|
| God Didn't Write the Bible |
|
| |
. . . and that doesn’t hurt its holiness or its validity! When I was a child my Sunday School teachers used to say that God whispered the words of the Bible, and someone wrote them down. There is some level of comfort in this idea, and many Christians I love defend it passionately, but there are problems with this theory. Humans penned the words, humans copied the words by hand, and humans have translated it (and continue to translate it) into hundreds of languages over many centuries. All of these leave room for error. If God dictated the entire Bible word for word, then surely there would be no discrepancies; and those who defend His authorship will just as passionately defend the claim that no discrepancies exist. Herein lies the problem: There are numerous discrepancies.
I understand and respect the need for some to yell "heresy" about now! I speculate a twofold reason for this passion: 1) The human need for God to be tangible, thus the equating of the Bible with God Himself. (With our physical bodies we can’t touch, see, or hear God, but we can touch, see, and hear the Bible.) 2) The fear that if any discrepancy is found in the Bible that would mean God was not real or that the Bible was not Holy. Well, I hope to dispel both of these ideas here. The Bible does contain hundreds of minor discrepancies. Yet God is very real, and His Word is Holy.
The Bible is the inspired Word of God. It is the record of God's revelation of Himself to humanity. There is no question that God inspired it, as, for example, it contains prophecies that only God could know. There is, however, a crucial difference between spiritual revelation and human words. Have you ever tried to put a spiritual revelation into words? One does not fit perfectly into the other, but words are all we have with which to communicate. The words of the Bible were penned by writers who lived in close relationship to God, and were under some level of the Power of the Holy Spirit as they wrote (we do not know for sure who all the writers were), but nowhere do we read that they were immaculately conceived, or that they were transfigured as they wrote. They were not perfect or omniscient people. Many of them made judgments in their lives for which they would be arrested today, and maybe even given the death penalty. They included adulterers, murderers, a former persecutor of Christians, . . . Despite their humanness, however, the writings they left us are the most valuable and precious tangible gift from God to us. An amazing gift by which we can learn of the life and teachings of Jesus and of the beginnings of God’s relationship with His creation. An awe-inspiring set of writings that have revolutionized our world for many centuries. The all-time best-selling book worldwide. And I'm glad I don't have to imagine life without it.
Although most Christians have a Bible in their homes, only a small percentage of them ever read it from cover to cover. They claim its value (I’ve heard many say that if their house caught fire, their Bible would be the first thing they’d grab on the way out), but it has largely become an icon. They like to talk and read about what it says, but many Christians don’t pick up the actual Bible except to carry it under their arms when they go to church. Yet many of these same Christians are the most defensive of its perfection. Why? Because they have equated it with God. Many Christians, knowingly or unknowingly, worship the Bible. It has unknowingly become their idol, and the idea that the Bible might have a tiny error in it is as blasphemous to them as saying that God makes mistakes.
God does not make mistakes. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. God is not confined to or limited by our finite understanding of Him, and He is not confined to any writings, no matter how great and how inspired. Language is man’s means of communication. God does not confine Himself to written or spoken human language. Humans, on the other hand, even when given a spiritual truth or revelation, can only process it through our own finite mental and spiritual understanding. Thus our attempts to explain will never be equal to God's perfection. God inspired the writers of the Bible, but He did not author it.
A present day example of this distinction: I recently visited a church where the pastor preached an inspired sermon. He was passionate about living for God, and His relationship with God was not questionable. He claimed God gave him his sermon, and I believe him. Yet, perhaps due to his level of education, his sermon did have a couple of errors. Not because God doesn’t know everything, but because the pastor doesn’t. Still God is using him. Isn’t it amazing that God chooses to work through His imperfect children! (That includes us!)
The book we know as the Bible is actually not one book but a compilation of 66 different inspired writings, written in several different genres by many different authors over a span on many centuries. Some of these writings are personal letters. Others are books of poetry, or allegory, or law, or history, or prophecy . . ., each of which should, by nature of the genre, be read a little differently. The Biblical writers, just as writers today, wrote to and within the confines of the cultures of which they were a part.
I have heard many Christians proclaim emphatically that the Scripture needs no interpretation, that it speaks for itself. As humans, however, there is no such thing as reading anything (the newspaper, the Bible, this blog . . .) without applying our own interpretation to that reading. We all read through the eyes and ears of our own education and experience. Most of us developed our own interpretations from those of our spiritual leaders past and present (pastors, teachers, parents, spouse . . .), although we may be totally unaware of their influence. All of us interpret, but not always responsibly. A most complete interpretation of each individual book of the Bible involves several questions, like: Who wrote it?
When was it written?
For what purpose was it written?
To whom was it written? (Who was its intended audience?)
What genre is it?
What was the culture in which the author lived?
What did the words mean in their original language? (If you have ever mastered a second language, you know that translation is definitely not an exact science.)
How would the original readers have understood it? Can God speak to someone who doesn’t know any of this? Absolutely! And He does all the time! God’s Word is powerful, and He can use it to speak to anyone. Our spiritual teachers and leaders, however, should pay attention to these questions.
One of the most widespread errors in interpretation is thinking the Bible was written primarily as a rule book for our 21st century American lives. That’s such a small part of what the Bible is, comparable perhaps to the popular feel-good slogan that the Bible is "God’s love letter to us." (On one level, there is some truth to that, but those who have adopted this slogan I suspect have not read the first several books of the Old Testament lately, books filled with war, and plundering, and killing.) Certainly parts of it are applicable to teaching us how to live, but the Bible was not written primarily as a book of rules for life in the 21st century (or any century). None of the Biblical writers anticipated that their writings would be read, and basically worshipped, thousands of years later on the other side of the earth! They wrote for a specific audience and a specific purpose. If, however, we read it with intelligence and responsibility, its most profound truths are timeless, as is God, and these truths should be the structure upon which we build our Christian lives. The foundation, however, should be Christ alone. (See my blog The words or The Word?)
Today’s Christian culture has become extremely political and polarized within itself. Despite Jesus’ repeated emphasis on the unity of the believers, we seem to have an inate need to divide ourselves. Those who think just like I do vs. those who don’t. Of course those who don’t are the "bad guys." We have developed many a litmus test for weeding out those who do not fit our camp, including the words infallible and inerrant to describe the Bible. Now, I have personally found these words completely useless in any meaningful discussion, because every person I have ever heard use them has his own definition of exactly what they mean. In my experience these words are meant only to divide God’s children into factions, something Jesus prayed against in His final earthly prayer. He knew us even then, didn’t He! His prayer was that we would be one. If we are His children, we are all in the sheepfold, although no two of us will see things exactly the same.
Am I attempting to discredit the Bible or prove it invalid? NO!!! I revere, treasure, and cherish the Bible. I read and study it with diligence (see my blog on Bible Reading), and it molds and shapes my life. Yet I do not worship the Bible. I study the Word because it points me to the One Who alone is worthy of my worship, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, the Sustainer of all life, the Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent God of Abraham, Moses, David, Peter, and Paul. The God of Mother Teresa and Billy Graham. God alone is perfect and worthy of worship.
In my opinion the many small discrepancies in the Bible serve to reinforce its validity, not detract from it. The fact that different writers tell different versions of the same story, with all the most important details in unison with each other, adds much more validity than if they all told it in the exact same words. Do any two witnesses have exactly the same interpretation of an event? (Think of a car accident for example. Everyone is caught up in the moment, seeing things from their own perspective, and should they 30 years later decide to write their memory of it, there would surely be discrepancies. Yet collectively they would preserve and validate the reality of the event.)
So, what if there were an error in the Bible? That’s an important question, because there is! Many, in fact! Some are probably copy errors made by the scribes. Others are translation errors. Others are just educated guesses from conflicting documents about which is closer to the original (which by the way we do not have any of). Others are products of the time of writing. For example, it was not known at the time of Biblical writing that the earth was round. Other discrepancies are due to different eye-witnesses perceiving events from different vantage points, or the time period between the actual event and the time it was written down. (Do we not all miss a detail or two when we tell about something we saw thirty years ago?) Most of the Biblical accounts were written long after the actual events, from memory or from years and years of oral tradition.
OK, I made the claim that there are hundreds of small discrepancies in the Bible. If you are still reading, you must be interesting in examining this. At some later date, should there be interest, perhaps I will compile such a list. For now, however, just to provide an example, I will call your attention to two discrepancies in one particular story. Please don’t take my word for it. Read it for yourself, and feel free to share your thoughts:
This story appears twice, once in 2 Samuel 24 and again in 1 Chronicles 21. David sends Joab and the commanders of the army to take a census of Israel and Judah. Two discrepancies between the two stories: 1) One version (2 Sam.) says The Lord incited David to take the census. The other (1 Chron.) says Satan incited him. 2) 2 Sam. numbers the men of Israel as 800,000 and the men of Judah as 500,000. 1 Chron. numbers the men of Israel as 1,100,000 and the men of Judah as 470,000. Some would try to explain these differences away. 2 different censuses perhaps? If you read both accounts in their entirety, it seems obvious they are the same census. I choose to accept that these details really make no difference. Either way, the important part of the story seems to be that David took a census. Nonetheless, it seems impossible that both these Biblical account can be inerrant.
What does the Bible claim for itself? Is there any claim of inerrancy or infallibility? Is there any claim that it should be worshipped? Is there any claim of being the ultimate authority for matters like history or science? If not, we do it and ourselves a disservice when we put such demands on it. The most quoted passage used to justify these claims is 2 Timothy 3:16, 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
but if we read it carefully we will see how much our own interpretation has been added to its words. Also it is worth noting that our current Biblical canon was not established until the fourth century (See Biblical Canon in Wikipedia), and that when the New Testament writers wrote of Scripture, they were referring to certain Old Testament scrolls, and probably some other writings that our canon has not preserved. That is to say that Paul, for example, did not refer to his writings as Scripture. With that in mind, following are a few verses that deal with Scripture, all of which prove it as the inspired Word of God, with no manmade claims necessary:
4:21 And he began to say to them, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."
24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
5:39 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 5:40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.
18:28 for he powerfully confuted the Jews in public, showing by the scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.
What is most amazing to me about the Bible is not that it is without any error, but that, despite its many authors, and the many generations and cultures that its writings span, the main message is so consistent and rich. God is sovereign. Jesus Christ is the Savior and Redeemer of the world. And the Holy Spirit is alive and well in the lives of His people, and in the reading of His Word.
Once we are able to give up the notion that there is no human element in the Bible, we are free to reap all the richness and depth that it possesses! I am infinitely grateful to God that He has preserved these writings throughout all generations that they may teach even us! Thanks be to God for the great and wonderful gift of His Word! Selah!
|
|
| To add a comment to "God Didn't Write the Bible" |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
 |
|
|
Kathy,
Some great thought provoking ideas. It basically comes down to one basic question to be answered:
Do I believe the Bible to be inspired by the One true God? Accept it by FAITH! |
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
WOW! WOW! WOW! WOW! WOW! WOW!
AMEN SISTA CHICKADEE! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
BLESS YOU. BLESS YOU BLESS YOU
I will definatley stay tuned to this blog today.... you get today's *
Love you
Seven |
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
Hey Kathy,
Well written explanation of God's inspired Word.
You wrote, "I read and study it with diligence (see my blog on Bible Reading), and it molds and shapes my life. Yet I do not worship the Bible. I study the Word because it points me to the One Who alone is worthy of my worship, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, the Sustainer of all life, the Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent God of Abraham, Moses, David, Peter, and Paul. The God of Mother Teresa and Billy Graham. God alone is perfect and worthy of worship."
I can't agree more with you here. Studying the Bible is the only real way to understand God's love for each of us. We need to know His Word in our own lives, and what better place to learn of His Word than to read it and study it.
Thanks for your words on His Word!
peace |
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
Kathy,
I don't know what to say... other than.. I love what you do... because what you do... how you write... you do it soooooo... very, very well. Excellent work.
Pastor Aminata |
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
| Very thought provoking blog and well written. I agree with you that the WORD was inspired by our FATHER and that there are errors because humans wrote and translated it. The basic instructions, however are still in tact and I thank my FATHER for that. He has given us a foundation to worship, understand and love him. |
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
Robin, Seven, Glenn, and mstovall, thank you for reading my blog and sharing your reactions! By Faith indeed, Robin!
