Inerrancy

[ApologiaPhoenix]

How do we interpret?

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. It seems there's a lot of interest in inerrancy and thus, I invite readers to also go to our Facebook page where you can follow along and see what happens on the blog as it happens. I would hope that it also becomes a good place for discussion and debate.

Regularly, from the non-Christian community, we can be asked how it is we are to interpret texts. It seems like the Bible is all literal or all figurative. This certainly isn't the case. My reply to such a question is the same each time. "How are we to interpret Plato? Aristotle? Chaucer? Shakespeare?" Think of any great writer. How do we interpret them?

Well you have to do the study. If a term seems hard to understand, you look it up or you consider if the culture has changed and you need to study the culture. Yet somehow, so many people think the Bible is exempt from this. It seems we often have a view of the Bible that somehow, no study is required to understand it.

This is not a good view to have. The Bible is divine in origin, but it is also through human hands. I am told that Mark does not have good Greek, but Luke certainly does. All the writers wrote on their own level. We know some texts are Pauline because of the style with which he wrote.

In the Old Testament, I am also told that Isaiah has simply elegant Hebrew. I am sure there are writers whose Hebrew was hardly stellar. However, each were inspired by God to write, although I do not believe each was dictated what they were to write.

While some may prefer to take the literal right off the bat every time, this is not necessarily the right way. Can we compare with other ancient writings and see how they were written? Why should we expect that Moses wrote in a style amenable to 21st century man? Moses would have written in a way understandable by his contemporaries.

Believe it or not, the Bible was not written just for our day, age, and place. One wonders what it could mean if people alive 500 years from now could wonder why God didn't speak directly the way that they speak. We could say that that's ridiculous, but modern man, especially in America at least, seems to do that.

So unfortunately for most of us who want the answers handed to us and wonder why God didn't just spell everything out, we have to study the text. Not just the text, but we also have to study the culture and the time that the text was written in. If we do not learn the languages, we need to rely on those who do, although hopefully, more of us will learn the languages. We must remember that God is looking for disciples and not just converts.

And maybe once we do that, so many "contradictions" in the text will just disappear.

[themuzicman]

Reason being?

We don't just impose on the text because it's convenient.

So Joshua was okay with saying not one promise had failed even though it had?

Looks like it to me.

Nonsense. You have simply asserted your position. You have given no reason to think God is without a body. You say theophany, an appearance of God in physical form. Well that implies you don't believe He has a physical form, but the text talks so much about it! Please show the text in the books of Moses that says otherwise.

Really, Nick? You didn't even bother to read what I wrote? That the evidence for God not having a body is that the normative way He interacts with individuals in Genesis is without a physical form, and that theophanies occur where God needs to interact on a physical level? Do I really need to go through all the incidents where God interacts with men in Genesis and show this to you?

Reading comprehension that bad? You stated one would have to be obtuse to take the texts this way. Well there were some who did and thought that it meant God has a physical body. Is your reply to them "You're just obtuse."?

No. My response to them is my original response to you: That isn't the normative way that God interacts with man. But you don't want to accept that we can actually do exegesis in Genesis and Exodus and come up with an answer without your beloved systematic theology and referring to books that haven't been written in Exodus, so you can import meaning to refute Scriptures you don't like.

Wishful thinking on your part? I haven't changed my stance once. I've always said that statements need context. I also believe Israel was a high-context society.

You really need to develop a longer term memory. When I said "Jaltus is a pig", I specifically said that a context was needed to understand the metaphor. You responded by asking how we could know that Jaltus wasn't pink with pointy ears and a curly tail. That's where al this started. You ignored the fact that I said that metaphors needed context, and decided to be obtuse instead. Then you tried to use "Hebrews believed that God had EDF" as a "context" to refute Exodus 32. To which I pointed out that if this were the case, then Moses just blew that belief out of the water.

So, while you're back peddling and ignoring your earlier statements, you're making yourself look rather foolish.

Indeed, the very suggestion that "Hebrews believed God does not have physical form" is context for making Exo 33-34 into a theophany is laughable, as this belief would only be undermined directly by Exodus 33-34. You've not shown in any way that "Hebrews believed God does not have a physical form" makes the passage a theophany.

Nice straw man. If you'd actually bother to read what I wrote, you'll see that I didn't exclusively used Exo 33-34 to demonstrate that. But you'd rather be obtuse than pay attention, it seeems.

But oh wait. You don't have to establish your views. Mine are just obtuse.

Playing the victim Nick? Really? Are you that desparate? Do I have to point out that I was speaking of your response to my argument and not your views?

Other than Isaiah and the rest of the prophets. Perhaps you should track down someone in Israel in the time of Christ and such who affirmed that God did not know the future.

Gee, were Isaiah and the rest of the prophets written before Exodus 32? Or are you taking this opportunity to use Scripture to refute Scripture?

Obviously. Mediators must not matter. The text is not meant to show us anything about the actions of Moses.

Another obtuse argument and another straw man and another attempt by you to play victim. I defy you to demonstrate from my word where I said mediators didn't matter.

If you'd bother to take a moment to understand my argument rather than playing victim from it (which, from the beating you're taking, it seems you know you're losing by playing the victim), I was pointing out that your metaphor doesn't work. That what is happening in this story doesn't bring out the idea of whether mediators matter.

#9 actually, and it is not a lie. It is God speaking on human terms to the people, much like I say with him having a body, something you have not shown He does not have.

So, when God tells Moses to go away, and that He is going to destroy Israel and start over with Moses... in human terms, God isn't actually telling Moses to go away, and that He isn't going to destroy Israel or start over with Moses? How do you know this? Are you God? Did God give you some superhuman powers to be able to speak "God"? Please, pray tell, what does this really mean in non-human terms?

You assume it’s a theophany and therefore God does not have a physical form. God can also interact without being seen by men if He wants to can He not? Would you deny His omnipotence there?

Once again, you don't bother to read my arguments, and you make a straw man.

Nice assumption on your part.

What exactly is the assumption? That the verses surrounding the one you quoted matter? That repitition and wrapping around a text help to define it? What's the assumption there?

Yes. The term is unpacked, but it does not say that God does not have a body. In fact, to say we are made in His image could be an argument that He does have one. Besides, it speaks of His body throughout the text.

So, you ignore my argument altogether explaining what the "image of God' means from an exegetical standpoint. Your mind is made up? Don't confuse you with the facts? You've already given me one verse that speaks about God having a body, and I've already explained to to you. I've also already told you that these other verses have exegetical cues that indicate how to understand them properly. The fact that you can't bear to be wrong about this is something you need to fix.

Which I do. I just find you’re inconsistent. When it comes to one characteristic you don’t want God to have, you take the text literally. When it comes to another, you don’t. For the first, there has to be absolute proof on the other side. For the second part, well we don’t need that. It’s obvious.

Um.. I seem to be the only one that can actually do exegesis on a passage. Indeed, you seem wither unwilling or unable to follow it or accept it. I'm assuming because it presents a threat to you systematic theology.

Yes I do and I’m a skeptic of your position. Saying I’m being obtuse or stupid does not count as an argument.

No. My argument stands as it is. Your obtuse and straw man arguments are just being called out for what they are.

