyn Banks, it is literally and scientifically correct to use the expressions "sunrise" and "sunset". Any physicist knows that all motion must be described with respect to a reference frame, and all choices are equally valid. The Bible and most people today in colloquial parlance use the Earth as a reference frame, as does our car's speedometer. For solar system astronomy, it is more convenient to use the center of mass of the solar system (near enough to the sun, since that has over 99% of the mass) as a reference point. In this case, the planets describe elliptical orbits around it. When asked (according to the tale), "Does the Earth move?" Galileo should have responded, "Relative to what?

Well, I think you knew what I meant. My point was (and is) that just because we the idiomatic language doesn't mean we accept the literal truth of that idiom. If the sunrise thing isn't correct then we could use another one - "the ends of the earth." Literally that's nonsense, it reflects a scientific falsehood, but we get the point of what it means.

Glenn

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

TheFiveSolas:
The title of his book is "Inventing the Flat Earth". In it Dr. Russell proves that the belief in a "flat Earth" was virtually non-existent. To quote him, "It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat."


Well then, the author of that book is, in a word, dishonest. If he claims to be a historian, it is inconceivable that he does not know that Augustine and Luther taught clearly and emphatically that the earth is flat.

As far as the biblical material is concerned, I have not swallowed some myth. I would once have denied what I am saying here. Yet, I came to my view by being willing to read the Bible without trying to make it fit a mould.

But once again (as it seems most people have not hear me clearly so far), I am not not not not (get the point) saying that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat. the Bible doesn't TEACH that the earth is any shape. What I have been saying is that the biblical writers were happy to speak in terms of current "scientific" understandings in order to convey their message. The could talk about the ends of the earth (as an easy example from memory) to talk about a great distance. Literally this is false. But the point is still clearly made. These comments are not intended to teach us about the shape of the earth however, so there should not be any problem for those of us who believe in the Word of God in the words of men.

Glenn

[ItalianGold]

Mikeb,

Welcome! What a lucid and well written first post. Of course you'll catch a lot of grief for it - ha ha

Why would the fact that people believed the earth to be flat 2,000 years ago negate anything they said? Of course if they insisted that they had been to the edge, peered over it and seen the roof of hell, then we'd have cause to challenge.

Whether I agree with the details or not, I agree with your premise. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts...whether we're talking about the Bible, a symphony or a sonnet.












IG

[Captain Ochre]

Theonomy:


Well then, the author of that book is, in a word, dishonest. If he claims to be a historian, it is inconceivable that he does not know that Augustine and Luther taught clearly and emphatically that the earth is flat.


http://imiloa.wcc.hawaii.edu/krupp/BIOL101/present/lcture07/tsld015.htm

http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/flat_earth.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/cosmo_bibl1.htm

Apparently you're one-for-two (or worse) in your assertions regarding Augustine & Luther; moreover, individual cases of theologians believing in a flat earth do not make the case for a predominant belief among Christians or "Christian belief" per se.

[TheFiveSolas]

Theonomy wrote:

Well then, the author of that book is, in a word, dishonest. If he claims to be a historian, it is inconceivable that he does not know that Augustine and Luther taught clearly and emphatically that the earth is flat.


Do you have any references that I can look up to support this assertion? I highly doubt that Dr. Russell is being dishonest, in fact other historians have pointed out the same thing he does in his book. For example:

Historians of science have been proving this point for at least 70 years (most recently Edward Grant, David Lindberg, Daniel Woodward, and Robert S. Westman), without making notable headway against the error. Schoolchildren in the US, Europe, and Japan are for the most part being taught the same old nonsense.


Also, I never implied that you believed the bible to teach a flat Earth. I was merely attempting to point out the erroneous view that ancients taught or thought that the Earth was flat. As Dr. Russell pointed out, there were a VERY small minority who did, but these were outweighed by the thousands who held to the spherical view.

Lastly, I don't know where you get your information but Augustine, in both his "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" and "City of God" argues that Christians should proceed with caution on the issue of the shape of the Earth, that it is not clearly spoken of in Scripture, and therefore is open to investigation. He also makes the specific point of "refuting Christians who use the skins or tents of Psalms, Isaiah, Job, or Amos to argue against sphericity." (Inventing the Flat Earth, pg. 23)

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Captain Ochre:
Apparently you're one-for-two (or worse) in your assertions regarding Augustine & Luther; moreover, individual cases of theologians believing in a flat earth do not make the case for a predominant belief among Christians or "Christian belief" per se.

I never said it was a Christian belief per se. I was responding to the claim that "no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat." This claim is false.

And if you think I'm misrepresenting Augustine or Luther, you're mistaken. Augustine clearly teaches thatthe earth is flat, and the sun orbits the earth, in City of God, book 16, chapter 9. Luther likewise argues that "People give ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens of the firmament, the sun and the moon ... This fool wishes to reverse the entire scheme of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, not the earth." (Luther, Table Talk)

The Catholic Church's edict of 1616 reflects a similar view: "The view that the sun stands motionless at the center of the universe is foolish, philosophically false, utterly heretical, because contrary to Holy Scripture. The view that the earth is not the center of the universe and even has a daily rotation is philosophically false, and at least an erroneous belief."

Other Church Fathers shared Augustine's views, and maybe with a little more searching we could find other cases, perhaps many more in fact. Why waste time defending theologians who were just wrong? They said it.

As you'll note, however, I haven't said thatthe BIBLE teaches what these people taught.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

TheFiveSolas:
Also, I never implied that you believed the bible to teach a flat Earth.