Soldier (aka Susie/Susan/PreacherGirl/DiscipleofChrist/Angel/Lily), I deleted your comment for its extreme length, not its message. I invite you to condense your thoughts and repost should you so choose. Opposing viewpoints are respected. |
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
| Pastor Aminata! I didn't mean to leave you out! I am always grateful to hear from you! Thank you! |
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
| Excellent blog Kathy, and well written. Gives me a lot to think about! |
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
First, as for "Soldier (aka Susie/Susan/PreacherGirl/DiscipleofChrist/Angel/Lily)," I thought multiple profiles were not allowed? This person sounds very argumentative. --hmmm.
"my Sunday School teachers used to say that God whispered the words of the Bible, and someone wrote them down."<grin> The 1 Timothy referenced word "inspired" is literally "God-breathed" in the Greek.
Kathy, I read your entire post and you have done a very good job of remaining "moderate" - but...
You are walking a tight rope. With one breath, you fall into a very liberal camp, and that's a hard line to maintain IMHO.... many on the right or conservative fundamentalist side (of which I am a part) would say that arguing the "inerrancy of scripture" strikes at the very foundation of Christianity. And I have a very hard time with your assertion that "God did not write the Bible." Yes, there are arguable "discrepencies", all by now have been found and have various explanations, some of which you mentioned.
My main problem with your post is that many that are less grounded can and do use your very assertion as a prybar to say that we as Christians are only following the "fables of men." (see below) Therefore the Bible is nothing more than another spiritual guide placed only a little higher than other self-help bestsellers. You are not saying this as far as I can tell! But your very provocative title does IMHO.
1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 1:21 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.
I say this all with love, Kathy... and hope that it is taken as such <grin>
|
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
You mention the book but not the verce. I don't believe there is anywhere that one million in the Bible. They did not have a count of that high. That is why they said things like,"thousands of thousands", etc. I do know that one could have been a count of the male population. the othere could have been the "men" no gender intended. Meaning all of Isrel. I also could not find the word "incited" in my Strong's. Census also does not appear. Number, yes, but no census.
I can not understand anyone worshiping God and leaveing the Word, writen or otherwise as none worshiping! |
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
That is spot on about worshiping the Bible, Kathy. I spent a few years of my life arguing about Biblical facts, instead of pursuing the character qualities of the God behind the Bible. When I was arguing, I couldn't get people to listen. As I'm showing God's character to people, I seem to be able to say anything about Him. What was I thinking? The Bible doesn't say that arguing with anyone will save anybody. And knowing the Bible backwards and forwards doesn't necessarily indicate spiritual maturity. I think we should study the Bible as much as possible, but we should study it with a mind towards applying it to ourselves, and understanding the God behind it. The Pharisees studied God's Word for a living, but they didn't recognize God in front of their faces. |
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
Great thought Kathy,
These we're some of the reasons for various responses I've made over the last year on scripture and it's interpretation. To repeat a few comments.
I |
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
Sorry,
I'm not sure why my incomplete thought wouldn't delete....
Here you go again,
I find some believers have mistakenly created a false trininty of Father, Son, and Holy Scripture. In doing so relegating the Holy Spirit to some dispensational closet where He has no person or essence.
For most of it's history the church has used St. Vincent of Lerin's "rule" to judge scriptural validity, loosly translated, "what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all."
Many have bought into the real heresy that we have complete freedom, under the guise of the Holy Spirit's dwellign in our heart, to translate scripture in any way that pleases us, this has only been believed in very, very recent times.
We need to have a real strong, in fact absolute belief in scriptural integrity. Then let God move us to apply those things He's shown us, and then trust God to move the Chruch into orthodox undererstandign of those things.
Kathy again, thanks for a great blog! |
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
| You know, I've got to find what;s been causing all those letters to turn around when I type......where's spell czech win I knead it? |
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
Hal, I love and respect my many fundamentalist friends and am quite aware of the importance placed on the "i" words. I thank you for commenting here, as my blog is really incomplete without input from your viewpoint. I attended Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary during the end of the Southern Baptist "war," so I am accustomed to being labelled by others, although then and now I refuse to pin any label on myself, other than "Child of God." Moderates have called me a fundamentalist, and conservatives have called me a liberal. I have no need to fit into any camp, preferring to look to God for my direction rather to any political faction. (I'm also a registered Independent!) As for my blog title leading readers to believe the Bible is a book of fables, I sincerely hope you are wrong about this. The title is meant to create enough interest to get them to read, and if they read, I don't know how that could come to that conclusion. (You have a legitimate point though. When I wrote my Women, Shut Up blog, I got a few comments attacking me for being so narrow-minded, and they obviously read nothing but the title.) Thank you for weighing in! I appreciate you, my friend!
Jack, I would agree with you that some of the discrepancies are important ones. I chose the word "small", however, because I made the claim there were hundreds, and the overwhelming majority of those of "small."
Thank you Deb and Jess! Jess, I blogged about that here: Why Biblical Guidance Doesn't Work
Golden, thank you! I didn't realize I only gave the book reference. I have now added the chapters, and you can find the Satan vs. Lord part in verse 1 of both chapters. Read a few verses into the chapter to reach the numbers. You seem to be searching the KJV which uses the word "provoked" rather than "incited" and does indeed call 1 million "one thousand thousands." And both passages seem to refer only to men, as they both specify the number as "valiant men who drew a sword." I appreciate your input. You bring up some good issues!
Dennis, Eye like the weigh ewe spell "undererstandign." Know spell czech kneaded! (And I like your points!)
Soldier, thank you for sharing your thoughts. |
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
Jack,
I started out thinking about why you would ask the question, but then decided to understand why I even used that phrase. I tend to use words by inferential meaning instead of accurate understanding of their meanings (comes from reading everything in sight, yet having a poor memory). I will answer with a new blog, but it may takle a while to sort out my response and post the blog. It actually turns out to be a great question, I'm just not sure how to answer it in a reasonably short blog! |
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
Soldier I apologize for the assuption that you had many profiles and were argumentative... sometimes my mouth gets in the way of my fingers. I have not read anything that you have posted. That was wrong of me.
Jack... I'm sorry I don't understand.. but you do have a way with words, sir!
Kathy...
"As for my blog title leading readers to believe the Bible is a book of fables, I sincerely hope you are wrong about this".
LOL Kathy - Hence the words: You are not saying this as far as I can tell!
But some folks don't take the time to read the fine print.... (sigh) as you well know...
Sorry about the labels, too, I proudly wear "conservative" in all senses of that word and "fundamentalist" in the narrow theological sense. I don't know where to put you yet... LOL
I'm just trying to put the fun in "fundamentalist!" |
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
OK Kathy,
I'm moving my thoughts off to a separate blog. Thanks so very much for getting me started, I've been meaning to write some of these thoughts down for quite a while!
Scripture . |
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
Restore, oh, this one may not be peaceful bedtime reading! Rest well! Hal, lol, if you get it figured out, share it with me! :) Dennis, thanks for the plug. I look forward to reading your blog, but will wait until I'm less tired! You must have already thought that blog out. You posted it quickly!
|
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
| No Kathy, I'm just rash and impulsive.....hehe |
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
I LOVE YOU KATHY...
reading your blogs are like reading into your soul through your picture... you are so beautiful... you are so transparent.... you are sooooo Jesus like....
love
7 of 9 |
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
| Liberal is not the word for it, try radical left, Southern Poverty Law Center anyone? |
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
Kathy...
I love you and I love reading your blogs... it is like... a window into your soul... and i see you I hear you I feel you I smell you ... it is tangible...
and I love you YOU my CHILD are so beautiful and I know JESUS smiles and laughs when he sees the LOVE IN YOU... I KNOW YOU make Jesus rejoice....
YOU... KATHY... are a Saint...
I truly love you
7 of 9 |
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
| I'm glad to see there are some Christians out there who don't think of the Bible in the same way the Muslims believe in the Qu'ran. I agree with most of your sentiments; I love how God chooses fallible, sinful, finite human beings to work within and through. Quite amazing, really, how the divine and the earthly mingle by His grace. |
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
Kathy, on the continuum that goes from totally discounting the Bible as a book of fiction to revering the book as literal absolute truth, you fall closer to the latter end than the former, i.e. I believe you are more conservative than the title of this blog would seem to suggest. You made good points in your blog and of course you wrote it very well!
One small dissension. Towards the end you said that "Paul, for example, did not refer to his writings as Scripture". The apostle Peter did, however, refer to all of Paul's letters as Scripture (2 Pet 3:6). Apparently Peter and the early church elevated Paul's letters to the same category as the writings of the OT. Also, Paul considered Luke's gospel to be "Scripture". In 1 Timothy 5:18 he quoted Luke 10:7, stating that "the Scripture says". I find it likely that other NT writings were regarded with the authority of Scripture by the early church as well.
Besides the Bible, no other book claims to be "God-breathed". No other book is the legitimate source of the words "thus says the Lord" (which appear repeatedly, in fact) and the commands of the Lord (for example, OT: Deuteronomy 5:1; NT: 1 Corinthians 14:37). No other book has the power to change people's lives (and the world!) like the Bible does. The Spirit's main channel of revealing truths about God to mankind is through the Bible. God may not have literally written the books of the Bible, but there was most definitely a strong supernatural element (Holy Spirit) deeply involved in their authorship. Discrepancies? A few, yes, all minor. Definitely not as many as some people claim, and definitely not as serious as some claim either!
I find every one of your blogs an interesting read, this one no exception! Thanks for making me think today, Kathy! And I'll echo your closing line, "Thanks be to God for the great and wonderful gift of His Word!" ~mike |
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
| THANK YOU FOR THIS BLOG! I have had some discussions about this with my friend a while ago. I support you so much on that we can't read the Bible in the context of 2007 America. The cultures of their time and ours are so different that we cannot just put those ideas in a literal translation of how we understand those phrases today. Honestly telling you, I had some problems with English interpretation of the Bible after being brought up on the Russian version of it - and both were translated from the same Book! Many things in English do not have the same meaning that they do in Russian today. How about adding more cultural differences over some thousands of years! It is a hard concept to grasp if one doesn't go through experiencing "other ways" of "other peoples"; experiencing some good deal of culture shock may actually make us all more understanding of each other and open our eyes on that some people can actually look at our axioms with wonder. |
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
Seven, thank you for your kindness, although your praise for me is far too lofty! Are all StarTrek characters so affirming?! (Confession: I have never watched StarTrek.)
Wyatt, thanks for reading this blog and sharing your reaction. I know this blog will not win any fundamentalist awards, and I respect that opinion. To all who are in that camp, I respectfully question the "slippery slope" imagery. Should one slide down that slope, where would she land? Isolated from salvation or merely outside the fundamentalists' good graces? If you answer the former, do you honestly perceive me as one who is "one breath away" from being "unsaved"? I do not share that fear, despite the acknowledgement that I am sure I don't have everything all figured out perfectly.
Recon, always a pleasure to see you again.
BlewJ, Thank you for sharing your reaction!
Grant posted a great blog that relates to this blog topic: How to Read the Bible without Becoming a Wacko |
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
Mike, you raise some points worth examining. It is true that, although the canon was not officially set until the 4th century, by the 2nd century, many of the NT writings (and some apocraphal ones) were being circulated around the churches as Scripture. I am not familiar with this happening during the first century to show up in the NT writings. Your first reference, 2 Pet. 3:6 seems to be the wrong verse. I hope you will check it and come back and let me know. The 1 Timothy passage is quoting Deuteronomy, not Luke, although Luke also quoted the same passage. Deut. 24:15 deals with the day's wages, and Deut. 25:4 with the oxen. I agree with you on the importance of the Scripture and on its power to change lives, and you are right that it is important to me! :) Thanks, my friend!
Valya, there is a wisdom that comes from knowing other languages and cultures that can never come through books. Your life experiences are a gift. I pray for you that you will never just accept anything I or anyone else says, without studying it and prayerfully pondering it for yourself. Much of what I write is what I am still working through for myself. I would love to hear about some of the translation differences between the Russian and English Bibles. This is always the case with translation. Sometimes when I read the Spanish Bible, I don't recognize a very familiar passage. I'm glad you're my friend! |
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
Typo! Sorry, 2 Peter 3:16. :-)
Regarding the Luke/Deut passage, my cross references (NIV) did not show the Deut passage. I presume the reason is b/c the 1 Timothy passage actually quotes Luke 10:7 word for word, whereas the Deut 24:15 is where the underlying principle appears in God's law. I checked cross references in the NASB and ESV, and both of these included the Deut reference as well. |
|
|
| October 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
Yes Jack, pleeeaaaase set me straight! 