Really? What text says God doesn’t have a body have you pointed to? That’s right. NONE! Instead, you’ve just asserted it’s a theophany. Lovely double standard!

Again, that's simply untrue. I suppose your adherence to pop-theology and the need for a simple proof text prevents you from actually seeing a solid exegetical and biblical theology argument that actually includes more than one verse. If you're going to stick with proof text theology, you're going to be wrong on a lot of stuff, Nick.

God is active, but it is not that all events happen because God causes them to happen. That’s not my position. You’re supposed to be the one stronger for free-will. Are you saying the only way God can get a prophecy to come about is if he really pushes hard on someone but if they don’t give, well God could just be wrong on this one.

You seriously don't think God is able to bring about His prophecies? That God is unable to bring about circumstances which result in His prophecies being fulfilled? What happened to omnipotence?

And does omnipotence really entail that you can force a free being to choose X?

Force? No. Bring about circumstances that result as God foretold? Yes.

Could God have been wrong? Yes or no?

Wrong about what? This isn't a matter of being right or wrong, but rather about God being able to bring about His prophecies. You talk as though God prophesies and then sits around wringing His hands as though He can't do anything.

No Muz. Your whole system relies on God being unembodied and when you find a contrary passage, you just interpret it as a theophany, but you have not shown a text yet that says God has no body.

Well, as long as you can't get beyond the one inch think pop-theology that's looking for a short sentence without any big words to prove something to you, you're going to get things wrong. My answer requires that you understand how exegesis and biblical theology works.

Oh please. I don’t give a darn for that touchy-feely nonsense. As for what a Reformed one said, what do I care? I’m not a Calvinist. I’m not bound by their positions.

Never said you were. I was pointing out that even Calvinists have to admit that there is real negotiation going on, here, that this isn't some big metaphor.
[qoute]I have no problem saying obey the covenant or judgment will befall you. I’ve been saying that from the beginning.[/quote]You haven't said that at all in this thread.

I also point out that Moses was a mediator and thus a precursor of Christ.

Which is fairly meaningless when doing an exegesis of this text. This is an example of importing systematic theology to refute Scripture.

Yes. Mediators matter to God, unless you want to say the cross means nothing.

Again, you're misrepresenting me. At no point did I say that mediators don't matter to God. If you'll go back and read rather than burning straw men, I was pointing out that this passage is not a metaphor for "mediators matter to God." That's a touchy-feely, feel good, pop-theology proof texting American nondenominational inch thick attempt to avoid the real issues of this story, namely that Israel is breaking their covenant already, and God's judgment is upon them.

Um. No. My point is not prayer but mediation. Moses was one standing in the gap, something Israel would need, and it needed to be known that one standing in the gap does prevent judgment that ought to come.

Ah.. thank you for finally coming over to what I've been saying all along. God decides to destroy Israel, tells Moses to go away, and Moses appeals to God to spare Israel, and God changes His mind. Apparently when you're losing an argument, you'd rather co-opt the argument of the other side, rather than admit you were wrong.

Ah yes. You have evidence. But one could just as well say God is tricking us with all he’s doing. Or, one could develop a well-thought out theology to know what it means to say that God is good and true.

SO, the question is this: Are you more interested in truth or security?

No. I don’t believe in Anselm’s definition. It’s too subjective.

Fair enough.

Whoa. You want to say it’s good to break your promise and not keep your Word and God would be justified in doing that??

I'm saying that when you break covenant, God is justified in bringing judgment. And that's what happened.

When did you become a voluntarist? You’re sounding more and more Calvinistic in your thinking. Are you saying God actively kept Israel from believing in Jesus

What does the bible say? Ever read John 12? How about Romans 9?

John 12

39Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,
40 "He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart,
lest they see with their eyes,
and understand with their heart, and turn,
and I would heal them."

Rom 9

20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory

If that's Calvinist, then fine. I don't think this thwarts free will in the slightest, tho.

My picture of God’s goodness is that God does allow people to go apart from Him if He wants to because He is not just good, but holy and just as well. Goodness entails in Him however that He keeps His word and honors His covenants. Apparently, you think he can be a good God and not do that.

I didn't say that God would do any of that. But that He won't because He chooses not to. I'm saying that He is capable of doing that, that God isn't ruled by His nature.

My position is the same. You sure seem quick to get me to get where you are without an argument.

It's a valid question. You're trying to play two sides of the fence. And you never really did answer the question: Did God lie to Moses about His intent or not?

Sounds just like a Calvie response with a hard question. Interesting how this turns out. I just asked a question. I guess that’s unallowable. So it’s trust God and if one asks why it’s “HOW DARE YOU QUESTION GOD!”

It comes directly from Romans 9. I figured you'd recognize it. ANd this is a valid Calvinist argument against your position. I have no issues agreeing with Calvinists when they are correct. Do you?

Fine. Serve your fickle God. I’ll serve one who cannot lie as is stated in the NT very clearly.

Cite verse and exegesis? Make sure that it's CANNOT and not WILL NOT.

Nothing here, but I also know that it won’t happen because of His nature. Because of His nature, He has my faith.

So, your faith in God is like your faith in gravity. That's not real faith.

I pointed to who He is, not what He does.

But you also assert that what He does comes out of who He is. The question stands.

Which flows out of who He is.

SO, God is a computer. His nature says do X, and God does X. Really?

Of course, saying God doesn’t have a body even though numerous texts speak of that, far more than speak of Him “changing his mind” and such, that’s not imposing on the context at all.

It's called "exegesis", Nick. It's called biblical theology. It's called getting beyind the pop-theology, inch deep, proof text based attempt to interpret Scripture, and actually digging into the stories and pericopies and books of the bible to see what the narrative is telling us.

It would imply God doesn’t know something

Shock of shocks.

It would make God simply another created being. He just differs from us in degree. Now one could serve Him because He’s still the most powerful and such, but it would not be because His nature is goodness and truth.

First, this is an argument from bad consequences. If we do our exegesis properly, and this is the result, then this is truth.
Second, this isn't the logical conclusion. This is a really poor straw man and appeal to emotion that makes a host of unwarranted and illogical leaps, in an attempt to preserves one's own systematic theology against an exegesis of Scripture that threatens it.

All this would demonstrate is that God is capable of something you claim that He isn't: The ability to create a world where the future free will decisions of created beings are unknowable. It's called embracing omnipotence.

So when Jesus prayed he was saying “Heavenly Father, please help me choose a man who will screw up. Who do you think has the most odds of doing such?”

Gee, if God knows the current state of men's hearts, and Jesus acts in a way that creates a moment for them whereby one of them betrays Him, sounds like we have a winner. I think your lack of belief in God's omniscience of the present and omnipotence is showing.

No. You asserted.

And showed. I can't help it if you want a pop-theology, proof text based exegesis.

And your exegesis does not show my conclusion to be wrong. In fact, you have God who can break covenants easily. Is that your concept of a good God? That would be a violation of #9 now wouldn’t it?

You seem to have a talent for putting words in people's mouths. I didn't say that God breaks covenants easily, or that He would do so. I said that God could do so. You probably ought to take a bit of time to think about what the difference is.

The covenant started with Abraham. Did you forget that covenant? That is who God is speaking to in the text.