Yes I know, I was trying to be unmistakably clear that I don't think that. On forums like this it is extremely easy to be misunderstood.

[Captain Ochre]

Theonomy:


I never said it was a Christian belief per se. I was responding to the claim that "no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat." This claim is false.


Perhaps so, but you haven't shown it via Luther.


And if you think I'm misrepresenting Augustine or Luther, you're mistaken. Augustine clearly teaches thatthe earth is flat, and the sun orbits the earth, in City of God, book 16, chapter 9. Luther likewise argues that "People give ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens of the firmament, the sun and the moon ... This fool wishes to reverse the entire scheme of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, not the earth." (Luther, Table Talk)


You appear to have confused flat-earth belief with geocentricity. They are not the same thing.

[Captain Ochre]

Theonomy:


I never said it was a Christian belief per se. I was responding to the claim that "no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat." This claim is false.

And if you think I'm misrepresenting Augustine or Luther, you're mistaken. Augustine clearly teaches thatthe earth is flat, and the sun orbits the earth, in City of God, book 16, chapter 9.

You mean this?

"But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part which is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled."

--Augustine, City of God Book 16, chapter 9.

[edit to add]
http://ccel.org/fathers/NPNF1-02/Augustine/cog/t84.htm#t84.htm.4

Oddly enough, that very passage is used to verify the fact that Augustine held a spheroid Earth as a possibility.
Who is right, those who say it shows flat earth belief or those who say it does not?
Want to go to the campus boxing ring on this one?

[TheFiveSolas]

Captain,
WOW, you are quick, I was just looking up that same section and you beat me to it.

As the quotation of Augustine showed, he distinguishes between ANTIPODES and SPHERICITY. There is a HUGE difference between the two. The term antipodes refers to an exact diametrically opposed half, whereas the concept of sphericity doesn't imply (or insist) that the other side of the Earth has the exact same layout (of land and water) in a diametrically opposite fashion. The one (antipodes) Augustine calls a fable that is based neither on historical nor scientific fact. When speaking of sphericity he speaks of it not yet being PROVEN scientifically NOR being PROVEN that the other side has land.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Captain Ochre:

Perhaps so, but you haven't shown it via Luther.

You appear to have confused flat-earth belief with geocentricity. They are not the same thing.

Without my probing my history resources further, even if I concede that Luther was not a flate earther, it remains true that Augustine and a number of other Fathers taught that the earth was flat (in opposition tot he Antipodes). This is enough to refute the claim I sought to refute.

Luther was a geoncentrist then. O.K., let's grant that he didn;t accept t flat earth. I'd suggest that he was a geocentrist because the Bible uses the language of a geocentrist view. This would be another example of the Bible using language that assumes an errant scientific view. I think that Luther is wrong to assume that such language is meant to teach us about the nature of the earth, but he was right to recognise that such language does not assume a modern understanding of the universe. It assumes an ancient, and erroneous one.

[Captain Ochre]

Theonomy:


Without my probing my history resources further, even if I concede that Luther was not a flate earther, it remains true that Augustine and a number of other Fathers taught that the earth was flat (in opposition tot he Antipodes). This is enough to refute the claim I sought to refute.


You're sure that you wish to include Augustine among the church fathers who supposedly held flat-earth beliefs?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Captain Ochre:
Oddly enough, that very passage is used to verify the fact that Augustine held a spheroid Earth as a possibility.
Who is right, those who say it shows flat earth belief or those who say it does not?


Oh come on! It is clear in the quote itself. Augustine calls it "conjecture" that "the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other." This should be sufficient evidence that he did not hold the spheroid view.

He goes on to say, as you note, that EVEN IF the earth were a sphere, that wouldn't show the other side to be inhabited. But this doesn't mean he thinks the earthis a sphere. As noted, he writes as though he doesn;t accept this. It should be even clearer when we note the way he describes the (apparently "ridiculous") view that there could be a place where the sun rises whle it sets for us. Why not just admit that Augustine got it wrong?

[Captain Ochre]

Theonomy:
Why not just admit that Augustine got it wrong?

I dunno--because argumentum ad ignorantiam is a fallacy, maybe?
Seeya in the boxing ring? I'm going to sleep, but I'll challenge you to formal debate on this, assuming you don't come to your senses very soon.:smile:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

TheFiveSolas:
The term antipodes refers to an exact diametrically opposed half, whereas the concept of sphericity doesn't imply (or insist) that the other side of the Earth has the exact same layout (of land and water) in a diametrically opposite fashion. The one (antipodes) Augustine calls a fable that is based neither on historical nor scientific fact. When speaking of sphericity he speaks of it not yet being PROVEN scientifically NOR being PROVEN that the other side has land.

That's not the antipodean view. The antipodean view is simply thatthere are people on the other side of the earth. Augustine says that Firstly, the earth is not a suspended globe with half its surface area on the opposite side to us. Secondly he argues that even if this were the case it wouldn't prove thatthere was enough land on the other side tobe inhabited. Thirdly he argues that even if there was enough land to inhabit, it wouldn;t prove that it was inhabited.

As you cans ee, it is only Augustine's first argument that concerns us here. Augustine considers it false speculation that the earth is a sphere.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Captain Ochre:


I dunno--because argumentum ad ignorantiam is a fallacy, maybe?
Seeya in the boxing ring? I'm going to sleep, but I'll challenge you to formal debate on this, assuming you don't come to your senses very soon.:smile:

Some to my senses? Why the ugly hostility? How many facts are there to debate on Augustine here? You know and I know that he called it mere speculation that the earth was a sphere. No argument can be raised to those who deny this fact, other than to say - "read it again!"