Wurmbrand's quote is great. He says the Bible is the truth about the Truth. That's truth one generation removed from the Truth. So everything else is truth 2 generations removed from the original. Therefore, you can do no better than to go straight to the Bible if you want to know about the Truth!
And that is precisely where I send people. Thanks Jack! |
|
|
| October 20, 2007 |
|
|
|
Kathy,
Once again a great post...lots of good discussions too. I would like to see you expand on your thoughts on the paragraph you started with "Today’s Christian culture has become extremely political and polarized within itself. " Think about it please. There is a lot of truth buried in that paragaph that needs kneading, IMHO.
Your post brings to mind a visit I had to one of my Baptist family members. My family consists of many Baptists, some of which are preachers. I was sitting in this person's dining room doing my daily devotion. I always write notes in my Bible to include the dates I read it, what it meant to me that time through, and anything else that seems important. This person was appalled that I would write in the Bible. Wasn't that adding to God's word? Culture, even within our culture, can sometimes have different meanings. To her, the Bible was indeed holy and anything, like I was doing, was defacing it. I would also venture to say that she never wrote on a dollar bill either because that would be defacing government property. Perhaps she would think of the Bible as holy and the dollar bill as carnal, but the culture breeds the same reaction - a sincere respect for the authority of the printed paper.
I only share this example to add to your post that we all see through a glass dimly. We all need each other's understanding as living stones in this body of Christ. As clay vessels broken by sin we are fallible and in need of a Savior. As such, each and every one of us makes mistakes, uses the wrong words at times, and, misplace, punctuation, every, now, and, then (most of the early text had no punctuation). Given this, it is hard to accept the fact that somewhere, in one of the many translations, that somebody didn't miss a punctuation mark, read too much into a given word, or just didn't know how to translate it because the words are few and different. This only makes me want to know more, understand better, and be more in awe of our God who chooses to use us knowing exactly how far short of His glory we fall.
As for labels...well, the only one I will place on you is "sister". Let's walk through history together and see where He takes us. |
|
|
| October 20, 2007 |
|
|
|
Voice,
I just love your thinking, and your heart.
Pastor Aminata |
|
|
| October 20, 2007 |
|
|
|
| Ah, finally found this famous post. Seems like great minds think alike. As a fundaliberal, or is that evangamentalist, or is that legalistically non-legalistic? Oh, well, I'm glad to read your well-formulated words. I've always wondered why God just did not inspire the word "inerrant" as a part of Holy Scripture. Perhaps God was "errant" for not having done so... LOL ...not! :) |
|
|
| October 20, 2007 |
|
|
|
| Wow! So much that I have been thinking about, too... |
|
|
| October 20, 2007 |
|
|
|
Mike, 2 Peter 3:16 does indeed refer to Paul's letters as Scripture! Thank you for pointing that out to me! The best part about writing blogs is what I get to learn! It seems this reference has received a lot of scholarly attention due to the timing of the developing canon. I found the following interesting and include it here just in case anyone else is curious about the timing of 2 Peter. Following is the view presented in The Oxford Annotated Bible (RSV 1973):
"The tradition that this letter is the work of the apostle Peter was questioned in early times, and internal indications are almost decisive against it. It is dependent upon the letter of Jude (compare 2:1-8 with Jude 4-16), and the author refers to all the letters of Paul (3:15) in a way that presupposes not only that they had been collected into a corpus, but that they were regarded as equal to "the other scriptures" - conditions which did not exist in the lifetime of Peter. Most scolars therefore regard the letter as the work of one who was deeply indebted to Peter and who published it under his master's name early in the second century. In this connection the following considerations should be borne in mind. (1) In antiquity pseudonymous authorship was a widely accepted literary convention. Therefore the use of an apostle's name in reasserting his teaching was not egarded as dishonest, but merely a way of reminding the church of what it had received from God through the apostle. (2) The authority of the New Testament books is dependent, not upon their human authorship, but upon their intrinsic significance, which the church, under the guidance of the Spirit, has recognized as the authentic voice of apostolic teaching. For this reason, therefore, what is traditionally known as the Second Letter of Peter was included in the canon of Scripture."
This in no way invalidates your point that the NT does contain a reference to NT Scripture. Rather it addresses my own question of how that could be. I share it here just for those who may have the same questions.
I also want to address the Timothy passage we discussed earlier, which, along with Luke, quotes from Deuteronomy. You noted that Timothy is more an exact quote of Luke than of Deuteronomy. That's a linguistics issue (and of course I love those). Deuteronomy was originally written in Hebrew, and the NT books mainly in Greek. Thus the authors of Timothy and Luke translated the Deut. passage into Greek. Fast forward to the English translations, from which we read. This Deut. passage was translated from Hebrew into English. But both the Luke and Timothy passages were now translated from Greek into English, thus translating equal to each other, but not in the exact words as the Deut. passage. Those who are proficient in 2 languages will understand this, as translation is not an exact science but involves many choices and decisions. I can't say for sure this was what happened in this particular passage, but imho, it's probable, as is the case with so many other passages.
Thank you, Mike, for raising such thought-provoking issues! I enjoyed looking at this! |
|
|
| October 20, 2007 |
|
|
|
Voice, you are a man of both kindness and insight! Thank you for being such a blessing to everyone at MyChurch! You asked for me to expand a particular paragraph. I invite you to do that here, and we can include it in our dialogue (unless there was something you wished me to clarify, which I will gladly do)!
I too have known Christians who find it disgraceful to write in the Bible. I think that could be for any combination of reverence, tradition, and/or idolatry. Again a substitution of the written word for God Himself. I must have been taught that somewhere along the way myself, as I can remember feeling discomfort when I first began to see people writing in their Bibles (25 years ago?) As you said, Voice, all us see through a glass dimly. Not one of us has everything figured out perfectly. We continue to study, listen, pray, and discern and hope that we are moving a little closer every day. I'm proud to be your sister!
Grant, lol, I love your labels! After Hal decides on a label for me, I'll put him on your case! Your post (I linked to it above) is a great one, and so closely in line with this one that when I read it I was sure you had just read this one and decided to more fully expound on some important issues. We were apparently of the same mind yesterday! Thank you for posting here. I always enjoy your blogs and have come to depend on them to be solid doctrinally and theologically.
Wyatt, the question I posed to you was a hypothetical one. I was assuming the answer was no, but by that assumed answer, asking what it really is that fundamentalists fear from a post like this one. I don't know the true deepest answer to that. Do you? Is it the fear that if we allow people to see an error in the Bible they will not be able to trust God. I hope not, because God is God. He is not what we believe Him to be. He is. Period. And we can trust Him. I am turly not arguing here, Wyatt. Just looking to understand the mindset. I know the fundamentalist rules and words, but I'm looking here for their deepest and innermost fears.
Bestemor, it's always nice to see your face! Thank you! |
|
|
| October 20, 2007 |
|
|
|
| Deleted my comments because I think I offended Jack... |
|
|
| October 20, 2007 |
|
|
|
Kathy, toss me the worm, then set the hook, will you? I do believe there is polarization going on within the church, but I can't put my finger on it. I don't know if it is only in the US where most of us have all our needs met and we tend to go to church to fulfill our wants. I don't know if politics is driving us that way, too, since politics in the states is so polarized right now....or is it something that God is doing amongst us to drive us closer to Him? Selah.
Also, thanks for the discussion on translation. Translating anything is very difficult and if it is the second generation translation, it is very, very hard to keep the same message and almost impossible to keep the same words. We should all remember this when we read the scriptures. The part of history that amazes me is that God knew when the scriptures were being written that someday we would be reading them in English. Knowing that, He chose that time in history to have them documented. That idea just blows me away. |
|
|
| October 21, 2007 |
|
|
|
"Watch yer phraseology," said Mayor Shinn. -Music Man
|
|
|
| October 21, 2007 |
|
|
|
Kathy, I have read and re-read your comments trying to digest this. You are very good at making me think. This summarizes what I think you are saying: We don't worship the Bible, but Jesus Christ, the only way to the Father. When we talk about errors in the Bible, it makes me uncomfortable. Not because I worship the Bible, but I trust the Bible to teach me about the Person who I worship, Jesus Christ. If there are errors, then where does it stop? How do I know the errors I see as you pointed out above are the only errors. What if there are errors in the foundation of my faith being based on Grace and not by Works? I don't hear you saying this, but this is what I have heard argued in the past about the Bible being all allagorical and not real truth for today. I don't like using commentaries to interpret the Bible for me, but would rather rely on the Holy Spirit and other Biblical passages to reveal to me what God is saying. I don't have any trouble with your premise that God didn't write the Bible (one could argue the 10 commandments exception *grin*). I do agree with you that He inspired it. So if there is Inspiration by God for the writers, they are not just writers sharing their perspectives, they are writing God's Inspiration in their context of experience. I think it was Ezekiel that talked about flesh melting away from the bone which could be imagery of a nuclear explosion. I echo your sentiment about the Bible being an icon and something that is carried to church for show and not read and studied in reality. You have gone from preaching to meddling sister. Meddle on!!! I also am so amazed as you stated that imperfect people can be used. I am blown away that I can be used. WOW!! I agree with considering the genre, context, etc of the writer. I hope I have not written a book too long here. I appreciate your thoughts and though I don't agree with the detail you have a lot that rings true to me. Other areas I am willing to consider and ponder and pray about. Blessings on you this coming week. Your brother in Christ, Brent |
|
|
| October 21, 2007 |
|
|
|
| Kathy, I appreciate your scholarship and careful study. You have reminded me that it isn't a book I worship, but God, a Person. I also have in mind that "the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." This is how I experience God whenever I sit down with the Bible in my lap -- a book, yet so much more. It's as if the words are alive! God speaks to me!! Yes, as you point out, this word has passed to us through human filters (no one can deny that). But despite that, I fully believe that he has faithfully brought his word to his people throughout every age, uncorrupted and true. The doctrines which are essential to knowing God and his requirements are clear to those who would put themselves aside and seek him with all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength! |
|
|
| October 21, 2007 |
|
|
|
 Voice, don't you have a hat like this?! :) The Christian polarization is a recent phenomenon which perhaps has coincided with the also recent polarization of national politics, and I suspect the two are more than somewhat intertwined, as is evidenced by the political activism of Christian leaders like James Dobson. Although I am very familiar with the polarization within the SBC, I do not speak with any authority about the polarization of Christianity as a whole. I will say, however, that it grieves me, as Jesus was so concerned with our unity. As someone jokingly said of his own pole in a previous comment, "we know we are right." Therein lies so much of the problem. When one faction truly believes that they are completely right about everything and that everyone else therefore is wrong, it seems impossible to worship in unity with each other. It is my opinion that no group, nor even one single human being, has it all right, but that it is our gain when we choose to stop calling names, forgive each others' differences, and live as brothers and sisters in Christ. In Christ. Therein should be our unity. The fishing pole is back in your hands, Voice! :)
 |
|
|
| October 21, 2007 |
|
|
|
Brent, if I have made you think, I have been successful! My goal is never to get people to think as I think, but rather just to think! Your one sentence summary of my blog is right on target! You said: "When we talk about errors in the Bible, it makes me uncomfortable." Brent, you are in plenty of good company, which is exactly why I wrote this blog, to get us to think about why that is. If we have ever read the entire Bible, and if we are honest, we cannot deny that there are errors. Yet, we have been taught that such an acknowledgement is blasphemy, so we continue to claim emphatically its inerrancy. In certain Christian circles, the inerrancy of the Scripture is synonomous with Christianity itself, and to deny it is to deny Christ. Yet we see the errors! They exist!
I am familiar with the fear you mention: that if we acknowledge one error, then how can we be sure the whole Gospel is not an error? By faith, Brent. The faith in Jesus Christ by Whom we are saved. God is Truth. We do not have to defend that He is Truth. He is. And He will continue to be, whether we think He is or not. This practice of equating the Scripture with God Himself is a recent one and one we need to dissolve, as it is imho insulting to God. The Bible should point us to Him, not take His place. I agree with you about commentaries, although they do have a place in studym as sometimes it is helpful to hear what others have seen in a particular passage. The Scripture itself, however, is the greatest source for understanding the Scripture! :)
I appreciate your thoughtful response here and invite you to share any other thoughts you may have! and yes, I will concede to you the 10 commandments - twice! Thank you, Brent, and be blessed!