But the discussion about S&G has nothing to do with that covenant.

You think God didn’t know the heart. Aren’t we told repeatedly in Scripture that God knows the heart? Could it be that God was demonstrating Abraham’s faith to Abraham in light of the covenant promise?

Well, then God would have said, "Now YOU know", not "Now I know." You seem to be saying that God lied to Abraham about His intent.

ANd we are told that God knows the heart. The current state of one's heart. This was apparently an area in Abraham's heart that wasn't clear, and God wanted clarification.

Yada means more than intellectual knowledge. It also refers to relational knowledge. In this case, God was showing that since Abraham acted, God would reply with the promise of the covenant and how Abraham would be an example for ages to come.

So, you agree with me that God gained relational knowledge about Abraham. Glad that's settled.

When all events are fixed, your prayers are also considered. God knowing what you will pray pre-responds to Aunt Sally accordingly. He also knows what would have happened had you not prayed.

Thus, whether you pray or not is already fixed. If you don't pray, that's what God declares to be the best. Whatever you decide.. sin or don't sin.. pray or don't pray... is what God has determined to be the best.. when things are already fixed.

Who said the vast majority is going? Note I said nothing about Hell in that post. That was what you put in.

You really think that the 4.5 billion people currently on the earth who aren't Christians and probably won't be don't represent a vast majority? And today probably represents the top percentage of the earth's population that does believe in God since... the tower of Babel.

This doesn’t address what I said. Was God ignorant of how His Name would be perceived in Egypt at the time of this event and needed Moses to remind Him? Did He have a memory lapse or something?

God's initial judgment was that this breach of covenant along with a righteous man to begin to build a nation again was the correct judgment. God already knew all these things. However, Moses' response changes the equation, as Moses expresses reservation about being the one whom God starts over with, and God is stuck keeping Israel around.

We’re not talking about someone. We’re talking about God. He’s not just anyone.

Oh, so when God lies, it isn't a lie?

Oh it’s clear. It’s also nothing He was going to do

So, in what circumstance is saying "I'm going to do X" without any intention of doing X not a lie?

and Moses would have known this because of His covenant.

If Moses knew this, then why the impassioned response? Why not respnd with "You know you can't do that..."

Did He need to remind God of the covenant because God forgot? No. He stated the covenant to fill the role of the mediator.

This is all a lovely imposition on the text, but that's all that it is. You're wearing your systematic theology colored glasses and seeing things that aren't there and ignoring the obvious problems of your position.

And this is my issue with your view of "inerrancy." You feel the need to "correct" texts that don't fit into your systematic theology by refuting Scripture with Scripture and imposing upon them, but that voids your claim of inerrancy. Either this passage is inerrant in the context in which it exists, or it is not. There is nothing in this text or anywhere in this context about Moses being a mediator or acting as a mediator, or God's intent to have Moses act as a mediator. God tells Moses to go away. You seems to miss that point. If God wanted Moses to act as mediator, God's first instruction would not be to go away.

Then God didn’t need to stack the deck. Pharaoh did it himself.

Is that what Romans 9 says?

Pharaoh made a choice anyway. God didn’t have to stack the deck against Him. In fact, one would think that the miracles God did should have made Pharaoh do otherwise.

Why? Again, go back to Romans 9. God prepared the Old Covenant for His wrath with care. Likewise, Egypt was prepared for judgment through the plagues. Think about what happened: Disease, crops destroyed, animals dead, dead insects and carcasses everywhere, and the first born of every Egyptian house dead. That's a devistating judgment.

You said God would bring it about, including the free-will actions of human beings. Your child could just as easily say “No” and then your lawn would not be mowed today, until you start applying force. Hardly glorious to thank God can only bring about prophecy through force.

SO, you think the only way God can bring this about is by force? I'm not seeing a lot of belief in God's omnipotence from you, Nick.

And does He say He brings it about or does He say it happens?

You could have answered your own question by just reading the text, Nick
[verse=Isa 46]9remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
10 declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, 'My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,'[/quote]
(And save yourself the embarassment of being wrong. Again.)

So God is omnipresent? Then what is the hyperbole and symbolism in the passage? Or is it just the part inconvenient to you that’s hyperbole and symbolism?

Are you saying that Psalm 139 is the only place in Scripture where omnipresence can be deduced?

Nope. Nor is it the only passage where we have God knowing the end from the beginning.

Excellent. Then there is a minute chance that you'll do something more than just quote a proof text out of context, and maybe do some real exegesis this time?

Yep.

So, do you deny free will, or does your philosophy have a painfully obvious logical contradiction, here?

Correct. God who knows does not cause. I am the free cause of my actions that are known in advance.

Ah, so you embrace the obvious logical contradiction. Which makes your position laughable.

Thanks for confirming it.

That your position is laughable? You're welcome.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

We don't just impose on the text because it's convenient.

I agree. Now do you have an answer to the actual question or not?

Looks like it to me.

Then your hypothesis is he was lying or ignorant or what

Really, Nick? You didn't even bother to read what I wrote? That the evidence for God not having a body is that the normative way He interacts with individuals in Genesis is without a physical form, and that theophanies occur where God needs to interact on a physical level? Do I really need to go through all the incidents where God interacts with men in Genesis and show this to you?

No. This is begging the question however. To say that God normally doesn't act through a body does not mean that God lacks a body. You can say "Well when he seems to have a body, that's a theophany." Okay. Why should I believe that is taught in the books of Moses? Do you have a statement in them that says "God has no body?" If not, then when I present texts that could challenge your view, you just say "theophany."

No. My response to them is my original response to you: That isn't the normative way that God interacts with man. But you don't want to accept that we can actually do exegesis in Genesis and Exodus and come up with an answer without your beloved systematic theology and referring to books that haven't been written in Exodus, so you can import meaning to refute Scriptures you don't like.

Who cares if it's not normative? Someone could say "I don't see miracles today, therefore, I will interpret all miracles in the Bible as natural events meant to tell a story." It's begging the question.

You really need to develop a longer term memory. When I said "Jaltus is a pig", I specifically said that a context was needed to understand the metaphor. You responded by asking how we could know that Jaltus wasn't pink with pointy ears and a curly tail. That's where al this started. You ignored the fact that I said that metaphors needed context, and decided to be obtuse instead.

Really? Here's what you said:

Tell you what... a metaphor is an image that explains something in reality. If I say that Jaltus is a pig, people from our culture who are reading this will understand that I am saying that he is habitually mess, or that he is chauvinist, depending on the context.

Now I can understand that because I know Jaltus. What if someone doesn't? What if someone is new to TWeb and doesn't know Jaltus (God bless this soul!)? What if they see this quote in a google search? Are they to think that Jaltus is a chauvinist or slob right off? Could they not consider him a heavy pink animal with a small curly tail?

Then you tried to use "Hebrews believed that God had EDF" as a "context" to refute Exodus 32. To which I pointed out that if this were the case, then Moses just blew that belief out of the water.

And if they believed God has no body, I can say Moses blew that out of the water. The sword cuts both ways.

So, while you're back peddling and ignoring your earlier statements, you're making yourself look rather foolish.

And as I've shown, I have not back-peddled. Maybe the problem is you were too caught up in thinking I was being obtuse to notice your being so.