[TheFiveSolas]

Theonomy,
As we've pointed out, Augustine held neither view because, as he stated elsewhere the bible doesn't speak clearly on the shape of the Earth, therefore he reserves judgement for future investigation (his words are historical and scientific investigation). Therefore, your assertion that since he asserted that neither science nor history has proven sphericity he MUST hold to a flat earth view by default, is a false dilemma. There is a third option, one that Augustine chose, namely (as I've already stated) he reserved judgement pending further investigation into the matter.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

TheFiveSolas:
Theonomy,
As we've pointed out, Augustine held neither view because, as he stated elsewhere the bible doesn't speak clearly on the shape of the Earth, therefore he reserves judgement for future investigation (his words are historical and scientific investigation). Therefore, your assertion that since he asserted that neither science nor history has proven sphericity he MUST hold to a flat earth view by default, is a false dilemma. There is a third option, one that Augustine chose, namely (as I've already stated) he reserved judgement pending further investigation into the matter.

As with any text, context is the key. His words come in the context of asserting that an antipodean view is in FACT false. One of his reasons was that a spheroid view is mere speculation. He did not really reserve judgement. He considered this fact, among other things, to show the antipodean view to be false, not merely unproven.

[TheFiveSolas]

Theonomy wrote:

That's not the antipodean view. The antipodean view is simply that there are people on the other side of the earth.


An antipode refers to a counter image, or mirror image, the exact same thing only in reverse. Augustine calls this view a fable, pure conjecture.

Merriam-Webster
Antipode: The parts of the Earth diametrically opposite.

[Captain Ochre]

Theonomy:


Some to my senses? Why the ugly hostility?


"Ugly hostility"??? Are you doing an antipodean interpretation of my emoticon, or what?


How many facts are there to debate on Augustine here? You know and I know that he called it mere speculation that the earth was a sphere. No argument can be raised to those who deny this fact, other than to say - "read it again!"

I didn't claim that it would take me long to dispatch you in the course of debate.
I figure that TheFiveSolas will have driven the point home before long--but if he doesn't, be ready to lace 'em up!

:smile: (emoticon denoting smile/friendliness--at least on this side of the planet--fyi)

[Captain Ochre]

TheFiveSolas:
Theonomy wrote:


An antipode refers to a counter image, or mirror image, the exact same thing only in reverse. Augustine calls this view a fable, pure conjecture.

Merriam-Webster
Antipode: The parts of the Earth diametrically opposite.

The surface etymology suggests that it refers to folk whose feet point in the opposite direction--the modern word and definition may reflect a substantial shift in meaning.

'Night (day? whatever), y'all.

[TheFiveSolas]

Theonomy,
Yes, context is the key, and as I've pointed out Augustine didn't assert EITHER view. He maintained that BOTH views were speculative and required FURTHER investigation before we could know which view was correct. Read his "Literal Meaning of Genesis" for proof.
Either way, your assertion that he was a flat-Earther is incorrect and is refuted by Augustine's own assertions.

[Socrates]

Theonomy wrote:


Well then, the author of that book is, in a word, dishonest. If he claims to be a historian, it is inconceivable that he does not know that Augustine and Luther taught clearly and emphatically that the earth is flat.You must be very careful before saying such things, because it violates the biblical command against slander (including the written form, libel).

As TheFiveSolas points out, you clearly know naught of what you speak. Russell did a very careful study, and came up with only a handful of obscure writers who were flat-Earthers. But biblioskeptics use one Cosmas Indicopleustes as if he was typical of the Church, which he was not!

Even the late atheistic evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould praised Russell's book, so it's shameful that you would accuse Russell of dishonesty.

Augustine did NOT teach a flat earth, but merely questioned the existence of people in the Antipodes, which is completely logically distinct. The Vernerable Bede and Thomas Aquinas were among many who unambiguously taught that the Earth was spherical.

Luther's beef was with Copernicanism not a spherical Earth. Sheesh, even your own quote of Luther showed that, but as has been pointed out, you seem not to know the difference. :doh:

"He who does not know Arabic should not try to speak Arabic.":bonk:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

TheFiveSolas:
Theonomy wrote:


An antipode refers to a counter image, or mirror image, the exact same thing only in reverse. Augustine calls this view a fable, pure conjecture.

Merriam-Webster
Antipode: The parts of the Earth diametrically opposite.

Captain Ochre beat me to a rebuttal on this point. An antipode is someone onthe other side of the earth, whose feet point the other way.

Glenn

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Socrates:
Augustine did NOT teach a flat earth, but merely questioned the existence of people in the Antipodes, which is completely logically distinct.

I will assume you've not followed the dialogue on this thread. As I've pointed out, he denied the Antipodes by arguing 1.) That the belief in a spherical earth was mere conjecture (evidently one he did not believe, as he declared the antipodean view false for this reason) 2.) That even if the earth HAD been a sphere, there would be no proof of dry land on the other side, and 3.) Even if there HAD been a spherical earth with dry land on the other side, this would not prove the other side was populated.

You seem to have brushed Augustine's claim 1.) aside.

The Vernerable Bede and Thomas Aquinas were among many who unambiguously taught that the Earth was spherical.

I've never read them, but sure, I have no reason to deny that. I never implied that all Christians thought the earthj was flat.

Luther's beef was with Copernicanism not a spherical Earth. Sheesh, even your own quote of Luther showed that, but as has been pointed out, you seem not to know the difference. :doh:

When attempting to issue a reprimand, it pays to follow the dialogue first. I have said in an earlier post: "Luther was a geoncentrist then. O.K., let's grant that he didn't accept a flat earth."