Mike, you said, "The doctrines which are essential to knowing God and his requirements are clear to those who would put themselves aside and seek him with all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength!" Yes! :) |
|
|
| October 21, 2007 |
|
|
|
My, My, My.....to think all this over the word "inerrant"! I'am sorry that I used it....for it obviously struck a nerve. "Inerrant Word of God" ...I do believe is what I said... that is exactly what "I" believe. I believe that in the beginning was "God walking around and He decided to create" and "He spoke" and "It Was"! Then He created man...who He dearly loved...and from that day forward "man" has been trying to unmask "His" meanings. He doesn't need us...AT ALL...He simply wanted us for a relationship. We..."mankind" knitpick about everything...we have to know.
Like Eve in the garden of eden...she couln't be content with the Garden of Eden...she had to know. So she bit into the apple... She couldn't just accept "GOD AT HIS WORD" then she sold that pack of lies to Adam... and he fell for it. Today we are no different then Adam and Eve...we cannot accept GOD at HIS WORD we have to knitpick it ....we have to know/actually/ we don't have to know..."We just have to "Accept/Believe that it is the Truth" Believe-Faith...in HIM...GOD!
The Alpha & The Omega the Beginning and the End..."And All The In Between"!! I DO!
When He/Christ wooed me and asked me personally to be HIS...I Accepted! I Believe !!!
The Whole Gospel...That's for me...You may not...that's ok for you! I chose not to argue about scripture...I know what HE/His Holy Spirit has taught me! I can wait till I see Him face to face and ask Him all the questions that I may have....and trust me...it will all make sense whenever HE EXPLAINS IT! :)
In Christian Love,
Mrs. Annette |
|
|
| October 21, 2007 |
|
|
|
Hey Kathy, I have not had the time in almost a year to follow up on blogs...and I chose and interesting start.
I think you would be surprise to found how many times (only a handful) the Bible has been retranslated from the greek and latin docs...but that is neither here nor there. I think you made a good point that we should not be worshipping the Bible...b/c then we might as well erect and image but you stated plainly that it is the inspired Word of God...and that is absolute.
I have found over my years of study that God allows us to see imperfections in all of the "heros" b/c I don't think any of us would be up to the task of the gospel otherwise. I mean if Peter hadn't sunk...or later renounced Jesus...or later acted in pride and all we knew of him was the rest...how could we look at ourselves with any hope.
People who cite discrepancies usally don't actually find them...I did take not to the ones you listed and since the Bible was not written by a timeline it is difficult to know for sure.
But I think at the end of the day a quote that PastorDan once said (where is he anyways?) fits well...the problem here is attempting to describe an infinite God with a finite language. Humans will never be perfect and God chooses not to force His hand b/c we must respond with faith and obedience.
Excellent post |
|
|
| October 21, 2007 |
|
|
|
Hi Pastor Tim! I did include one example in this blog. (See the brown print section.) I chose not to include more, because I wanted the readers to ponder the concepts, not just the examples. However, just because it's you, I'll add a second example here: :)
Who asked Jesus if James and John could be seated next to Him in His kingdom? Mark 10:35-40 says James and John asked Him, but Matthew 20:20-23 says their mother asked Him. Again, this detail is not the crux of the story and does not detract from it either way, but the two passages cannot both be inerrant.
Your thoughts are welcome here and respected. My writings are not inerrant either! :) |
|
|
| October 21, 2007 |
|
|
|
MrsAnnette, I am a little confused with your post, as I don't think you had posted on this blog before, and I am certain you did not spur this discussion. Inerrancy is a widely used term. Nonetheless, your comments are always welcome here, and if this blog is not for you, I respect that. I know you love the Word and the Lord, and I'm happy to count you as my sister!
Webyouthpastor, I am honored you chose to read this blog, and I love your Pastor Dan quote: "the problem here is attempting to describe an infinite God with a finite language." I invite you to share any personal knowledge about Greek and Latin translation, as I am always open to learning more! As for the discrepancy listing, although I'm sure there are lists out there, I rarely agree with someone else's list. The ones I mention I have personally found in my Scripture studies, and noted in my study journal. And, as I said to Pastor Tim, my writings are not inerrant, and I appreciate intelligent dialogue! Thanks for reading and commenting! |
|
|
| October 21, 2007 |
|
|
|
| Susie/Susan/PreacherGirl/DiscipleofChrist/Angel/Lily/Soldier/Grace, Your opinion is welcome and respected here, although you already shared it under your Soldier persona. Policing the other guests is not necessary however. Thanks! |
|
|
| October 21, 2007 |
|
|
|
Kathy, that is why I love it here. We can bring up thoughts and ideas that make us think, challenge each other and share insights and personal stories of our journey. I will admit there are a lot of difficulties that do appear to be contradictions, but I am not ready to admit that errors are a given. There a lot of people smarter than I with research that have described the reasons for those apparant errors. I am not saying I am close minded to the issues, just not ready to say the Bible is full of errors. I state again that the Bible full of errors is not a document that can be trusted to use against itself if there are errors throughout the work. By errors, I am saying that 800,000 men vs. 1,100,000 men in the survey you talked about. Anyway, if there are errors in that book, then how much of the truth we base our Salvation based on Grace is trustworthy. I don't see how you can have it both ways. How can you say that the book of books called the Bible is full of errors and then take the message of Salvation to be true? How can you say the scripture is the greatest source of understanding the Scripture if there are errors? I completely agree that we should not worship the Bible. I think it is a precious work that I hunger to read and understand more of. The written word of God is pretty precious to those in countries that don't have anything but portions of the Bible. These people may come close to worshipping the scripture but it is more because they can now have a clearer understanding of God's instructrions to man. We should not worship the church building either, but that doesn't mean if some do, it makes it wrong to have one. Sorry for rambling here, the thoguht started out good in my head, why didn't my fingers follow through? *grin* I would state that just reading the Bible straight through which I have only done a couple of times is much different than studying and searching as you are doing in dissecting the word in Samuel. I guess to sum up, if the Bible is error prone, then we have to rely on Man for what is true and what is fiction in the Bible. Yes, the salvation equation is not complete without faith, but without a Bible that can be trusted we are left with the word of man. IMHO (actually I laugh when I see that since we are not that humble about our opinions) Thanks for listenening to a skeptic when it comes to the errors. I really appreciate your thoughts and interaction with me. Thanks for welcoming me and allowing me to voice my thougths and convictions. May you have a blessed day. Actually, I will be on an overseas trip for a couple of weeks and don't know how much I will be on here. I imagine I will have my inbox full of Mychurch notification when I get back online however. *grin* Your brother in Christ, Brent |
|
|
| October 21, 2007 |
|
|
|
| Jack...
This is what you really think, huh?
"Most are not interested in Truth but more in maintaining tradition and a manageable deity while making sure their neighbor gets their just due because we are saved during our life on earth and they not."
Jack, the more I read your stuff, the more I am convinced that someone has hurt you deeply.
You cannot really think that we who believe in a literal hell, honestly want a "mannageable diety" --how is a sovereign, holy God controllable?
And how are we who believe in an inerrant Bible guilty of wishing that our neighbors are goinng to hell by asking folk to consider a Holy God and His coming judgement?
Your group of theologians do well to hope that scripture is considered unreliable. It has to be open to interpretation by men so that you can continue to make scripture conform to your ends.
Warning after warning is placed in scripture, which is dissected and translated by you (inerrantly?) and yours to be something else entirely different.
The error of men's translation of God's Word to us could just as well be seen best illustrated by you.
Kathy, you wanted to know what fundamentalists fear...
Here it is.
|
|
|
| October 21, 2007 |
|
|
|
ouch!
Pastor Aminata |
|
|
| October 22, 2007 |
|
|
|
Brent, I applaud both your open-mindedness and your honesty here about such a controversial issue. You said: "There a lot of people smarter than I with research that have described the reasons for those apparant errors." Brent, perhaps some of them are "smarter" than you or me. I don't know about that. But all of them started with the agenda of proving inerrancy. Otherwise with so many of all different kinds of errors, they would never have arrived at zero. Any "proof" that begins with a bias is an inferior study. One of your paragraphs so perfectly states what I believe to be the fears behind the inerrancy position, that I want to post it again here. You said:
"I state again that the Bible full of errors is not a document that can be trusted to use against itself if there are errors throughout the work. By errors, I am saying that 800,000 men vs. 1,100,000 men in the survey you talked about. Anyway, if there are errors in that book, then how much of the truth we base our Salvation based on Grace is trustworthy. I don't see how you can have it both ways. How can you say that the book of books called the Bible is full of errors and then take the message of Salvation to be true? How can you say the scripture is the greatest source of understanding the Scripture if there are errors?"
You have perhaps captured in a paragraph the crux of the argument for inerrancy. Now, let me first respond that I too used to be in that black and white position, and that currently I have no problem with the questions you so perfectly raise. Now let me attempt to put into finite words my reasoning:
I'm sure we would all agree that there is an ultimate Truth. I may not know exactly what it is. You may not know exactly what it is. And theoretically (I disagree with this one) the Bible may not know what it is. Still whatever is the Truth is the Truth. Even if that Truth were that God does not exist (No, I don't believe this). What we believe about the Truth does not change what the Truth really is.
Therefore we do not need to protect the Truth by concealing parts of it. The Truth will stand. A part of the Truth is that there are discrepancies in the Bible. Despite these discrepancies, God is Truth, and God is real! Can we trust what the Bible says about God? The Bible is an amazing set of writings by people who have walked with Him throughout history. It is the most perfect and wonderful of all records of God's activity on earth. Yet it is not to be worshiped. It is to reveal God to us, that we can seek Him for ourselves and give our lives to Him. Is it possible there are some larger discrepancies in the Bible? Yes. If so, would that mean there is no God, and no salvation by grace? No. By faith we put our trust in God, and by the Bible we diligently seek to know Him better, not by picking out isolated verses and hoping no one notices the others, but by reading every word of every book of the Bible, over and over, and getting a broad inderstanding of this God we serve. It is then that we are so amazed at the cohesiveness of the Bible and its overall consistency, that minor do not bother us, and they may even add to the validity, because we know that all these different writers experienced the same God in their lives, and that they did not all copy their stories from the same source!
Now let me turn your fears around to the opposite viewpoint. What if by claiming that the Bible has no errors we are turning people away from God, becausea they can see the errors, and thus believe that anything else we say is equally biased and not straightforward?
Biblical criticism is a frightening field of study for those who adhere tightly to inerrancy, because it rocks the foundations of what they have been taught and accepted as the Truth. However, if we can get to the point of seeking that Truth without any bias, God is free to take us where He pleases. And a part of truth is being honest with ourselves and calling an error an error. God makes no mistakes, but God did not write the Bible. The revelations however are His, and there is no book so holy in all the world!
Hal, pertaining to the fundamentalists' fear, please consider my comment to Brent, and feel free to respond. I have not read Jack's writings other than his posted comments, but if he is the opposite extreme, can we acknowledge the possibility that the fundamentalist position is just as extreme in its claim that the errors in the Bible are not really there? Is it Truth we all want to defend, or is it our politics?
Thank you, Jack, Hal, and Brent, for your respect for each other and for me in this dialogue. Our exchanges here push my thinking! God bless you all, my brothers in Christ! |
|
|
| October 22, 2007 |
|
|
|
| Susan, when I posted to you above, you even had your Soldier profile posted on this very blog, which you have since deleted. I refer to you by all these names so the readers can keep up with who you are, as you have had at least 8 profiles during the past month or two. It is my intent to be respectful to you, and also to keep an honest blog. God's Grace and Peace to you, Susan. |
|
|
| October 22, 2007 |
|
|
|
Gee, I have been off line a couple days. I guess I missed a lot. I would still like to knoow the chapters a verse where the words you claim are in the bible. Also, "Paul" wrote about 90% of the New Testamint.
There are several versions of the Bible The oldest, The Septugint from about 277bc
The "Peschito, or Old Seric Versionmade about the close of the second century.
The later Syric Version made in a.d. 488-518
It is known as the "Philoxenian", or "Syro-Philoxenian" Version. from the name of Philoxenous, Biship of Hierapolis, in Seria, who enployed the Polycarp to make it.
The Coptic (or Memphitic) Version was made from the Septtuagint in the third century, but not printed till 1716, at Oxford.
The Ethiopic (or Abyssinian) Version was made in the second century.
The Armenenian Version made also from the Septuagint towards the close of the 4th cenrtury, oe early 5th.
The Vulgate Version from the 4th century as Latin displaced the Greek.Known as the Itala, or the Italic Version,ordered by Jerome. Arevised version by Jerome, who re-translated the Old Testament from the Hebrew, a.d. 385-405. In 604 became known as the Vulgate Version. Declared the "Authentic" Versin by the council of Trent.