Nice straw man. If you'd actually bother to read what I wrote, you'll see that I didn't exclusively used Exo 33-34 to demonstrate that. But you'd rather be obtuse than pay attention, it seeems.

I read all you wrote. Again, I can just as easily point to more and more texts that speak of God's body.

Playing the victim Nick? Really? Are you that desparate? Do I have to point out that I was speaking of your response to my argument and not your views?

Not playing the victim. I just enjoy pointing out double standards in what people say.

Gee, were Isaiah and the rest of the prophets written before Exodus 32? Or are you taking this opportunity to use Scripture to refute Scripture?

Irrelevant. Do you think Isaiah would write something in theology that would contradict that of Moses?

Another obtuse argument and another straw man and another attempt by you to play victim. I defy you to demonstrate from my word where I said mediators didn't matter.

Well you think my position is laughable and I have noticed a mocking tone to what I've said about mediators. I just draw the inferences.

If you'd bother to take a moment to understand my argument rather than playing victim from it (which, from the beating you're taking, it seems you know you're losing by playing the victim), I was pointing out that your metaphor doesn't work. That what is happening in this story doesn't bring out the idea of whether mediators matter.

Beating would apply if I'd heard something other than the constant term of obtuseness and actually heard an argument for God not having a body. You have asserted the metaphor doesn't work, but when I point to your argument not working when it comes to God's body, the standard switches.

So, when God tells Moses to go away, and that He is going to destroy Israel and start over with Moses... in human terms, God isn't actually telling Moses to go away, and that He isn't going to destroy Israel or start over with Moses? How do you know this? Are you God? Did God give you some superhuman powers to be able to speak "God"? Please, pray tell, what does this really mean in non-human terms?

It means God is in a covenant and He sets the standards for how the covenant will be worked out on the part of the servant. How do we know this? Well geez. Do you really think God was ignorant of the prophecies he made through Jacob, including that the scepter would rise from Judah? Did God need to be reminded by Moses? I knew the OVT god didn't know the future, but now it looks like he doesn't know the past and present as well.

Once again, you don't bother to read my arguments, and you make a straw man.

Translation: I have no answer that won't admit a double standard. Thanks for playing!

What exactly is the assumption? That the verses surrounding the one you quoted matter? That repitition and wrapping around a text help to define it? What's the assumption there?

The assumption that I hadn't read the text.

So, you ignore my argument altogether explaining what the "image of God' means from an exegetical standpoint. Your mind is made up? Don't confuse you with the facts?

What facts? All you've indicated is that man has dominion. It says nothing about if that means God has no body. Are you saying that if God has dominion, He has to have no body?

You've already given me one verse that speaks about God having a body, and I've already explained to to you. I've also already told you that these other verses have exegetical cues that indicate how to understand them properly. The fact that you can't bear to be wrong about this is something you need to fix.

You've said theophany. I say that's begging the question, especially since there are many more verses that speak about God's body than there are about Him changing His mind.

Um.. I seem to be the only one that can actually do exegesis on a passage. Indeed, you seem wither unwilling or unable to follow it or accept it. I'm assuming because it presents a threat to you systematic theology.

Fine. Then exegetically demonstrate that God has no body because several texts speak of parts of His body.

No. My argument stands as it is. Your obtuse and straw man arguments are just being called out for what they are.

Rule of thumb: When an argument can't be defended at all exegetically, call the objection obtuse and a straw man.

Again, that's simply untrue. I suppose your adherence to pop-theology and the need for a simple proof text prevents you from actually seeing a solid exegetical and biblical theology argument that actually includes more than one verse. If you're going to stick with proof text theology, you're going to be wrong on a lot of stuff, Nick.

Oh? It's untrue you didn't point to a verse? I must have missed it. What verse says God is immaterial?

You seriously don't think God is able to bring about His prophecies? That God is unable to bring about circumstances which result in His prophecies being fulfilled? What happened to omnipotence?

Which is saying that this is how prophecy is fulfilled. God could do that, but He does not have to. I also think God could increase the likelihood of some fulfillments if your view were the case, but He could not guarantee fulfillment. Take for instance free-will choices.

Force? No. Bring about circumstances that result as God foretold? Yes.

I would love to know the way God made a pagan child be named Cyrus.

Wrong about what? This isn't a matter of being right or wrong, but rather about God being able to bring about His prophecies. You talk as though God prophesies and then sits around wringing His hands as though He can't do anything.

God says in prophecy "X will happen." Could there be a chance in any case where God says "X will happen" and yet God is unable to bring about its happening?

Well, as long as you can't get beyond the one inch think pop-theology that's looking for a short sentence without any big words to prove something to you, you're going to get things wrong. My answer requires that you understand how exegesis and biblical theology works.

Once again, Muz has no answer so resorts to saying that his opposition does not understand exegesis and biblical theology.

Never said you were. I was pointing out that even Calvinists have to admit that there is real negotiation going on, here, that this isn't some big metaphor.

That would depend on what you mean by real negotiation. For instance, is there a real relation between God and creatures?

[qoute]You haven't said that at all in this thread. [/quote]

What exactly do you think a mediator is for?

Which is fairly meaningless when doing an exegesis of this text. This is an example of importing systematic theology to refute Scripture.

Which means it's an important point to keep in mind since there's no answer to it. Nope. Scripture does not refute Scripture. It explains it and later Scripture does not contradict older but rather illuminates it.

Again, you're misrepresenting me. At no point did I say that mediators don't matter to God. If you'll go back and read rather than burning straw men, I was pointing out that this passage is not a metaphor for "mediators matter to God." That's a touchy-feely, feel good, pop-theology proof texting American nondenominational inch thick attempt to avoid the real issues of this story, namely that Israel is breaking their covenant already, and God's judgment is upon them.

Nothing about that. The point is that Israel is in a covenant relation to God with God being the master and they have to learn how they are to act as servants, especially when they're meant to be destroyed.

Ah.. thank you for finally coming over to what I've been saying all along. God decides to destroy Israel, tells Moses to go away, and Moses appeals to God to spare Israel, and God changes His mind. Apparently when you're losing an argument, you'd rather co-opt the argument of the other side, rather than admit you were wrong.

Can't really do that when I've always thought that's what a mediator does.

SO, the question is this: Are you more interested in truth or security?

Truth.

Fair enough.

And you? Do you accept an Anselmian approach?

I'm saying that when you break covenant, God is justified in bringing judgment. And that's what happened.

I'm not talking about us breaking the covenant, but God, or have you not forgotten where He says that if we are not faithful, He will remain faithful. If we do not keep the covenant, He still will and His part at that point is faithful to the judgment He promised.

What does the bible say? Ever read John 12? How about Romans 9?

John 12

39Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,
40 "He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart,
lest they see with their eyes,
and understand with their heart, and turn,
and I would heal them."

Rom 9

20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory

If that's Calvinist, then fine. I don't think this thwarts free will in the slightest, tho.

Question. When does this take place? Is it before the people harden their own hearts or after? Also, you say this doesn't thwart free-will to you. Reason being?

I didn't say that God would do any of that. But that He won't because He chooses not to. I'm saying that He is capable of doing that, that God isn't ruled by His nature.