I repeat, the context of Augustine's comment shows that one of his reasons for rejecting the view that there are people on the other side of the world is that he considered it mere conjecture thatthere WAS another side to the earth. This means that he did not consider it true that the earth is a sphere. It means he considered the spheroid view to be conjecture. He considered it so unlikely that any view depending onit (e.g.t he view that there are people on the other side of the world) must be false.

You think it is dangerous to call this "historian" dishonest. Let me put it in a way you might appreciate more: This historian, if he claims (as someone said he did) that virtually all respectable thinkers since the 3rd century BC have believed in a spherical earth, then he knowingly glossed over evidence to the contrary. Most would call that dishonest, and that is why I feel comfortable calling it such.

[Socrates]

---------------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
Augustine did NOT teach a flat earth, but merely questioned the existence of people in the Antipodes, which is completely logically distinct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Theonomy the flat-earth-myther responded:

I will assume you've not followed the dialogue on this thread. As I've pointed out, he denied the Antipodes by arguing 1.) That the belief in a spherical earth was mere conjecture (evidently one he did not believe, as he declared the antipodean view false for this reason) 2.) That even if the earth HAD been a sphere, there would be no proof of dry land on the other side, and 3.) Even if there HAD been a spherical earth with dry land on the other side, this would not prove the other side was populated.

You seem to have brushed Augustine's claim 1.) aside.Read again -- even if you're right about Augustine claiming that a spherical Earth was conjectural, this is light years away from teaching that the Earth is flat.

"But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled."Where is the denial of sphericity? His main objection was to antipodean people.

When attempting to issue a reprimand, it pays to follow the dialogue first. I have said in an earlier post: "Luther was a geoncentrist then. O.K., let's grant that he didn't accept a flat earth."I was showing that you lack credibility on the issue.

I repeat, the context of Augustine's comment shows that one of his reasons for rejecting the view that there are people on the other side of the world is that he considered it mere conjecture thatthere WAS another side to the earth. This means that he did not consider it true that the earth is a sphere. It means he considered the spheroid view to be conjecture. No, you reading too much into his statement, where he neither confirms or denies it. His main point was even if the premise (spherical Earth) is true, the conclusion (Antipodeans) does not follow. Do you realise that the validity of an argument does not depend on the truth of the premise(s)? So Augustine was perfectly entitled to attack the validity while conceding the premise.

He considered it so unlikely that any view depending onit (e.g.t he view that there are people on the other side of the world) must be false.Wrong again -- he was attacking validity not the premise. There are two ways to refute an argument: show that a premise is false, or show that the argument is invalid, i.e. that a true conclusion does not follow from a true premise.

You think it is dangerous to call this "historian" dishonest. Let me put it in a way you might appreciate more: This historian, if he claims (as someone said he did) that virtually all respectable thinkers since the 3rd century BC have believed in a spherical earth, then he knowingly glossed over evidence to the contrary. Most would call that dishonest, and that is why I feel comfortable calling it such.
What crap -- why don't you go and join a Skeptics forum -- they'd love you. If you want to maintain this slander, you must demonstrate that more than a handful of people taught a flat earth and actually denied a round earth. Augustine is at best doubtful, despite your errant claim, "Augustine clearly teaches thatthe earth is flat, and the sun orbits the earth, in City of God, book 16, chapter 9."

Russell himself said:

Nor did this situation change with the advent of Christianity. A few--at least two and at most five--early Christian fathers denied the sphericity of earth by mistakenly taking passages such as Ps. 104:2-3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements. On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church. The point is that no educated person believed otherwise.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Socrates.

With regard to each of the factual claims you've made, the ground has been covered already. I say you're brushing aside the force of Augustine's rejection of a spherical earth, you say that this doesn;t mean he thought the earth was flat. I say it does (rather than cuboid or something else).

As to the rest, your ungraciousness is not called for.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Socrates, your quote from Russell confirms my charge of dishonesty:

"The point is that no educated person believed otherwise."


No educated person! Russell knows this is false. He admits this is false. he says that there may be five Church Fathers who did believe otherwise. Thus, some educated people believed otherwise. Ergo, he is not telling the truth when he says "no educated person believed otherwise."

He seals his own coffin.

[Socrates]

Theonomy persists in his slanders of Russell (and accuses me of ungraciousness):


No educated person! Russell knows this is false. He admits this is false. he says that there may be five Church Fathers who did believe otherwise. Thus, some educated people believed otherwise. Ergo, he is not telling the truth when he says "no educated person believed otherwise."That's too silly for words. Even in the Bible there are plenty of examples where "no" and "some" are not absolute, despite the stupid charges of Biblical "contradictions" that abound on atheistic gutter sites. Looks like you've picked up a few tips from them. Do you really think Russell is that stupid?? No, Russell made an overwhelmingly general statement that is hardly affected by a handful of obscure exceptions. I suppose you think that the author of Proverbs was likewise stupid or dishonest not to notice the "glaring contradiction" in the adjacent verses 26:4 and 26:5??

Theonomy also tries to get around the fact that he goofed when he claimed so dogmatically:

"Augustine clearly teaches that the earth is flat, and the sun orbits the earth, in City of God, book 16, chapter 9."
when in reality Augustine neither confirmed nor denied Earth's sphericity because it would not prove that antipodeans existed.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Socrates

You've now come to assert that Russell can overstate his position, and I cannot pull him up for it. Ah well, I guess my standard of accuracy is different from yours.