Thomas James exposed the numerous additions, omisssions and alterations between the two. Afterwhich came The Complututensian Polyglot....1514 The Erasmus..1516, Stephens...1546, The Beza (known as the Textus Receptus), Elzivir..1624, Griesbacch..1774, ..Sholz...1830, Lachmann...1831-50, Tischendorf...1841-72, Tregelles...1856-72, Alford...1862-71, Wordsworth..1870, Reviser's Text..1881, Westcott and Hort..1881-1903 Serviener...1886, ...Weymoth...1886, Nestle..1904 Not to mention the 1611.
But, there have been many who have tried to re-write it. That is why there is so much confusion.
I have a copy of the "Beza". Still can't find what was claimed above. Please give Chapter and verce. Thank you!!
See my blog on Codex for olde texts. There is "NO" doubt in my mind it was not "Devinely inspired". TOO much? I have more!!
|
|
|
| October 22, 2007 |
|
|
|
Jack said: "God is real and the Bible will reveal Him to us. The Bible is the "written word" about the Word, which be Christ. " Exactly! :)
Hevinlee, I am going ot leave your first post temporarily, to give you time to repost it more succinctly, if you so choose. I may later delete it for its size. Your opinion is welcome here, as well as your personal response to the 3 "errors" I noted here (in brown font). How do you explain that the Bible says this? Be blessed, sister, and love mercy! |
|
|
| October 22, 2007 |
|
|
|
| Golden2100, scroll up to your original post, and I responded to your question there. |
|
|
| October 22, 2007 |
|
|
|
I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and I believe that it is without error. Here’s what that means to me. God used people to put His message on paper, and despite linguistic issues of converting between multiple languages, the Holy Spirit guides the translators to capture The Point that God is looking to make. I believe that every section of the Bible has relevance to our life today as well as to those in the past. Otherwise, what would be the point having it written down?
Much of the discussion we get into about the Bible relates to varying understandings of why we have a Bible in the first place.
I believe that the fundamental purpose of the Bible is to: 1) teach us who God is, 2) teach us who we are as people, and 3) teach us about the nature of the relationships between us. Anytime I come across a passage or a theme that is difficult to accept or perhaps even seems contradictory, I assume that the problem is with my own understanding. Thinking back on the purpose of the Bible often helps me get past roadblocks and apparent “discrepancies”.
Gene |
|
|
| October 22, 2007 |
|
|
|
Whoops!! Sorry Kathy I just saw yoour corection. though I have not looked at it. I did think you might like to see how many "copies" have been made in the long years. It's amazing there is any words left from the true scriptures. There are also many "Hebrasims", like being "under the sun".
Which translates, being in the flesh. They were aded as literal, I would guess. Because of the old "Anglo-Saxon". As I mentioned to one person a while ago. Heart really translates, "mind". Crazy as it may seam. The word is,#2588 in the Strong's and translates, kardia, kar-dee'-ah from the prim kapkae (latin,cor, heart) the heart, ie (fig) the thoughts and feelins (mind) also, the middle.
Let it not be said. you don't inspire anyone to write. I have read the intire Bible, myself. Word for word. I did not go from cover to cover though. I went to both the old and New Testaments. It took me nine years of daily study. I have sterted over again. I hope I live long enough to finish again. God bless!! |
|
|
| October 22, 2007 |
|
|
|
Hi Gene! thank you for reading and joining the dialogue! Your post seems a perfect example of my statement that everyone who claims inerrancy has his own definition; and from your definition, I don't see a lot of difference between what you and I believe about the Bible. As you read this blog, did you mostly resonate or disagree with it? I know the word inerrancy is so important in some Christian circles, but if we think about it, inerrancy literally means without error, and if we define inerrancy as having certain exceptions (translation, copy, etc.), can that really be inerrant? (If we define something as "green" except that it has no yellow in it, then can we really call it green? We can call it whatever we want, but it is still blue.) These thoughts are not exclusively for you, Gene. You just got me to thinking . . . Thanks for posting!
Pastor Tim, I would never discount the possibility you present, and if there were only 1-2 discrepancies in the Bible, I would be inclined to try to justify them as you have here. It seems unlikely to me , however, that the truth should require such justification of so many; and do you find that inerrantists are also willing to concede the "justifications" of more "liberal" Christians, or do they then call for only a literal reading? Have you ever seen a true discrepancy in the Bible? What do you think about the first example I gave? I'm asking these questions because I respect your intelligence, and I often learn from you as you sharpen my thinking! |
|
|
| October 22, 2007 |
|
|
|
Kathy,
It resonated quite well with me.
Jesus Christ is the Word Made Flesh. The Bible is the Written Word of God. Both are given to us so that we may know the Father and have true Life...so that we may have Truth. Thus this is the reference point for determining lack of error. Because it is God Himself who has given us the Bible, we must also then believe that He Himself will guide every translation to carry His message across the linguistic divides throughout the centuries.
Every author was inspired by God to make one or more points to be carried through the ages. In the Gospel accounts of Christ, I believe that Jesus was not a "...How 'bout them RedSox?.." kind of guy. Everything He did or said as captured in scripture is there for a reason. Everything.
It is up to us to adhere to what we are taught and to search the scriptures for ourselves. But we must do so with the One who inspired it all. We must close out the world around us, lay aside our own wants and desires which sometimes requires fasting, and pray for guidance and understanding.
The biggest scriptural breakthrough I ever had was very late one night I was studying my long list of communion references. In total frustration when I literally pounded the table and cried out in anger, "God! I believe what you're telling me! I just ... don't.... get it!"
The next time I received communion, I got it! I met Christ face-to-face for the first time. That was about 9 or 10 years ago. And guess what....it continues to this day.
God is a big picture person. Jesus came down hard on the ones who took things too literally, condemming people for what they did or didn't do. Jesus wants us to know him, to Love Him, and Serve Him. That's it. Period.
The Bible plays a supporting role in that, as does prayer, fasting, teaching, communion, and service to those in need. All of these things mold our hearts. And that's what God wants the most.
Gene
PS: This post in not intended to imply that God favors the Sox over the Rockies.......or the Cubs or the Cards.....
|
|
|
| October 23, 2007 |
|
|
|
| Gene, I really did use to think God favored Notre Dame, but I've since realized that he must be a bit busy the last few years......haha.... |
|
|
| October 23, 2007 |
|
|
|
Alrighty, I looked up both chapters and from what I am made to understand. 24:l is in an histotical fact. In chron 21:l we have the real fact from a devine standpoint l Chron 21:l is the esoteric. Example, see Ex 4:21 5:22 Jer 4:10 Ezek 14:9; 20:25 Matt ll:25, 13:ll Rom 9:18; ll:7, 8 2 Thes 2:ll God's permission but Saton's sugestion (Jas, l:13, 14) or "yasath" "David was moved" may be taken impersonally.
God bless!! |
|
|
| October 23, 2007 |
|
|
|
3:16 Every scripture inspired of God `is' also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.
I had to print this blog out and spend some time in prayer of this very subject. I have to say thanks for the commentary. I think I see your point. For me it really comes down to a question of faith. |
|
|
| October 23, 2007 |
|
|
|
Pastor Tim,
Could you elaborate on the differences between the 3 views you listed above? I've never heard of them.
For example, does the modernest view mean that only sections of it are inspired by God, while other sections are there to somehow help the reader transition to teach history or science, or maybe the scribe was paid by the page, or ....?
And in the neoorthodox view, does this mean that the Bible in and of itself, sitting on a rack at B&N, is not the Word of God? What does it take (what's the trigger) for it to become the Word of God? When does it stop being the Word of God?
Thanks,
Gene
|
|
|
| October 23, 2007 |
|
|
|
Pastor Tim said, "While the Bible is infallible, human interpretations are not. " .... and will never be.....
Hopeful Dave said, "For me it really comes down to a question of faith"
What we have here is a head vs heart issue..... can/will I believe, trust, obey inspite of what I believe to be discrepancies? Because after all is said and done, if it is ever all said and done, souls still gotta be saved.
Pastor Aminata |
|
|
| October 23, 2007 |
|
|
|
I believe that every time we encounter what appears to be an error or a discrepancy we are being called to look more deeply into what God is trying to teach us. This really hit home in studying the two accounts of creation. The sequences described in Gen 11 – Gen 2:4 & Gen 2:5 and following oppose each other. Which then begs the question, "What’s the point that God is trying to make?
There is a literal level of understanding that we must all look for and attempt to understand and apply. But in the same way that Jesus used parables I believe that the Bible is written in a manner that calls us to a deeper level of understanding as well.
The real message I got from Gen 1 is that God is the creator of all things, and they are all good.
The real message I got from Gen 2 is that God took His time to create each and every one of us, one at a time, for a purpose. He made Kathy and focused only on Kathy. He made Jack and focused only on Jack. He made me and focused only on me. And with each one individually in mind, he made someone especially for each one of us.
Think about the Israelites. They were in captivity for 400 years subjugated by a culture in which there were multiple gods for everything. So the first thing He does when He gets them out of Egypt is to set them straight. All of these things they worshiped are in fact made by God and by God alone. And when we prayerfully pick up the bible for the first time we get the same message.
So I no longer see discrepancies in the Bible. I see only a limit to my understanding.
|
|
|
| October 23, 2007 |
|
|
|
Gene,
That's too deep!
Pastor Aminata |
|
|
| October 23, 2007 |
|
|
|
| Does that mean wrong? |
|
|
| October 23, 2007 |
|
|
|
Gene,
lol.... it means outstanding! Awesome!
Pastor Aminata |
|
|
| October 23, 2007 |
|
|
|
Oh I step away for a day and much has happened. Kathy, Imade a typo that may have been misunderstood:
People who cite discrepancies usally don't actually find them...I did take not to the ones you listed and since the Bible was not written by a timeline it is difficult to know for sure.
I did take not was supposed to say I did take NOTE...please forgive the error...I suffer with nerve damage in my hands and have to re edit and correct even this sentence probably 20 times...
Hey Jack, never had the opportunity to speak with you before but you seem pretty educated...please do not take this offensively for I do not mean it that way but I meet a lot of self proclaimed greek experts...as I am sure you have as well...and while I myself am not one I have had enough greek language training to know that people make mistakes attempting to translate a single word without using the references of the other words around that. The ancient languages were not written in a manner that could be translated "word for word." That is why it took nearly 30 years to make the last set of biblical standards from the earliest writings. Words take on different definitions based upon the words that precede and procede them.
Kathy, you may like to know this but every document that we have in existence has minor discrepancies one to another...but none of them effect doctrine or the message. Most of them are spelling differences. Which is not surprising to me...only God is perfect and He has kept His perfect truth alive for us through the hands of flawed man...amazing
There are numerous mathematical features in the writing of the Bible that has mathematically proven beyond a question the authority of it and that man could have never written it randomly. A mathematical challenge went out a few years mack for anyone to write one sentence with same mathematical features contained in the bible...in the aramic and greek...every proper noun is divisible by 7. Every sentence is divisible by 7. Every grouping (not verse #'s) is divisible by 7. It has been 1400 years and though many attempts...no one has ever been able to write 1 single sentence.
I will repeat what I said before and that is when we make the actual book out to be a god, why not start erecting idols...is there a difference. John makes it clear that in the beginning was the Word...and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Obviously it wasn't the book. A Bible is man's way of containing the Word and maintaining it...and is excellent...but I think your direction is right.
Again, your initial example can be questioned as to whether it truly is a contradiction or is it two events since both books which span many years can be read in hours...but this is for sure...God through His Word has provided us with an amazing resource to learn God's language and love for us...but anyone who would pray to it...well that is weird.
Again, an excellent blog
For excellent source on the writing of the Bible try the book New Testament Survey by Merril C. Tenney |
|
|
| October 23, 2007 |
|
|
|
I'm going to have to stop going to work, so I can keep up with the blogs! :)
Shannon, Welcome! I look forward to hearing your thoughts!
Jack, you said, "I believe most or at least many of the writings in the margins of your Bibles purpose to correct and clarify." I agree with you, especially in the older study Bibles. Now, however, with so many study Bibles coming out, they are becoming quite politicized. For example, there was a new Baptist Study Bible published in 2001, and I'd just as soon take the new seminary "how to be a good submissive wife" classes as to read that! (No, I have no problem with women choosing to be "good submissive wives." To chase this rabbit, see my Women, Shut Up! blog.)