He chooses not to. Well maybe He can choose otherwise. If He does, is He still good? Also, while talking about goodness, can you define good?

It's a valid question. You're trying to play two sides of the fence. And you never really did answer the question: Did God lie to Moses about His intent or not?

I do not think God said it unsure of whether He would destroy Israel or not. He knew he wouldn't based on the earlier prophecy. He said it for the reasons I've given.

It comes directly from Romans 9. I figured you'd recognize it. ANd this is a valid Calvinist argument against your position. I have no issues agreeing with Calvinists when they are correct. Do you?

Yes. I know the passage and I did recognize it and recognize Calvies do take that approach when a question can't be answered. However, it's not the same question. The question was in that case "Why did God abandon the Jews and go to the Gentiles Why would he do that?" The question I was asking is "What is my basis for trust in God if He can change His mind? Can I give ultimate trust to that which cannot ultimately be trustworthy?"

Cite verse and exegesis? Make sure that it's CANNOT and not WILL NOT.

Titus 1:2 and Hebrews 6:19. Both are about how God cannot lie. Note also God's Word being described as true throughout the Scripture. Once God says it, one can take it to the bank.

So, your faith in God is like your faith in gravity. That's not real faith.

No. One believes gravity because it has been demonstrated. I believe that with philosophy (reason alone for instance) you can demonstrate that there is a God. This God is compatible with Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and even Deism and a number of other beliefs. Reason alone will not tell you which faith system is true. For that, we need revelation from God Himself that is special. I believe in Christianity because I believe that Jesus rose from the dead. That is however a historical claim and history is always connected with some degree of probability. I do believe the degree of probability is so high however that other explanations seem absurd. Also, just knowing that it is high, I still have to take the step of action and say I am willing to give myself entirely to Christ. That is faith. It is trust not just in that I believe such, but I act in accordance to that belief.

But you also assert that what He does comes out of who He is. The question stands.

The two go hand in hand. God is trustworthy because He is by nature truth.

SO, God is a computer. His nature says do X, and God does X. Really?

No. There is only one thing God necessarily wills and that is Himself. Everything else is contingent. However, God cannot will something that will contradict His nature. He cannot will evil to happen.

It's called "exegesis", Nick. It's called biblical theology. It's called getting beyind the pop-theology, inch deep, proof text based attempt to interpret Scripture, and actually digging into the stories and pericopies and books of the bible to see what the narrative is telling us.

Same objection as before and gets the same answer as before.

Shock of shocks.

I thought it was bad enough that He doesn't know the future but it looks like in your view that He doesn't know the past or present as well.

First, this is an argument from bad consequences. If we do our exegesis properly, and this is the result, then this is truth.

But that's the problem. If God is just a creature, then He is not really God. He is not really ultimate. If he's just a creature, then He has a creator and that creator is the one I'd want to know.

Second, this isn't the logical conclusion. This is a really poor straw man and appeal to emotion that makes a host of unwarranted and illogical leaps, in an attempt to preserves one's own systematic theology against an exegesis of Scripture that threatens it.

I'm more than ready to metaphysically defend my claim.

All this would demonstrate is that God is capable of something you claim that He isn't: The ability to create a world where the future free will decisions of created beings are unknowable. It's called embracing omnipotence.

No. Omnipotence is the power to do that which power can do. It has never meant God can do all things. God cannot change His nature for instance. Call it what you will, but I call the position I oppose embracing a finite god.

Gee, if God knows the current state of men's hearts, and Jesus acts in a way that creates a moment for them whereby one of them betrays Him, sounds like we have a winner. I think your lack of belief in God's omniscience of the present and omnipotence is showing.

God knows the current state of men's hearts Let's keep that in mind. Second, this doesn't answer the question. All you have is a probability that this would happen. Instead, I see Jesus knowing from the beginning who it would be and referring to him as "predestined to destruction." Seems like your deity was willing to let someone stay that way even though it could have been changed by him.

And showed. I can't help it if you want a pop-theology, proof text based exegesis.

Same song and dance.

You seem to have a talent for putting words in people's mouths. I didn't say that God breaks covenants easily, or that He would do so. I said that God could do so. You probably ought to take a bit of time to think about what the difference is.

Why would it be hard for God to break a covenant?

But the discussion about S&G has nothing to do with that covenant.

The point is the same. God was showing Abraham how He was to act while in covenant with Him. He did the same to Moses.

Well, then God would have said, "Now YOU know", not "Now I know." You seem to be saying that God lied to Abraham about His intent.

No. God spoke to Him in human terms. There is no lie here and God also didn't state any intent. He just told Abraham to sacrifice His son. He didn't say why.

ANd we are told that God knows the heart. The current state of one's heart. This was apparently an area in Abraham's heart that wasn't clear, and God wanted clarification.

So God knew Judas's heart apparently, but Abraham, whom God had been the friend of for years, had a part of his heart God at the present did not know. I thought he was supposed to be omnipotent.

So, you agree with me that God gained relational knowledge about Abraham. Glad that's settled.

No.

Thus, whether you pray or not is already fixed. If you don't pray, that's what God declares to be the best. Whatever you decide.. sin or don't sin.. pray or don't pray... is what God has determined to be the best.. when things are already fixed.

No because I don't believe all that happens is the best. I'm not a follower of Leibniz. I don't believe in a best of all possible worlds. Let's consider Heaven as an example. Let's suppose in the end 10 billion people are in Heaven. That's great. What would make it better? How about 10 billion and 1. Okay. What would make that better? How about 10 billion and 2? We can keep going on and on and on.

Is Heaven the best KIND of world however? I'm much more open to that. The populace does not improve Heaven. Heaven will be Heaven because it is where God's loving relation is manifest.

I also have no problem saying even God could do things better depending on the thing. That's not a contradiction to omnipotence either. Praying however is taken into account in advance. What will happen will happen, but some things would not happen if we did not pray.

You really think that the 4.5 billion people currently on the earth who aren't Christians and probably won't be don't represent a vast majority? And today probably represents the top percentage of the earth's population that does believe in God since... the tower of Babel.

I think we don't know all the numbers and I don't think you should be acting like you know the future (Since not even your god doesn't, and for that matter might not even know how many there were in the past or how many there are today). Furthermore, if you think God can engineer circumstances to fulfill prophecy, then why not engineer them to get mass conversion? I thought you were for embracing omnipotence. Is he unable to do that?

God's initial judgment was that this breach of covenant along with a righteous man to begin to build a nation again was the correct judgment. God already knew all these things. However, Moses' response changes the equation, as Moses expresses reservation about being the one whom God starts over with, and God is stuck keeping Israel around.

First off, can you define what a judgment is?

Second, are you again saying God forgot the promises made to Jacob concerning Judah? Did God need to be reminded by Moses? Maybe He needs to work on his long-term memory also.

Oh, so when God lies, it isn't a lie?

You might as well ask when God sins seeing as I hold He does neither.

So, in what circumstance is saying "I'm going to do X" without any intention of doing X not a lie?

When it's a demonstration of how people are to act in the new covenant.

If Moses knew this, then why the impassioned response? Why not respnd with "You know you can't do that..."

Impassioned speeches were common in the OT culture. Moses knew the position He was in standing between God and Israel and took it seriously.