You further indulge in ungraciousness by associating me with people who find contradictions in Scripture. I bear no grudge.

You thirdly re-assert your opinion about augustine's view, which is the very thing in dispute. I'm aware of your opinion already. Saying it again changes nothing. I think we both know we've reached the end of any constructive dialogue betweenus on this point. It had its interesting moments. Perhaps we'll meet again on other issues.

Blessings

Glenn

[Captain Ochre]

Theonomy:
Socrates, your quote from Russell confirms my charge of dishonesty:

"The point is that no educated person believed otherwise."


No educated person! Russell knows this is false. He admits this is false. he says that there may be five Church Fathers who did believe otherwise. Thus, some educated people believed otherwise. Ergo, he is not telling the truth when he says "no educated person believed otherwise."

He seals his own coffin.

For my part, I'm glad that Socrates provided the quotation in context (if it occurred earlier in the thread, then I apologize for not noticing).
The final line regarding "no educated person"--in that context--seems to be a mild hyperbole.
Theonomy seems to read it like a fundy.
I'm challenging you to a one-rounder in the boxing ring, Theonomy. Look for the thread in Coaches' Quarters (iirc).

[edit to add]
On second thought, the debate section is supposed to be a "foster understanding"-type thing, while the Theonomy side of the debate deserves to be crushed unmercifully (we like you Theonomy, but your take on Augustine is a stinker).
I'll post once more to this thread delineating where T-man goes awry (mostly recap of what I and others have already written).

[Socrates]

Captain Ochre wrote:

The final line regarding "no educated person"--in that context--seems to be a mild hyperbole.
Theonomy seems to read it like a fundy.Well put! :thumb: The previous paragraph shows that it was Russell's style:

A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere. Although there were a few dissenters--Leukippos and Demokritos for example--by the time of Eratosthenes (3 c. BC), followed by Crates(2 c. BC), Strabo (3 c. BC), and Ptolemy (first c. AD), the sphericity of the earth was accepted by all educated Greeks and Romans. Note again, Russell said "all" in the same paragraph as he gave exceptions. So it should be obvious to any fair-minded person that he was not using "all" in a hyperliteralistic fundie sense, but hyperbolically to mean "the vast majority with only a handful of exceptions".

And a handful is all they are. Augustine is a highly dubious example as shown, so it boggles the mind how anyone can claim that flat-earth belief was rife in medieval times.

[Captain Ochre]

Theonomy cites Augustine's City of God, Book 16, chapter 9 as evidence that Augustine held a flat-earth geological view.

This position is fundamentally flawed simply because Augustine nowhere in that chapter advocates anything approaching a flat-Earth view. Thus, Theonomy is committing the fallacy of argument from silence: Since Augustine does not affirm belief in a spheroid Earth, therefore he affirms belief in a flat Earth.
Game over, right there.

Afterthought issues:
Theonomy, in the course of his scattered (via a number of posts) argument, asserts that the passage has specific meaning with regard to rejection of a spheroid Earth idea. Unfortunately, he never aligns these interpretive claims with specific passages from the text.
This lesser issue also seems to be a stinker for Theonomy. The idea being attacked in the passage, which should be painfully manifest from the context (immediate & in the preceding chapter), is that the idea that there are people on the other side of the Earth (if such exists) is untenable.
In the course of describing the idea of a spheroid Earth, Augustine happens to mention that the idea is a scientific conjecture (I suggest "hypothesis" as a synonym), and notes that the hypothesis hasn't been confirmed historically (that is, by observation, such as somebody going there and back).

Here's that text again (expanded context compared to the earlier posting: The whole of the ninth chapter, iow):

THE ANTIPODES.

But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part which is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled. For Scripture, which proves the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, gives no false information; and it is too absurd to say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region are descended from that one first man. Wherefore let us seek if we can find the city of God that sojourns on earth among those human races who are catalogued as having been divided into seventy-two nations and as many languages. For it continued down to the deluge and the ark, and is proved to have existed still among the sons of Noah by their blessings, and chiefly in the eldest son Shem; for Japheth received this blessing, that he should dwell in the tents of Shem.

http://ccel.org/fathers/NPNF1-02/Augustine/cog/t84.htm#t84.htm.4

The passage above offers no purchase to the idea that Augustine rejected the idea of a spheroid Earth. He simply assessed the state of the evidence in brief (accurately, I'd suggest), in the course of rejecting the idea that there were people on the other side of the Earth.
If one wishes to criticize Augustine, go for the fact that he was seemingly wrong about the absence of "antipodean" humans.

In sum, use of the above-quoted passage to establish that Augustine held a flat-Earth view or rejected the sphereoid-Earth view is wrongheaded.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Captain,


Repeating earlier arguments virtually verbatim achieves naught. To address your comments would be to engage in repetition, an activity I find distasteful.

And as for your penchant for testosterone driven remakrs - the repeated boxing ring challenges....

What's the point of reproducing this in another thread?

[Captain Ochre]

Theonomy:
Captain,


Repeating earlier arguments virtually verbatim achieves naught.


I had already mentioned that what I would write had already been written. The primary addition was the specific identification of your argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Pointing out what I had already pointed out achieves naught.

I'll post once more to this thread delineating where T-man goes awry (mostly recap of what I and others have already written).

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=19991#post19991


To address your comments would be to engage in repetition, an activity I find distasteful.


You've never distanced yourself from the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy; nor have you justified your (imaginative, imo) interpretations of Augustine's work.


And as for your penchant for testosterone driven remakrs - the repeated boxing ring challenges....