Gene said, "Jesus came down hard on the ones who took things too literally, condemming people for what they did or didn't do." I agree. I don't understand how serious Bible readers can gloss over this and separate ourselves so completely from the NT legalists. See my Why Biblical Guidance Doesn't Work blog.
And I don't think God cares who wins professional sports games, but He is a college fan. He did paint the sky Carolina Tarheel blue, you know! (As Dennis said, though, I think He's been busy with other things this season!) |
|
|
| October 23, 2007 |
|
|
|
Hal wrote: "The lengths to which some will go to disprove the Bible's inerrancy." I totally agree, Hal. When we start with a position and set out to defend it, our arguments often reach to levels of ridiculousness. Whether we are talking about defending irrerancy or disproving it, if that is our goal, our arguments, often become hollow or far-fetched. Several of the posts here may fit this category. What if we had no political bias and our one goal in reading the Scripture was to know the Truth? Would we ever naturally become such extremists? I understand the tough position especially of fundamentalists, and even more so of fundamentalist pastors. They are members of an exclusive club, and they have sold themselves wholly to the movement. Their churches expect it, as do their peers. To consider such a blog as this one would likely get them dismissed from their church and their entire social network. But can we totally dismiss it in our own hearts. Maybe we can't talk about it. Or maybe not even post our most meaningful thoughts here where others might see it, but we can pray, and we can read privately with a slightly more open mind. Fundamentalists have constructed a powerful box with strong boundaries. But the walls are crumbly because too much of Truth is left outside. The truth is not up to us to define. Truth is. We can seek it, or we can adopt a pseudo-truth and defend it in God's name. But the Truth will remain, whatever it might be, with or without our endorsement.
Some of you are educated intelligent men of God, and I have no doubt of that. Yet, some of the responses here sound canned, like from a textbook, because that is the way our factions teach us to respond. Speak as the herd. Defend the extreme even when you realize a question has been posed that you can't answer, at least not without cracking open the box. Paul's life was respectable and comfortable before He saw the Truth. When Martin Luther recognized the problems within the Church, he lost all support and even had to fake his death for safety. They saw deeper Truth than their boxes had allowed. A prayer of compassion for you, my brothers. Some of you are my best friends.
Dave, great to see you here! It is definitely about faith!
Golden, Dennis, Gene, Hal, Pastor Tim, Pastor Aminata, Jack, and Webyouthpastor, thank you for adding so much depth to this discussion. |
|
|
| October 23, 2007 |
|
|
|
Pastor Tim,
Thanks for the descriptions. I guess of those you've listed I'm on the evangelical-conceptual side, but I'd be inclined to tweak that a little.
Gene
|
|
|
| October 24, 2007 |
|
|
|
Jack said: "the word is written in such a way that it can be made to say just about anything and 30,000 denominations confirm this." Jack, you are so right about this. By picking an choosing which passages are the "important" ones (of course we all deny doing this), and by having the answer beforehand and going to the Scripture to find a passage to prove it, every denomination and sect can prove they are the most correct one. Thank you for sharing your story here.
Pastor Tim, although I too enjoy seeing what various categories I fall into, I wonder if we have not categorized ourselves enough already. I am not familiar with the categories you have lined out here, but I'm sure we don't all fit neatly into one or the other. Is such categorizing not further dividing God's children. Another way to say "He/She is not in our camp." I agree there are benefits to creating such categories in order to facilitate certain discussions or studies, if we realize that all such categories are man-conceived generalities. For example, I enjoy looking at and discussing the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, but I realize it is not flawless. What are you thoughts on this? What do you perceive as the purpose for the categories you've delineated here? (I'm not arguing. I'm seeking to more fully understand your point of view.)
Mike and Jack, I don't think either of you is advocating an either/or here. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) If we are saturated in God's Spirit, we will be in a constant interplay between studying His Word and communing with His Spirit. The two should live together in unity. A difficult concept to teach our churches though, as we are so geared toward what is concrete (the words on the page) that we may miss the Spirit Himself when He speaks. |
|
|
| October 24, 2007 |
|
|
|
First of all thank you Jack for making me aware of this writing and discussion. Even though I havn't finished reading every comment yet I enjoyed what I was reading so far. I actually planned to write something on my own and have put something on my blog after I came here. So here's the link: http://www.mychurch.org/abbaschild/blog?blogadded=1&c= |
|
|
| October 24, 2007 |
|
|
|
Hi Florian! Nice to meet you. Please feel free to join our dialogue.
Pastor Tim, I appreciate everything (even categories) that you add to a discussion! I too would differentiate between fundmentalists and evangelicals, although most often they seem to go hand in hand, and rarely are the terms differentiated in public discussion. Please briefly share your personal definitions with us if you have the time. |
|
|
| October 24, 2007 |
|
|
|
For me revelation happens anytime I enter into the Presence of God, whether that be at home in prayer, during communion, in Bible study, and just in talking with others.
Gene |
|
|
| October 24, 2007 |
|
|
|
Gene, me too. :)
lol Pastor Tim! Complementarianism vs. egalitarianism! Finally a division I know exactly where I fit! (But don't tell anybody!) :) Would you equate complementarianism with fundamentalism? I'm guessing no since you claim one and not the other, if I understand you correctly. What do you see as the relationship between the two? I have always thought of fundamentalism as an umbrella over complementarianism, but that would mean all complementarians are fundamentalists. Yet, I would be surprised to hear that fundamentalism and egalitarianism have any overlap. So yes, I'm interested in hearing more, not only on these two categories, but also your definition of evangelicalism and fundamentalism and their relationship. And thank you, Pastor Tim, for your very kind words. You are always loving and respectful. The Spirit is evident in you. |
|
|
| October 24, 2007 |
|
|
|
Boy, It's amazing how fast things can move when you go away for a weekend and have a meeting on Monday after work. I was going to comment about 20 comments ago but that's just silly now.
Anyway, great blog Kathy. I think I have to put myself in the same camp as Gene (conveniently that works for us namesakes here).
I think that we need a lexicon too identify the various groups, associations, affiliations, and thought processes. I have always thought that evangelical meant that the belief was to bring as many as possible into the knowledge of Christ through the outward preaching and teaching of the Gospel. THAT definition goes beyond what is being bifurcated here.
I too would like to see if the terms PT has can be used to better focus the discussion. I fall more into the evangelical-neo-orthodox position. Given the vast times between transcriptions of the Old Testament texts and the known discrepancies in some of those translations I think we need to also define whether we are talking about original text or about the printing we have on the coffee table. I hope most people will agree that those two are not the same. At least my copy isn't in ancient Hebrew or Common Greek.
So we need to define which copy we're talking about, which language we're reading and then get back to picking at each other - I can hardly wait!
* * * * * DG (if you want to know I can explain; or ask Dana) |
|
|
| October 24, 2007 |
|
|
|
Hi Gene! I'm glad you pointed out that there are 2 Genes here! The thumbnails are so small I didn't catch it! From now on, any Genes on this blog have to be in full theological agreement with each other so I don't get confused! :)
Please don't hesitate to respond a comment here no matter how far back it was. Commenters always appreciate their points coming back up, and a dialogue like this doesn't need to be linear. I agree with your definition of Evangelical, but I'm far to tired tonight to delve into a discussion on original autographs. I'll leave you guys to stir that one up, and I'll join in when I'm more rested!
Thank you for adding your thoughts here! |
|
|
| October 24, 2007 |
|
|
|
Kathy, you get another star because you need the rest too.
Anyway, all these "genes" around here are what helps make up our cultural DNA.
peace!
I'll check back on the morrow. |
|
|
| October 24, 2007 |
|
|
|
I wish everyone would wait to comment until I came home from work...this is amazing...there is no way I can keep up but obviously Kathy you found oil here...
So I will sing a song...
THE B I B L E...yes that's the book for me... ok I will stop now |
|
|
| October 24, 2007 |
|
|
|
Pastor Tim,
That was very clear to me despite your haste - thanks.
The Other Gene |
|
|
| October 25, 2007 |
|
|
|
Kathy,
Greetings in Jesus' Name. I had sent you a request long ago to add you as a friend. But still your request is pending. I think you do not want to add me as your friend.
Your article is excellent. Many scholars dispute the contents of certain instances of the Bible through their intellectuals. Please read my articles at the following links:
http://propheticschool.googlepages.com/god
http://propheticschool.googlepages.com/word
http://gloryofhiscross.googlepages.com/newtestament
In the above links, by the grace and wisdom of God, I have argued effectively with those who had disputed the genuineness of the Bible. They have quoted certain instances from the Old Testament to prove that the Bible was only a fiction.
Job Anbalagan
|
|
|
| October 25, 2007 |
|
|
|
| Job: Some people only like those that agree with them and follow their ideas and opinions. Truth is not very well accepted in these last days as some fall away and are led away. Only very few know and believe the truth. The path is wide and the gate is narrow. |
|
|
| October 25, 2007 |
|
|
|
I am playing nice and I am not talking bad about anyone nor have I ever. I am only stating what I have seen and observed and experienced on MyChurch by Christians. I said 'some people'. So, I am not referring to anyone in particular. I also only state and post bible truth. not doctrines or teachings or traditions of man. God did write the bible. He is the Author.
I know many talk bad about me and it does not bother me at all. All will give an account for what they say, every idle word. I have done nothing wrong. The truth is not liked. They did not like what Jesus said then and they don't like it now either. Not even some Christians. They do not want to obey. That is why the divorce rate is so high even among Christians. And many other things. The bible warned about all of it and it's coming to pass in these last days. |
|
|
| October 25, 2007 |
|
|
|
Wow has this blog taken on a life of it's own.
I think I agree with the Genes on this topic. Kathy I at first confused the Genes as well, but they both accepted my friend invite and they seem to be mostly on the same page so all is well.
PT that is a great explanation as far as I can tell. I would most like to claim the name of
Christ-ian rather than either of the other terms for myself.
Once again great topic Kathy thanks for starting all this rolling. |
|
|
| October 25, 2007 |
|
|
|
lol, Red Shirt Gene! You guys have pretty good DNA as far as I can tell! (Please don't change shirts!)
Very interesting material, Jack. How did you get so interested in the errors of the Bible, and what do you hope to accomplish through your blog posts? (i.e. Why is it so important to you that Christians hear your findings?)
lol webyouthpastor! Sometimes this dialogue gets to heavy, I want to return to the simplicity of that little song too! :) btw, you sing beautifully!
Pastor Tim, thanks for the clear definitions. I have never heard Evangelicalism defined in that way. Is this a widely used definition? By a particular denomination or faction? When did this definition first appear? Was it reactionary in response to Fundamentalism? Very interesting distinction. (Forgive all my questions! I have an inquiring mind!) :)
Hi Yellow shirt Gene! (Don't change shirts!) :) |
|
|
| October 25, 2007 |
|
|
|
Job, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this blog! I have not read your articles, but would welcome your brief summaries of their main points here for our discussion. God bless you, my friend!
Hi Hope (aka Susie/Susan/PreacherGirl/DiscipleofChrist/Angel/Lily/Soldier/Grace/Hope)! Soldier and Grace deleted their posts here. May God bless and watch over you.
Hi MHGuitarist. I agree.
Glenn, It's always a pleasure to hear from you! |
|
|
| October 25, 2007 |
|
|
|
As someone who often argues one side of a discussion, but rarely sits exclusively on on side or the other, I offer an a few words on the other side of the fence.
As far as errancy occurs, the Bible does contain errors, translation errors, copy errors, etc. However, the percentage of those errors makes the Bible THE most reliable literature from ancient times.
In his book "Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Volume I" (1979, Campus Crusade for Christ), Josh McDowell points out some interesting facts. I'll list a few:
- the Bible was written over a 1500 year span
- over 40 generations
- by over 40 authors
- read by more people and published in more languages than any other book
- contains more manuscript evidence than ANY 10 pieces of classical literature combined. e.g. Shakespeare written over 200 years ago, is far more corrupt and uncertain than the text of the entire New Testament
- the black stele proves that writing existed 300 years before Moses
- the Bible deals very frankly with the sins of its leaders, a practice unique to history both ancient and modern, which usually paints the victors as the heroes without major faults and only the losers as evil
- the works that make up the New Testament were the most widely copied and circulated books of antiquity, and we have more than 24,000 copies of early versions (4th century) containing either whole books or portions still in existence today
- Homer's ILIAD contains 764 questionable lines compared to 40 lines in the New Testament
- NOT ONE questionable line in the New Testament alters a significant doctrine, article of faith or other important tenet of Christianity
- mathematically the New Testament is 98.33% pure
- the Old Testament was preserved even more fastidiously, a phenomenon unique in the history of literature |
|
|
| October 25, 2007 |
|
|
|
I am only Hope. I don't know why you insist on calling me by every one of those other names that are no longer active accounts. That is very odd of you to do that. All those accounts are closed so all the comments are gone too. You can save your self the trouble and just refer to me as Hope.