This is all a lovely imposition on the text, but that's all that it is. You're wearing your systematic theology colored glasses and seeing things that aren't there and ignoring the obvious problems of your position.

You mean what you're doing when I bring up texts of God's body and the promises of Judah?

And this is my issue with your view of "inerrancy." You feel the need to "correct" texts that don't fit into your systematic theology by refuting Scripture with Scripture and imposing upon them, but that voids your claim of inerrancy. Either this passage is inerrant in the context in which it exists, or it is not. There is nothing in this text or anywhere in this context about Moses being a mediator or acting as a mediator, or God's intent to have Moses act as a mediator. God tells Moses to go away. You seems to miss that point. If God wanted Moses to act as mediator, God's first instruction would not be to go away.

If only this really bothered my view. Again, I say you do the same thing when it comes to God having a body. I can say "You don't take those passages as inerrant. They are a problem for your systematic theology and so you just say "theophany."

Is that what Romans 9 says?

Romans 9 says Pharaoh was raised up for God's purposes, but it says nothing about who hardened his heart first.

Why? Again, go back to Romans 9. God prepared the Old Covenant for His wrath with care. Likewise, Egypt was prepared for judgment through the plagues. Think about what happened: Disease, crops destroyed, animals dead, dead insects and carcasses everywhere, and the first born of every Egyptian house dead. That's a devistating judgment.

Pharaoh should have seen that some being who can do this is a being not to be trifled with. Instead, he chose to harden his heart.

SO, you think the only way God can bring this about is by force? I'm not seeing a lot of belief in God's omnipotence from you, Nick.

This is concerning your presuppositions and not mine. I do believe God is active in fulfilling his purposes, but I also hold He cannot be thwarted, not even by free-will decisions, due to Him knowing them in advance.

You could have answered your own question by just reading the text, Nick
[verse=Isa 46]9remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
10 declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, 'My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,'

(And save yourself the embarassment of being wrong. Again.) [/QUOTE]

And what does it mean to say He will accomplish all His purpose. Certainly God plays a part in fulfilling prophecy, but does that mean it happens because God is temporal and working in time to bring it about?

Are you saying that Psalm 139 is the only place in Scripture where omnipresence can be deduced?

Nope.

Excellent. Then there is a minute chance that you'll do something more than just quote a proof text out of context, and maybe do some real exegesis this time?

Maybe when I see the verse that says God has no body.

So, do you deny free will, or does your philosophy have a painfully obvious logical contradiction, here?

No contradiction. God has eternally known what I will freely choose.

Ah, so you embrace the obvious logical contradiction. Which makes your position laughable.

That your position is laughable? You're welcome.

No. I had a low view of the OVT deity, but now it's even lower. Thanks for that!

[ApologiaPhoenix]

A literal interpretation

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I've lately started a series on inerrancy. In going with this look, I would like to suggest some ways in which we can interpret a text. To begin with, I am going to start with the most obvious one for most of us, and the one we probably use the most, the literal approach.

Have you ever wondered what it would mean if we took the Bible literally as much as possible? Many of us say we would. Well there was someone named Finis Jennings Dake who did just that. In fact, if you get his Study Bible, you will find that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each have a body, a soul, and a spirit. (Ever wonder where Hinn got it from?)

Something's wrong there.

Often times, we will see a poll being said about how many Americans believe the Bible should be interpreted literally. If I got that question asked to me by a pollster, I would have to say "Depends." Why? There are definitely times where you should take it literally, and there are definitely times you should not. For example, on the latter, if we all took Jesus's commands about lust literally, we would all be blind right now.

Literal readings can work well with events like narratives, but even narratives themselves can be filled with other parts that should not be taken literally, such as hyperbole happening or the writer using metaphors to describe something or even possibly apocalyptic language. How do you know which is which? Well there is no ardent rule that we have set down that can determine the truth each and every time, so the best method overall is to try to study the culture and language.

If that is not the easiest route, it is good to also consult with those who do, though keep in mind with all authorities you contact, even myself, that we are not the Holy Spirit and we are all fallible people who can error in our interpretations of the text. As one who believes in inerrancy, I do believe the Scripture cannot error, but our interpretations of Scripture certainly can.

When reading the text literally, do always be on the look out for figures of speech and events of that sort. I believe the events of Joshua and Judges for instance, particularly since I just finished Joshua and I'm going through Judges now in my own reading, are by and large literal truth, but I do believe that there is rich symbolism in some parts. I would say the majority however is literal.

Also, because an event is literal, that does not mean it does not have a deeper meaning. Consider in the gospels when Jesus curses the fig tree. I believe that that literally happened. I believe that that is also an apocalyptic warning where Jesus is comparing the fig tree to Israel and how Israel had all the appearance of having fruit, but had no fruit, and judgment was to come. Remember, it is not always an either/or game.

The bottom line again at this point is to study and study more. Always be learning and always be open to the fact that you could be wrong. That rule goes for myself also.

We shall continue next time.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Midrash is not a scar on your belly.

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Lately, Inerrancy has been our topic of study. In looking at that, I have chosen to look at some of the ways the text of Scripture has been interpreted and today, we are going to take a look at midrash.

Midrash is a very difficult term to define. It is a kind of commentary on a text where it seeks to look beyond just the face value of a text and tries to find a deeper meaning that is in the text. Does this take place in the New Testament? Without a doubt, it most certainly does.

If there was one place in the New Testament where this takes place, it would be in the book of Hebrews. Hebrews has the author regularly pulling out an old testament reference and then expounding on it far more than it is likely that the original writer thought could.

Hence, there is much repetition in the book. The writer wants to drive the point home about what he is getting at by taking a text that his readers would know about, particularly readers who were quite familiar with the beliefs and practices of Judaism, and showing how these texts actually pointed to something beyond just themselves.

Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts. This refrain repeats throughout the early part of the book and the writer asks us what does it mean to harden our hearts? What does it mean to hear his voice? What does it mean when the time is referred to as today? Was God saying something for just the people back then, or saying something for us today?

There are other such references in Hebrews. We are told of the story of Melchizedek and how Melchizedek points to someone beyond himself. We are also told about how "The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand." (Which is the most quoted OT verse in the NT so it could possibly be one we should take seriously.)

Some whole writings could have midrashic underpinnings. For instance, I take the first five chapters of Matthew to be recording historical events, but I also think that Matthew is using a midrashic telling of the stories to show that Jesus is the new Israel.

Matthew has early on the miraculous birth followed by the escape from death into Egypt, just as Israel escaped death. (And Israel was of miraculous descent through Isaac) Next, Israel was called out of Egypt just as Jesus was. (Matthew's quoting of Hosea 11:1 helps show that) Then, Jesus passes through the waters of baptism (The waters of the Red Sea for Israel. Paul calls this a baptism in 1 Corinthians 10.) Then, Jesus is tempted in the wilderness, just as Israel was. Finally, Jesus goes on top of the mountain and gives the new law, just as Moses went up to get the law. We have the text saying that Jesus opened his mouth at the top of the mountain. The idea is that if Jesus is the one giving the law, well let's go back to the OT and think "Who was it who gave the law from the mountain?" Well it was God. Do we see Matthew having a high view of Jesus?