Uh--yeah . . . how "macho" of me to refer to the debate area of Tweb (known as the "Boxing Ring") as "the Boxing Ring".
And on top of that, to perpetuate the imagery with a peppering of boxing vernacular! Think I'll go out tiger hunting, now, with my bare hands.
:rofl:


What's the point of reproducing this in another thread?

None, I agree. Your position has been amply and ably refuted a number of times.
You used Luther's quotation wrongly, and you used Augustine's quotation wrongly.
It's just taking you longer to admit the second one.

[Bill K.]

Personally I do not believe that God inspires texts, but rather people. As such I think the Bible is the result of inspired folks. This inspiration is not for the perfect laying down of print, but rather for wisdom and insight. Historical oddities that accompany that wisdom do not invalidate it. So, it the Bible inerrant? It does not need to be. It merely needs to be reliable in what it proclaims as God's actions in history. If Luke missed a chronological marker, so what. We often trust those who give us information even if we think they have a fact wrong. There would not even be "trusting" if perfect accuracy was necessary. Emerson said, "Accuracy is the hobgoblin of small minds." (I'm not sure about the quote, but it is close.)

I just don't see how it could be necessary for salvation, except in so far as without it we would probably have no kerygma to proclaim. Nowhere is it listed as an essential to communion with God through Christ. The apostles don't mention it in their proclaimation. (Although it is often presupposed as the foundation for that proclaimation.)

As for Luke's census, all the evidence is not in yet. I think Luke will prevail, but that is based on a confidence engendered by the rest of his work. Some problems may lie with how the Greek word for "First" is interpreted. Is it "first" or "before"??? N.T. Wright says the later, which solves the problem in one respect.

In Christ,
Bill

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

02-22-2003 @ 12:12 AM
Bill K.:
So, it the Bible inerrant? It does not need to be. It merely needs to be reliable in what it proclaims as God's actions in history.

Well said. This is kinda like what I meant earlier in reference to science. It wouldn't matter if certain parts of the Bible are expressed in language that reflects a naive scientific outlook (e.g. flate earth or geocentricism or the earth sitting on pillars or anything else). The Bible isn't seeking to actually procalim the truth on those things, so it doesn't matter if it fails to do so in accordance with all the knowledge we've accumulated in our day and age.

Glenn

[Socrates]

BillK:
Personally I do not believe that God inspires texts, but rather people. I'm not interested in your personal opinion or anyone else's--I'm interested in how these opinions can match up with God's Word. And in 2 Tim. 3:16, it is the writINGS that are said to be "God-breathed", not the writERS. Therefore there can be no errors because God does not breath out error. And the Scriptures are the only source of the doctrines needed for saving faith.

As far as the writERS are concerned, they were merely the means of producing the inerrant Scriptures, in that they were men "borne along" by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21). This means that although their writings reflected their own personalities and research, the result was exactly what God intended to be written, i.e. inerrant propositional revelation.

As far as what we mean by inerrancy, many of the inerrantists in Theology Web, including me, would subscribe to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbe.htm).

[Socrates]

Theonomy:
This is kinda like what I meant earlier in reference to science. It wouldn't matter if certain parts of the Bible are expressed in language that reflects a naive scientific outlook (e.g. flate earth or geocentricism or the earth sitting on pillars or anything else).Oh, for goodness's sake, stop reading it like a 21st century fundy or biblioskeptic.

I've already pointed out that there is no scientific error in saying the sun goes round the Earth, because one can choose the Earth or any reference frame you like. There is nothing naïve about this; rather, the Bible is more scientifically accurate than its critics! It is just as physically valid to choose the solar system's center of mass as a reference frame. Sometimes you might choose something different again. E.g. if you're a passenger in a car and the driver is tailgaiting dangerously close to the car in front, you might strongly advise him to "pull back a bit." In this case, the language is treating the car in front as a reference frame, although relative to the Earth both cars are still moving forward. If you have a problem with reference frames, get a high school physics text book.

Neither the Bible nor the vast majority of the Church taught a flat Earth, however much you love to cling to myths invented by Washington Irving and promulgated by the 19th century God-haters Draper and White. See also What Shape is the Earth In? An Evaluation of Biblical Cosmology (http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_03_03_01.html).

As for the Earth resting on pillars, the context is so obvious that the pillars are PEOPLE, and the Earth must therefore take the meaning of the PEOPLE of the Earth (or land), which is well within the semantic range of 'erets. See ‘Pillars of the Earth’ — Does the Bible teach a mythological cosmology?

[ItalianGold]

I don't understand the question.

Does it mean:

1. Must the Bible be error-free in order for anyone to be saved?

2. Must you BELIEVE the Bible is error-free in order to be saved?


I apologise in advance if this has been addressed. I've only read the first page of this thread.



IG

[ItalianGold]

Anyone else notice this thread number is 666?

[Socrates]

IG:
I don’t understand the question.

Does it mean:

1. Must the Bible be error-free in order for anyone to be saved?

2. Must you BELIEVE the Bible is error-free in order to be saved? #2.
Anyone else notice this thread number is 666?If they did, they probably didn’t give a monkey’s—it’s just a number, and in this case it has nothing to do with a numeric value of a person’s name (and certainly not with barcodes despite some sensationalist end-times literature!).

[Bill K.]

Soc.,
Didn't mean to jerk your chain. Still, I hope you are not so naive to believe that I would base my faith solely on an opinion. When I say God inspires PEOPLE, not books, I mean that I see the SCRIPTURES teaching this.