Thanks for the blessing. I pray for you too. I hope you will accept the truth soon.
I invite you to come visit my site for true sound biblical teachings. I believe and agree with everything in the bible and I do my very best to obey and do the will of God. Follow Jesus and be led by the Holy Spirit and worship in Spirit and in Truth. obey and follow only ture bible doctrines of Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior. My Shepherd and Bishop of my soul
When I see your post back at the top, I admit I am curious to see what others think of it. |
|
|
| October 25, 2007 |
|
|
|
Thank you, Jack, for your response. I have never made any real study of the word hell, but am aware of several of the different words you mention and of what they meant to the first readers.
Grant, thank you for an excellent post of great information! I trust Josh McDowell to have checked his facts! The stats add a lot here!
Thanks, Hope. |
|
|
| October 25, 2007 |
|
|
|
| Grant does make a great point...there have been many studies of the Bible and many people trying to prove it wrong, yet all settle on a few errors/conflicts that we can't explain. All the elements that are truly critical to the message of the Gospel go rather undisputed. |
|
|
| October 25, 2007 |
|
|
|
Thanks Kathy. I love scholarship and good research. I also love to see both sides of an argument and often as a result am less dogmatic about non-essentials, extracting out what to me are the REAL essentials over which I believe EVERY Christian can be dogmatic. Hmmm! How dogmatic is that?!? LOL.
Voice, I think that your comment also goes along with the discussions on which translation to use. I don't know of a single translation, even the horribly bad ones like the one the JW's use, which mistranslates the essentials of the Christian faith. Essentials like the Sermon on the Mount, the Great Commandments and the Great Commission are preserved even in the worst of translations. |
|
|
| October 26, 2007 |
|
|
|
Voice said: "All the elements that are truly critical to the message of the Gospel go rather undisputed," and Grant said: "I also love to see both sides of an argument and often as a result am less dogmatic about non-essentials." lol - I think I would agree with that, meaning that most disputes over the Gospel are about issues I do not consider critical (i.e. essentials). However, I would assume that those who are disputing them might sorely disagree! :) It is so important though, for deeper understanding, to read and listen to differing views! When I hear a Christian brother or sister make a claim that disturbs me, rather than attack, I want to understand how he/she could have come to such a conviction. I may still not agree, but I want to understand.
It's also important to be able to see biases when we read and listen. In Grant's post, for example, of Josh McDowell's stats, one of the points says: "NOT ONE questionable line in the New Testament alters a significant doctrine, article of faith or other important tenet of Christianity
- mathematically the New Testament is 98.33% pure." Clearly a biased statement, as it is questionable how anyone could go about arriving at a percentage of purity. Against what "pure" standard was the NT compared? Which NT was used in the comparison? And what kind of system was used to arrive at 98.33%? Such a statistic immediately cries for an explanation, which then most likely leads to a dispute of the claim. The intended significance, however, that the errors in the Bible do not detract from its validity, is one with which I'm in agreement!
Jack, I have appreciated your input here, although I have rarely responded directly to your studies, as I have not studied in depth the areas you have talked about. (I try to stay out of conversations where I haven't done any homework!) I understand your "farewell" but welcome you back should you be drawn back in! :) |
|
|
| October 26, 2007 |
|
|
|
I felt led to post something I read this morning. "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe." [emphasis mine, obviously] Reading that brought this blog to mind. ~mike |
|
|
| October 26, 2007 |
|
|
|
Kathy wrote, "their Bible would be the first thing they’d grab on the way out"
Just as a point of information: Many families have family Bibles that are handed down and contain invaluable historical records, so this might be a factor in why they say this.
Inerrancy or infallability: This is a single word that references a larger doctrine. The fact that many don't have a solid grasp on this doctrine does not diminish the importance of the doctrine, nor diminish its usefulness. Are we to say the Word of God is full of errors and cannot be trusted? If so, why read falsehoods? The doctrine of inerrancy is extremely useful, but it may be helpful to teach the doctrine to the person you are talking to first before using it.
Kathy wrote, "For example, it was not known at the time of Biblical writing that the earth was round."
It's my understanding that the Old Testament Jews DID know the Earth was round, but the Europeans from 600 years ago had lost this knowledge. Isaiah 40:22. It can be argued that this verse is phenomenological in that if you trace the horizon from a mountain, you will trace a circle. Nevertheless, the Bible does not teach the Earth is flat but is consistent with what we see the world to actually be. This is not an error in the least!
Regarding the census, this webpage gives a few plausible explanations. What's important, I think, is to humble ourselves and give God the benefit of doubt. We weren't there. He was. If we were there, the two descriptions might make a lot more sense. When we declare this is an error, we are placing our thoughts above God's. ...Of course, that statement presupposes the inerrancy of God's Word as recorded in the Bible.
Kathy wrote, "when the New Testament writers wrote of Scripture, they were referring to certain Old Testament scrolls, and probably some other writings that our canon has not preserved."
I believe there are two things happening. When a NT writer writes "scripture," I'm pretty sure the writer was thinking the Law, Prophets, and Psalms. This includes 2 Sam 24 and 1 Chron 21. However, they were inspired by God and I believe God meant the New Testament as well, plus any future writings that may be deemed by spirit-filled Christians to be added to the 66-book canon (nothing in the Bible says it's closed), such as, I speculate, the proclamations of the Two Witnesses. Controversial blog, Kathy. You know how to stir people up. All-in-all, I already agreed with you. I disagree that the doctrine of inerrancy is useless. I find the doctrine to be absolutely foundational -- even more foundational than the fact that Jesus died for my sins, because if we cannot trust scripture, then we have absolutely nothing to base our beliefs on. I see this very thing happening to America: the secular world is tearing down the first 11 chapters of Genesis and Christians are helping the world do this. But if we cannot trust what God wrote about how He created the world (and us), why should we trust Jesus was born of a virgin or rose on the 3rd day? After all, "science" says those things are impossible! |
|
|
| October 26, 2007 |
|
|
|
I just remembered that the Bible contains THREE instances where God wrote stuff directly with His own finger: (1) God wrote the 10 Commandments with his finger (Ex 20; Deu 4)
(2) The phrase "Mene, Mene, Tekel, Parsin" was written on the wall directly by God with a disembodied finger (Dan 5:25)
(3) Jesus wrote things in the sand (John 8:7) Unfortunately, John didn't record what Jesus wrote. :( Curious how all three instances were written with a finger. In the two cases, I am positive that it doesn't get much clearer and more-sure than the Hebrew that God wrote (assuming human copying was flawless). In these two (focused) cases, the Bible actually WAS written literally by God. Just a few extra random thoughts... :) |
|
|
| October 26, 2007 |
|
|
|
Mike, thank you for sharing what God gave you! Paul's words to the Thessalonians are a very appropriate reminder here, and certainly complementary to the spirit of this blog.
Eric, I always appreciate your scholarly input to any dialogue, and judging from your words here, I would agree with you that you and I are not far apart on this issue. There are, however, a couple of points where your post seems to misrepresent the intended message of this blog, and I want to address those so none of the readers misunderstand. (Please correct me if I misinterpret.)
First, pertaining to carrying the Bible out in the case of a fire, I agree those who are fortunate enough to possess an heirloom family Bible would likely fall into that category. However, I was referring to a separate mindset from this one - those who see their Bible as God Himself. I have personally heard this said many times. "If your house were burning and you could grab 3 things, what would they be?" seems to be an oft repeated question of discussion, and these people believe the "right answer" is "the Bible." (One of my own priorities would be my Bible journal, with the notes I take as I read the Bible, but that's a different issue.)
Now to a couple of more important points. You said: "Are we to say the Word of God is full of errors and cannot be trusted?" No, Eric, and this blog disputes that claim rather than supporting it.
Finally, in your final paragraph, you said" "I disagree that the doctrine of inerrancy is useless." Please note that what I said was that I found the word inerrant useless, not the doctrine, and I think you have illustrated my point well. Let me try again to explain. Inerrancy means literally "without error." If the Bible contains just one error, regardless of the reason, then inerrant is not an appropriate word with which to describe it. I explained that I find it a meaningless word for just the reason you argue: that it has to be explained by whomever is using it at the time. The word itself means "without error," and if that has to be explained, then we need to find a more appropriate word. "Inerrancy" has become so politicized, however, that many think it is Scriptural itself, and that not using it would be blasphemy. The Bible is the Word of God. It is not the words of God (your three examples and others excepted), and it is not God.
I invite you to share your version of the "inerrancy" doctrine with us. There are many versions. Most of which say the Bible is free of errors in its original autographs (which we don't have), or except for translation errors, or except for science and history, . . . My point is that "inerrancy" means "no exceptions." Keep the doctrine, which is not nearly as divisive among believers, and lose the label, which is meaningless as we use it. (There are some who claim their own version of the Bible is written by God and without any error at all. These people can sensibly use the word . . .)
Thanks, Eric, for posting here. And, if you have time, I do hope you'll discuss your idea of inerrancy a little further. It would add more to the total picture here. I also found some of your points interesting and worth discussing, but I'll hold off so I don't scare you away! :)
Pastor Tim, that website was very helpful! Thank you! There was more that I'd like to read later also. Being a lifetime Southern Baptist, I am so immersed in that culture and in their terminology that I sometimes misunderstand when the Christian culture as a whole uses the same terms. My understanding of "fundamentalist" is much narrower, for example, although I know the term itself literally means "one who adheres to the fundamentals of the faith." Politics often kidnap good words, but I digress! I do have another question for you. The website listed Dobson, Falwell, and Robertson as evangelicals, and I would certainly agree. Would you also call them "fundamentalists?" (You can ignore my questions anytime you want to!) :) Thanks, Pastor Tim! |
|
|
| October 26, 2007 |
|
|
|
Interesting, on a side note, but not really, in my side of the world those same 3 mentioned above are considered "evangelical fundamentalists". I guess because their political views are so close.
Pastor Aminata |
|
|
| October 26, 2007 |
|
|
|
Ok, an Amen goes right there!
Pastor Aminata |
|
|
| October 26, 2007 |
|
|
|
And another Amen, Jack.
Point well taken.
Kathy, although my comment did not receive any follow-up, I take it that we have moved to the point of discussing the original texts and not the various and sundry translations that are present. The translations assist us in understanding what the original texts may have intended but the question to the blog relates to original text.
As such, I too would welcome the discussion regarding the definition of inerrancy as well as the separate discussion of "spoken Word" - whispered or inspired?
PT, the website was very helpful. I'm not sure that everyone would agree to those definitions however. Kathy, will you allow those to be the terms to continue as part of this blog?
Whether evangelical or fundamental, I think the agreement is that God was behind the texts taht we use today as "Holy" scripture. What of the "other texts" that were not cannonized? What are they to us today? |
|
|
| October 26, 2007 |
|
|
|
Jack, you are so right to call for unity among Christians, as was Jesus' prayer for us. We would do well to throw away all our labels and serve together as brothers and sisters. However, since we have failed at this, it is somewhat helpful to understand all the different schools of belief. As has been noted repeatedly though, we are not all in agreement, even about what all the labels mean, and we all come to a discussion with our own biases and preconceived opinions, making true unity improbable. Sometimes it takes tragedy or disaster to stop the fighting between brothers and sisters and to bring them together. I see hope though, even in this blog discussion. Christians of different positions are respectfully talking and listening to each other. In 150 comments, there has been very little knee-jerk accusation, but rather looking at an important issue from all our different angles. MyChurch is a great site to practice "playing well with others!"