None of that denies historicity. In fact, it can take historicity and give us a deeper view of the life of Christ.

Question: If it was found out somehow that the event was not historical and Matthew was writing midrash, would that damage inerrancy?

Answer: No.

If Matthew is writing this as an account to not be taken literally but to picture Jesus as the new Israel, then there is no error for it assumes that if Matthew wrote X, Matthew meant it to be literal. However, if Matthew wrote midrash, it does not follow necessarily that it's to be taken literally and thus, there is no error. Now for the record, I don't think Matthew was writing that. I think he was writing history. I think there are good arguments for that. However, this isn't an all-or-nothing game. It isn't "The whole thing is literal or none of it is," or "The whole thing is midrash or none of it is." It can be both-and.

What the case is will be left for the ones who are more biblical historians and scholars, but what we have is a style of interpretation the Jews used. Let us not dispense of it entirely.

We shall continue next time.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Pesher.

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We've been looking lately at the doctrine of Inerrancy. I've been looking at the way that the Jews would have interpreted Scripture in the time of Christ to help with our understanding. Tonight, I'm going to look at Pesher.

Pesher essentially means "This for that." Consider how last time I wrote, I wrote about how Matthew used Hosea's prophecy of "Out of Egypt, I called my Son." Immediately, the atheist objector stands up and shouts "Foul! Hosea was talking about Israel! He wasn't talking about Jesus! Matthew is misusing Scripture!"

Of course, we know the atheist wants to make sure Scripture is being used properly...

But in any event, we still have to answer the objection as the NT use of the OT is quite puzzling to many Christians. Did Jesus really not fulfill the prophecies of Messiah if the testament to them is so flimsy?

Matthew did Pesher. It was a common practice for his time. In the Qumran community, they often used this to speak of themselves or of their Teacher of Righteousness. The community saw a parallel between what was going on in the life of the writer of the OT and what was going on in their own times. Usually, this would be connected with an eschatological fulfillment, as it was in Christ's time.

Jesus used this when he spoke of the Pharisees and how Isaiah was right when he prophesied about them saying that they honored God with their lips, but their hearts are far from Him. Jesus was not saying that Isaiah was directly speaking of the Pharisees, but he had in mind people like the Pharisees. The Pharisees would have seen this as a serious charge as they were being compared to apostate Israel, the very Israel that was judged by YHWH Himself.

Events in the life of Israel were often seen in a similar sort of way. In 1 Corinthians, Paul talks about passing through the waters and compares it to Israel going through the Red Sea and how that was a sort of baptism. Considering the constant contrast between the church and Israel in the Bible, we should be looking at such events. Can we learn anything about how we are to behave? Remember, Paul told us that the events were written not just for the benefit of Israel, but also for our benefit.

I personally find pesher to be a very enjoyable style to look for and it's one we should keep in mind. Let us not be hesitant to check the OT texts and see if there are parallels that are being missed. If pesher is being used, then why is it being used? How is the situation in the lifetime of Christ or in the case of the Qumran community, their own life, an example of what was going on back then? What is the connection with the past? Remember for the Jews, YHWH was Lord over all of history and it was tied together. The pronouncements of God were still very much active and in a time of great eschatological fulfillment, as was the time of Christ, much of pesher would have been going on.

It will be awhile before next time. I will be out of town for a few days. I hope what has been written is sufficient to keep you reading until then.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Allegory?

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Having offered my two cents on a debate going on in the evangelical world at the moment, I am continuing a look at inerrancy and the art of interpretation, otherwise known as hermeneutics. Tonight, I’d like to look at allegory.

Yes. Many of us know about allegory. This is that time when the church fathers looked at the parables of Jesus and saw many many symbols that quite likely, Jesus never intended there to be. We can think of Origen especially. Didn’t this all get out of hand? The text could come to mean pretty much anything?

Certainly there is a great danger with over-allegorizing, but let us not throw out the baby with the bath water. After all, Paul in Galatians 4 draws an allegory out of Sarah, Hagar, Isaac, and Ishmael. If this can be done in inspired Scripture then perhaps we can learn something from it.

In fact, we’ve all done it to an extent. Who has not looked at the story of Abraham offering his son upon the altar and thought that there were images of Christ there? Look at how Isaac laid himself on the altar and how there just happened to be a ram, a male lamb, with its head caught in the thorns!

The great danger with the method of allegory is that one can lose sight of the original text and what it was intended to mean. I certainly think there’s something to the idea of Abraham and Isaac being a foreshadowing of the coming sacrifice of Christ, but let us make sure as we look at the text with our New Testament lenses that we also look at the text with our Old Testament lenses. This story did not have to wait 2,000 years for it to have meaning. It had meaning when it was written and as it was being passed down.

We can see Abraham as faithful to the promise knowing that God had specifically said that through Isaac and not Ishmael or some Isaac-2 in the future that Abraham’s offspring would be reckoned, and so even at this point Abraham had faith in a future resurrection or one that could happen presently. Keep in mind miracles had not been common in those days and there had certainly been no resurrections yet. We can see the willing and sacrificial spirit of Isaac. We can see the faithfulness of God in providing another sacrifice.

Yes. We can look forward and see the coming Christ, and indeed we should, but let us not miss what is right there at the moment.

The same can be said of the parables of Jesus in the New Testament. Sure. The two coins in the parable of the Good Samaritan could be the Old and New Testaments, but it’s not likely that Jesus’s audience would have grasped something like that. Instead, let’s look at the main point and see them as two coins.

Now we can say “We are in no danger here surely! We do not allegorize the parables that way!”

Perhaps we don’t, but do we take the time to see the parables as more than just lessons on how we ought to live? There is great theology going on. Look at the Good Samaritan. The lawyer asking the question to Jesus that sparks the parable skips past loving God. That one seems pretty cut and dry. Who is my neighbor?

Jesus instead gives a parable turning the question not to “Who is my neighbor?” but “Who is a neighbor?” The lawyer was looking at the people he ought to love. He was not looking at how he ought to love people. Jesus takes an incredibly despised person, a Samaritan, and makes him a hero, while making the local heroes, the priests and Levites, villains. Imagine telling a Jew that they ought not be like the priest and/or Levite but instead should be like the Samaritan.

In doing that, he’s not just doing ethics, he’s giving insight into his own self and into God. He is the ultimate Samaritan as he comes to those who are in the worst need and is more concerned with their well-being than ceremonial cleanliness. (Keep in mind Jesus would have been seen as defiling himself for entering Zacchaeus’s household for instance)

If that is the case, Jesus is making quite a statement about God as well in that God loves all people and cares about that far more than ritual cleanliness. The kind of ritual that kept people from loving their neighbor as themselves went against all that YHWH desired for His people.

Yes. A lot of allegorizers made a mistake, but we can make a mistake as well.

Still, allegory should be considered and when we read the Old Testament, we often use it. The main point we should get however is that an allegory can help us see the text in a new light, but let it never go against the way that the text was originally intended for the original audience.

We shall continue next time.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Paraphrase. Is it to be avoided?

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:


Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we were diving into the ocean of truth. We're looking at the topic of Inerrancy tonight. Were going to wrap up our look at ways of interpreting Scripture by looking at the topic of paraphrase.