You said: And in 2 Tim. 3:16, it is the writINGS that are said to be "God-breathed", not the writERS. Therefore there can be no errors because God does not breath out error. And the Scriptures are the only source of the doctrines needed for saving faith.

You beg the question as to what "god-breathed" means. The verse says nothing about the technique. It merely echos the Genesis creation story. The point is this: the Scriptures are a product of HIS work. With this I agree. I have no problem there.

As to how this happens, the Scripture you quote speaks only partly to the issue. This verse is speaking of the prophecy OF THE Scripture ie., those prophecies contained in the corpus, not the product. And as for those "borne along", well, I think I have you there. Clearly we have here people who are inspired, before we have an inspired text. In II Pet 3:15, Peter, speaking of Paul's writings as Scripture (!), says that they are the product of the "wisdom given him." Once again, inspired men!!! I Pet 1:10-12 gives a ditto to this. It seems that the texts that actually speak to the operation of inspiration are on my side, not yours.

As to Scriptures being the sole source of faith? Absolutely.

You said: ...men "borne along" by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21). This means that although their writings reflected their own personalities and research, the result was exactly what God intended to be written, i.e. inerrant propositional revelation.

Perhaps I should say to you what you first said to me: I do not want your opinion, I want to know what Scripture says! You seem to think you can read God's mind. Sadly, you have confused it with your own. You add whatever is convenient for your theory.

Just some thought.

In Christ,
Bill

[Socrates]

---------------------------------------------------------
You said: And in 2 Tim. 3:16, it is the writINGS that are said to be "God-breathed", not the writERS. Therefore there can be no errors because God does not breath out error. And the Scriptures are the only source of the doctrines needed for saving faith.
---------------------------------------------------------

You beg the question as to what "god-breathed" means. For goodness's sake, you said, "Personally I do not believe that God inspires texts, but rather people." I presented the usual text about "inspiration", although rendered theopneustos more correctly "God breathed" as the NIV has it instead of the more usual "inspired by God."

The verse says nothing about the technique. It merely echos the Genesis creation story. The point is this: the Scriptures are a product of HIS work. With this I agree. I have no problem there.

As to how this happens, the Scripture you quote speaks only partly to the issue. This verse is speaking of the prophecy OF THE Scripture ie., those prophecies contained in the corpus, not the product. Jaltus has argued elsewhere that the whole of Scripture counts as prophecy, since that means "forthtelling" as well as "foretelling".
And as for those "borne along", well, I think I have you there. Clearly we have here people who are inspired, before we have an inspired text.Where does it say "inspired".
I've already cited a direct reference to Scripture being "inspired". Not everything Paul said was inspired, but everything Paul wrote in Scripture was.


In II Pet 3:15, Peter, speaking of Paul's writings as Scripture (!), says that they are the product of the "wisdom given him." Once again, inspired men!!!Same as above, although of course I acknowledge that God gave Paul wisdom and that he wrote Scripture.
I Pet 1:10-12 gives a ditto to this. It seems that the texts that actually speak to the operation of inspiration are on my side, not yours.Why? For this to be true, everything they did or said would have to be inspired, which is not true.

As to Scriptures being the sole source of faith? Absolutely.There's hope for you yet ;)

---------------------------------------------------------
You said: ...men "borne along" by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21). This means that although their writings reflected their own personalities and research, the result was exactly what God intended to be written, i.e. inerrant propositional revelation.
----------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps I should say to you what you first said to me: I do not want your opinion, I want to know what Scripture says! You seem to think you can read God's mind. Sadly, you have confused it with your own. You add whatever is convenient for your theory.I presented a standard exegesis of the text as can be found in many systematic theologies, which is more than can be said for your statement I queried. I also wanted to make sure it wasn't taken to be divine dictation, which I don't believe. And I wanted to make it clear that the different parts of Scripture reflect the different human authors, since Scripture is joint divine-human production.

[Bill K.]

Soc.
It seems our ships have crossed in the night ie., we are not operating on the same presuppositions. I do not translate the word "god-breathed" as "inspiration." I see the word addressing a larger subject, that being the final product. Just as God made man out of the dust of the ground, so He makes Scripture out of the inspiration of Man. Than inspiration being, of course, from Him.

So, while this may be the "usual" text, it hardly is dealing with the operation of the spirit, only with who is in charge of it, so to speak.

When a prophecy comes forth, that is inspiration. When someone writes it down, whether the person himself or someone else (Baruch, for example), that is inscripturation. The latter may not have inspiration, but it most certainly needs authorization.
Baruch was not the inspired one, but he was certainly appointed to the task. So also with the "secretaries" who gave us some of the NT writings.

Jaltus has argued elsewhere that the whole of Scripture counts as prophecy, since that means "forthtelling" as well as "foretelling".

Your confusing apples and oranges. All Scripture has a prophetic aspect, but it is not all prophecy, as that technical term is used in the Scripture. Much of Scripture is prophetic in its typology, meaning that it has fulfillment capability in an anti-type/type. But the two are different aspects of Scripture.



I've already cited a direct reference to Scripture being "inspired". Not everything Paul said was inspired, but everything Paul wrote in Scripture was.

I beg to disagree. Paul spoke with the prophetic spirit and divine wisdom. When he spoke, this governed who he was, and it was inspired; when he wrote this spirit of wisdom was in his writings.


There's hope for you yet ;)

thanks for the vote of confidence.


If I'm not "standard" I make no apology for this. I do not believe the Church is "standard" with respect to biblical truth.

In Christ,
Bill

[Jaltus]

Your confusing apples and oranges. All Scripture has a prophetic aspect, but it is not all prophecy, as that technical term is used in the Scripture. Much of Scripture is prophetic in its typology, meaning that it has fulfillment capability in an anti-type/type. But the two are different aspects of Scripture.I believe you are the one holding the mixed bag now. Typology is quite different from prophecy. After all, Abraham was a prophet (Gen 20:7) and he did not work with typology at all.

Besides, all you are doing is asserting without any argumentation. We are unlikely to take your word for it, so I'd recommend backing up what you say.

Was Jonah a prophet? Of course! Did he foretell the future? Not in the least! He did not even act in typological manners (though he did have the experience in the big fish), so in what way was he a prophet? Easy, he gave to Nineveh the message of the LORD.

[kingsword]

how would you be sure that doctrines of salvation aren't erraneous? What if there were errors in rom 10:9-10? If faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, would the kind of faith coming from erraneous scripture be good enough to take you to heaven?

"o ye of little faith..."

[kingsword]

Comparing scripture with scripture - a rule of bible study so often ignored:
2 tim 3:16 - "ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God..."
2 peter 1:21-22 " Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"
Meaning, not only the Scripture is inspired, as said in 2 tim 3:16, but men of God where inspired by the Holy Ghost - the true author of scripture- and not the will of men, who had no say in the matter, because unlike the "doctors" of modern christianity, they had more sense than to make the prophecy subject to their own interpretation.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Oh, for goodness's sake, stop reading it like a 21st century fundy or biblioskeptic.
I just got a notification that there were additions to this thread, so i browsed through it, and I found THIS?

Being a "fundy" is the opposite of what I'm doing. Have a careful look at what I've said about interpreting Scripture. here's a wee reminder:
My point was (and is) that just because we the idiomatic language doesn't mean we accept the literal truth of that idiom. If the sunrise thing isn't correct then we could use another one - "the ends of the earth." Literally that's nonsense, it reflects a scientific falsehood, but we get the point of what it means.
How could that be called a fundy approach? Clearly it could not. A "fundy" would never allow the Bible to use the language of scientific falsehood, he would forcibly re-interpret it until it reflected a modern scientific outlook. Clearly, that is not what I have advocated.

Neither the Bible nor the vast majority of the Church taught a flat Earth, however much you love to cling to myths invented by Washington Irving and promulgated by the 19th century God-haters Draper and White.

That was an inlafmmatory remark that was not based on the actual content of my statements. I have repeatedly stated that I do not (I actually said "not not not not" for emphasis!) think that the Bible teaches a flat earth, so this was not a truthful remark. I have also never said that the vast majority of the church taught this, so that ws also not a truthful remark. Furthermore, linking me to "God haters"? Goodness!

Reading through this thread, I feel vindicated. Where I was wrong (that Luther taught a flat earth) I have admitted it, and where I was right (Augustine rejected the spherical shape of the earth, and used this to state that the antipodean view must be false), I have fared very well, and I continue to hold that sensible opinion. What also stands out is the tone and lack of grace in the responses I have received, which, to the reader, looks like a sign of defeat for those who use those tactics.

Peace to you

Glenn

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Meaning, not only the Scripture is inspired, as said in 2 tim 3:16, but men of God where inspired by the Holy Ghost - the true author of scripture- and not the will of men, who had no say in the matter, because unlike the "doctors" of modern christianity, they had more sense than to make the prophecy subject to their own interpretation.
Can you elaborate on what /who you are referring to in the latter portion of this sentence? Examples would be helpful too. Thanks.

In His grip

Glenn

[ratioann]

Um..
If you were wondering who voted for the 'Yes, you will go to hell,' That would be me. I don't think its necessary for salvation, there is no way it could be. Accepting the orthodox doctrines doesn't really do it either though. I almost voted for 'Errant Scripture destroys Christianity,' but decided to go for the more severe option. I have always figured that God's Word is exactly how He intended, & if you couldn't trust that then how could you trust any doctrine? or anything at all?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Um..
If you were wondering who voted for the 'Yes, you will go to hell,' That would be me. I don't think its necessary for salvation, there is no way it could be.I must confess, I'm a little confused by these two statements side by side.

You voted in the poll that you will go to hell unless you accept inerrancy, and then you say that belief in inerrancy is not necessary for salvation? But if you think that you must believe in inerrancy to avoid going to hell, how can you think it isn't necessary for salvation? Help me out, I'm lost here.

In His grip,

Glenn

[ratioann]

I must confess, I'm a little confused by these two statements side by side.

You voted in the poll that you will go to hell unless you accept inerrancy, and then you say that belief in inerrancy is not necessary for salvation? But if you think that you must believe in inerrancy to avoid going to hell, how can you think it isn't necessary for salvation? Help me out, I'm lost here.

In His grip,

Glenn


Hmm.. yeah that is worded a bit weird.
The only way a person can go to heaven is by faith in Jesus. It's not faith in the bible, or doctrines, or anything, but Jesus. So, technically believing that scripture is errant wont send people to hell. But for someone who believed the Bible had faults to put their trust in Jesus, seems at least very awkward.

Maybe I should have picked #4, but that doesn't seem quite right either.
Sorry for the trouble, hope this was better (probably not though).

[guacamole]

Is inerrancy essential for salvation?

No. Christ is necessary for salvation.

Is the Bible inerrant?

Sure. Depends on what you mean by "inerrant" though. If by "inerrant" you mean that it was meant to scientifically revelatory I disagree. If by "inerrant" you mean that scripture is useful for instruction, reproof and education in righteousness, I'd agree.

fwiw
guac.