There are some Christians out there who would despise a translation like the NLT which is a paraphrase. After all, we want to know what it was that Jesus said. The problem is that if that's your attitude, you're going to be sunk in many areas. Consider the case of Jesus asking the disciples the question of "Who do men say that I am?"

Three gospels record this question. Three gospels have Peter answering differently. I do not believe they all have the exact words Peter said. One of them could. However, I think they all did record what Peter said. They didn't record it word for word. They recorded a paraphrase. What mattered was they got the content of the message if they did not get the exact wording.

In recording the speeches given at the time, this was entirely acceptable. One could give a summary of what was said or put in words the speaker did not exactly say but carry the content of his message. For instance, do we really think that for the former that when Peter preached his great sermon in Acts 2 that led to the conversion of 3,000 that it really lasted such a short time that we can read it in two minutes today? (Of course, if it did, we have great cause then to tell pastors to shorten their sermons.)

It is quite likely we do not have everything the prophets said in the OT. We have what God wanted us to have. These people spent many years in ministry and no doubt gave many sermons and such. Their most important messages are the ones that have been written for us.

Even if we compare the Ten Commandments in Exodus and Deuteronomy, there are some differences in the wording. These are minor and do not affect the commandments, but they are different. This was how Moses was handling the very words of God and he didn't have a problem with that.

The danger is that if we think we have to have the exact wording every time we're going to get into a kind of fundamentalism that sees the first example used tonight as if it was a biblical contradiction. Instead, we as Christians should trust that God had written down for us what it was that we needed to know for the sake of our salvation.

What does this say about Bible Translations? Of course not all paraphrases are created equal and if one wanted to do serious study of a passage of Scripture, I would not recommend they use something like the NLT. If one is going outside doing evangelism however, I would generally not have a problem with that. The people on the street need to know the content but not necessarily the exact wording.

Paraphrase is not a dirty word. Don't treat it like one.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

The future of inerrancy.

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:


Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Tonight, I'm going to continue our look at inerrancy based on something that someone just emailed me looking at the whole Licona/Geisler debate going on and wondering what this means for the future of apologetics.

Despite what some people think, I do have hope.

To begin with, I do believe the Bible is true and it will stand till the end. It has survived all the attacks of its critics and will continue to survive. In that regards, I think we should open up the Bible more to the critics. I think we should be gladly telling them to come and face the text and feel forward to bring their objections. Naturally, we will have to do our part in studying, but when we study, I do believe we will find answers to supposed contradictions.

What we need to avoid is what I see going on in the current climate with a pre-set idea of what areas are and aren't acceptable to study. I fear that there are many avenues of study that could be missed out on because we are holding to a certain approach to the text that unfortunately we could be putting above the text itself.

The Bible was not written in our time, place, and age. It should be no surprise then that it is a difficult book to understand and when we say otherwise, we do great harm to ourselves and lower Scripture. How many an atheist has said that Jesus taught poor values since he said we are to hate our father and mother? Yet when you explain to them that in the culture of the time Jesus was using hyperbolic language and explaining that discipleship to him was so stringent that it meant that all other priorities, including those of family which were utmost, are to be put secondary, get the reply of "But I thought the Bible was supposed to be easy to understand."

It has happened to me numerous times. A number of atheists think all they need to do is sit down, read the Bible, find something they don't like, and well that settles it. There is no need to do further research. If the Bible says slavery, well it means what went on in the Civil War. If the Bible says bats are birds, well it means what we mean by modern taxonomical standards today.

Of course, keep in mind for many of these atheists, you must be read in science to speak on science. Of course, I am of the opinion that that is true. If you wish to argue on science, you should study science. Hence the reason I do not argue on science. I do not study it. I will gladly comment on the philosophy of science, but not science qua science.

As long as we keep up this kind of standard, we are giving atheists more fodder to use. Not only that, we are hurting our own people. Our people are getting the idea that they do not need to study the Bible except for just reading it privately. There is no need to read scholars on the topics. Such a Christian is just a sitting duck when the new atheists come along, who frankly do not have good arguments against the Bible.

Instead, we need to present the Bible as we are as Scripture of God, but much more. It is a rich and vast work of literature and to study this literature, we need to do far more study than we would to learn Shakespeare, Plato, Virgil, or any other work. The great treasure that is within will only come to the one who is willing to dig.

What this means is an openness to be willing to dig and accept that. We must be willing to accept avenues that might have seemed threatening. Of course, this does not mean a full denial of the faith. However, if someone presents a worthy objection, we must be prepared to look into it. Suppose someone comes up with a new persuasive argument that Jesus did not rise from the dead. Let us not run from it! Instead, let us say "Bring your idea and let us study it and we are sure the truth of the resurrection will win out!" If someone challenges the Trinity, we are to say, "Bring your challenge and let us study it!" We who hold to orthodoxy affirm these things and being sure of these things, we should be willing to look into challenges to them. We would want to know if we are wrong, although for those of us who have spent years studying, we are quite sure we are not.

That certainty is also just fine to have. The certainty we have is not based on blind hope. At least, it should not be. The certainty is based on the years of study we have done. When I read the Summa Theologica for instance, and I see the objections raised, I can picture Aquinas saying to his students "I want you to go out and study what we believe and see if you can come up with the toughest objections to it!" I can imagine the students gathering together testing each other to see if they could try to "Stump the master" and find out each time that their master knew the objections and was able to answer them.

It is because Aquinas had that certainty based on years of study that I believe he could have indeed made such a claim to his students and done so without fear and in fact done so knowing it would boost their confidence in the end. Why? Because if you see the toughest objections you can come up with to a view can be answered, it makes you far more prone to trust that view.

If someone presents a view that is wrong, that is only determined by research and study and not by a fiat decision. Someone might ask about Nicea. Nicea was also based on research and study and they did discuss the creed and find out how many were willing to agree to it beforehand. This was also on matters that if these truths were denied, then Christianity itself was denied. It was not on peripheral issues.

That also means we will really have to ask what battles are worth fighting over. I happen to have friends who take opposite sides on a number of secondary issues and I gladly fellowship with them. I do not hesitate to call them my brother or sister in Christ, even though I am sure they are wrong on those issues. On the other hand, I would be happy to be a friend with a Mormon or JW, but I would not think of them for a second as a brother or sister in Christ.

I think the future could be good for this. We do not need to deny inerrancy. We can easily affirm the truth of God and if we are sure the Bible is that truth (Or at least some that God has chosen to reveal. I believe all in Scripture is the truth but not all the truth is in Scripture) then let us say to its critics without "Bring your objections" and to doubters within "Let us allay your fears!"

That future depends on you and I however and on our educating the church more on these matters and not only have our members in the church simply filling pews but also engaging in the matters themselves and learning. They need to be confronted with hard issues regularly and introduced to what is going on in the world of academia. The church in America has more power to be a force for evangelicalism I believe than any other church and frankly, we are not. Is it not the fault of the material. It is not the fault of the message. It is the fault of the people and mostly, the fault of those of us who are leaders. Let us do better. We can be assured that the message will get out somehow without us. I don't know about you, but while that is true, I want it to be that when I meet my God I can know I played a part in relaying his truth to the world. Don't you?