Gene, I don't want to lock any rules into our discussion here or even to call for all discussion to be linear, but discussions/negotiations about definitions and about original texts are very welcome! As well as discussion on the noncanonical texts, which are not accepted by the Church as inspired by God. You bring up some very interesting questions. I don't know how many readers here have read any of the other texts. I enjoy reading them, as I would enjoy reading any other literature from the first few centuries, but I don't read them as God's Word, choosing to trust that God's hand was in the canonization process. I accept the decision of those who chose to leave them out, some for theology, some for authorship authenticity (although several canonized books are questionable in that area), some for their dates . . . Sounds like an interesting topic to me! What are your views, Gene? Are there some that you consider inspired? What about The Apocrypha, accepted by the Catholics? |
|
|
| October 26, 2007 |
|
|
|
| AWSOME, but only one thing I disagree with, you say God is perfect without mistakes, So why would God (who is perfect, and without mistakes) use a Bible "filled with discrepancies". Look at nature, how perfect it is, look at God's perfect love and justice working together hand in hand, Look at how marvelously he cuases all things to work together for the good of those who love Him, can you still look at that God and say his word is not perfect? perhaps (and believe me I mean NO disrespect) the 'discrepancies' are simply culturaly, linguisticaly, or transverable misunderstandings and misinterpretations? Please if you have some time, show me some of your discrepancies, I'm curios, I would like to see them myself and reseearch them further. |
|
|
| October 26, 2007 |
|
|
|
After a period of long and very intense bible study using only Protestant bibles, I became Catholic. But having grown up Baptist, I still had a very healthy alarm system, so I had a very hard time even opening the Apocrapha. But one day I got curious about what was really in there. So I flipped open a Catholic bible that happened to land on Daniel. I compared it to my KJV, NIV, and NLT. Take a look at the Daniel 3, the account of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego getting thrown into the fire.
Protestant: Daniel 3:23-24
Catholic: Daniel 3:23-91 http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/daniel/daniel3.htm
The two accounts just sounded completely different. In the short version, the king suddenly and immediately saw a 4th person in the fire who look like "…a son of the gods" [NIV] and jumps up". But in the long version, the king first hears the three men praying to God and praising His name. Then an angel clears an area and fills it with a dew-laden breeze. Then they really start singing His praises. This goes on for nearly 40 verses. After hearing all of that, that’s when the king jumps up.
I really recommend that you read it yourself. The King heard something very powerful for several minutes before he responsded. The account takes on a different feel. That’s when I started to warm up to what the Apocrapha contains. I certainly felt inspired having read the long version.
The Other Gene
|
|
|
| October 27, 2007 |
|
|
|
Interesting Blog
I had a blog where I said the Bible is just a book. I was trying a little less eloquently to say what you said here.
The book is closed until the key, the Holy Spirit, makes it alive to you
John 6:63 It is the Spirit that makes alive, the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit and are life. Without the key, we have but a shut door. Amazing how much depth there is to a page that is so thin.
Blessings |
|
|
| October 27, 2007 |
|
|
|
Kathy,
As desired by you, I give below an excerpt from my message in which I have defended the authenticity of the New Testament.
Some authors of Sikh Spectrum have questioned the authenticity of the Gospels. You can read their views at the following link:
http://www.sikhspectrum.com/022007/intro.htm
One dear servant of God, Jass Singh, from USA has contributed his views in this regard. His message was countered by one Mr.Rawel Singh.
Rawel Singh in his rebuttal message on the article “Historicity of the New Testament” by Jass Singh has questioned the authenticity of certain incidents in the life of Jesus Christ by raising certain question marks.
First of all, our respected Rawel Singh says that the concept of resurrection has been questioned by the people. When Paul said, “"If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain", Paul laid emphasis on the truth that Christ was risen from the dead. The statement of Paul has never put the doctrine of resurrection to a doubt.
Secondly, Rawel Singh says that after Jesus’ crucifixion none of His relatives – his mother and brothers were mentioned in Mathew 12:46. He wants to know why any of His 12 disciples did not care to claim His body. According to Singh, none of His disciples even cared to see where He had been buried. When Peter was informed by Mary Magdalene about the missing body, none of the other disciples bothered except an odd one. This seems to give credence to the Quran that not Jesus but a look alike was crucified. Even otherwise there are so many variations in the resurrection details in the four gospels that casting doubts is natural.
I respond to the queries raised by Rawel Singh. None of the eleven disciples of Jesus Christ came forward to claim the Body of Jesus Christ. But “there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus’ disciple; He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus” (Matt.27:57, 58). The disciples of Jesus Christ might have been frightened to come forward to claim the Body of Jesus Christ. There was no need for Mathew to mention about this incident in his gospel. The Mother and the brothers of Jesus Christ might have enquired to know the place where Jesus was buried. But this incident was not recorded by the author. The author was not supposed to record in a sequence all the incidents that took place after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Let us note that the authors did not merely record the biography of Jesus Christ at all.
The four gospels record the eternal being, human ancestry, birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus the Christ, Son of God, and Son of Man. They record also a selection from the incidents of His life, and from His words and works. Taken together, they set forth, not a biography but a Personality.
These two facts, that we have in the four gospels a complete Personality, but not a complete biography, indicate the spirit and intent in which we should approach them. What is important is that through these narratives we should come to see and know Him whom they reveal. It is of relatively small importance that we should be able to piece together out of these confessedly incomplete records (John 21:25 ) a connected story of His life. For some adequate reason – perhaps lest we should be too much occupied with “Christ after the flesh” – it did not please God to cause to be written a biography of His Son. The twenty nine formative years are passed over in a silence which is broken but once, and that in but twelve brief verses of Luke’s Gospel. It may be well to respect the divine reticencies.
But the four gospels, though designedly incomplete as a story, are divinely perfect as a revelation. We may not through them know everything that He did, but we may know the Doer. In four great characters, each of which completes the other three, we have Jesus Christ Himself. The authors never describe Christ but they set Him forth. They tell us almost nothing of what they thought about Him. They let Him speak and act for Himself.
This is the essential respect in which these narratives differ from mere biography or portraiture. “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life”. The student in whom dwells an ungrieved Spirit finds here the living Christ.
The Old Testament is a divinely provided introduction to the New; and whoever comes to the study of the four gospels with a mind saturated with the Old Testament foreview of the Christ, His person, work, and kingdom, will find them open books.
For the Gospels are woven of Old Testament quotation, allusion, and type. The very first verse of the New Testament drives the thoughtful reader back to the Old; and the risen Christ sent His disciples to the ancient oracles for an explanation of His sufferings and glory (Luke 24:27, 28, 44, 45). One of His last ministries was the opening of their understandings to understand the Old Testament.
Therefore, in approaching the study of the Gospels the mind should be freed, as far as possible, from mere theological concepts and presuppositions.
Especial emphasis rests upon that to which all four gospels bear a united testimony. That united testimony is seven fold:
In all alike is revealed the one unique Personality. The one Jesus is King in Matthew, Servant in Mark, Man in Luke, and God in John. But not only so; for Matthew’s King is also Servant, man, and God; and Mark’s Servant is also King and Man, and God; Luke’s Man is also King, and Servant, and God; and john’s eternal Son is also King, and Servant, and Man.The pen is a different pen; the incidents in which He is seen are sometimes different incidents; the distinctive character in which He is presented is a different character; but He is always the same Christ. That fact alone would mark these books as inspired.
All the four authors record the ministry of John the Baptist. All record the feeding of the five thousand. All record Christ’s offer of Himself as King, according to Micah. All record the betrayal by Judas; the denial by Peter, the trial, crucifixion and literal resurrection of Christ. And this record is so made as to testify that the death of Christ was the supreme business which brought Him into the world; that all which precedes that death is but preparation for it; and that from it flow all the blessings which God ever has or ever will bestow upon man. All record the resurrection ministry of Christ; a ministry which reveals Him as unchanged by the tremendous event of his passion, but a ministry keyed to a new note of universality, and of power. All point forward to His second coming. |
|
|
| October 27, 2007 |
|
|
|
| I'd be afraid to hit the print button right now I can't afford the paper. LOL |
|
|
| October 27, 2007 |
|
|
|
Welcome back, Jack! :)
Hi Ben! Thanks for joining us! You asked: "why would God (who is perfect, and without mistakes) use a Bible "filled with discrepancies?" This is the stopping point for many, Ben. My response here is that God didn't write it. He used imperfect humans who are destined by their nature to make mistakes. Yet, God is God, so He can use imperfect people to spread His Word, and I doubt that He would call any of these discrepancies "discrepancies", because His thoughts are not confined as ours are to linguistics. If we were able to focus more on God's message, and less on the dots, tittles, and exact words (which are all man-made symbols for the real thing), we would not see any discrepancies either. We are so trapped inside our language that this is a very difficult concept for many of us to grasp. You said: "perhaps . . . the 'discrepancies' are simply culturaly, linguisticaly, or transverable misunderstandings and misinterpretations?" Yes, I agree, but those areas cover a log of ground! Finally, you asked for an example of what I see as a discrepancy. I have given two examples here, and may add others, but I didn't want the blog to become a series of attempts at explaining away what the Bible says and missing the point of the blog. Both my examples are in brown font. One in the blog and the other in the comments. Thank you, Ben, for your comments, and I invite you to stay and dialogue with us further, including your thoughts about the two examples, should you choose to share.
Thanks, Gene. I read your Daniel link and found it very interesting. I was also surprised that my ecumenical Bible doesn't have those verses. It has the Apocrypha, including additions to Esther, but I see no mention of additions to Daniel. I had heard of these verses, but I don't think I had ever read them. My question as I was reading this was "Who was recording all these words?" As I can't imagine anyone really capturing such a long dialogue in such a hurried and heated moment, my gut reaction is that it was a later addition to the story, perhaps within the meaning but not the exact words of the three in the furnace. Yet, I certainly acknowledge that with God all things are possible, and if He can keep three men from burning in a furnace, He can surely keep a dialogue preserved if He chooses to do so!
Seeker, thanks for joining us! You said: Amazing how much depth there is to a page that is so thin. Amen, and every time we read it, it says more!
Thanks, Job. LOL Dave! :)
|
|
|
| October 27, 2007 |
|
|
|
| I'm back, just to say that apparently, I'm a fundamentalist evangelical. LOL
I think the fundamentalist movement may have started back when I was in Bible College. (1970-1977)
Most of the churches that supported the college were "Bible" churches, that is the word Bible is displayed prominently in the middle of the name. Central Bible Church, etc.
One of the figureheads of the movement closest now could be John MacArthur. (sp?)
I'm not sure if he is part of the FCA, (Fundamentalist Churches of America) or not.
Anyway... not too sure of my facts but mebbe I will research it more, if'n y'all are curious.
Gotta go now as I am punching this comment in on my PDA, and it's starting to drive me crazy! Ouch...CRAMP... bye! |
|
|
| October 28, 2007 |
|
|
|
Kathy,
"Who was recording all these words?"
You could ask that when Jesus was on the cross saying his last words. You could ask that about the narrative of the Garden of Gethsemane. In fact, nobody wrote anything for something like 30 years after the resurrection of Jesus. They didn’t write it down as it happened because everybody was too busy living it.
In fact, you could ask that about a number of passages in scripture, both new and old Testaments. What about Genesis 1? There was literally no one around to take dictation was the world was being created.
If we really believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then having someone there to observe an event or to take dictation is not a prerequisite for inclusion in the cannon.
Gene
|
|
|
| October 28, 2007 |
|
|
|
Hi Hal the Fundamentalist Evangelical! (Name-calling is such great fun!) :) I appreciate your input on this. Still I think it depends on who is using the terms and under what circumstance, exactly what they mean and what we would pinpoint as their origin. I wonder when the terms were first ever used, and what they meant then. They have changed quite a bit and become much more political, haven't they!
Gene, I totally agree! I still wonder who recalled the words, and I wonder why they are apocryphal, but I agree that it is not any great wonder Biblically speaking. It could have even been one of the three afterwards. Still I suspect the exact wording of such a lengthy speech was not a record of the exact wording of the event, but rather someone's later remembrance of it. (Of course I don't really know!) |
|
|
| October 28, 2007 |
|
|
|
| Hi Kathy. I've a short amount of time right now, but you highlighted what was in the back of my mind while writing my last post. I hedged from defining "inerrancy" because at the time it seemed a bit dicy to do correctly, and I still don't feel up to the task. So, I guess I already illustrated for myself your meaning of your original blog but got caught up in hearing myself speak. I'm going to pass on the definition as I think about this some more. This is a very critical doctrine I am realizing I need to solidify some more. I think it's quite doable, I just haven't done it yet. |
|
|
| October 28, 2007 |
|
|
|
I keep coming back to this blog. Kathy does such a great job of throwing out a topic and moderating us through it. I find this one very interesting. I see what I consider three levels of "inconsistency" here - I hesitate to call them errors and will explain in a moment.
1. Inconsistencies in translation. I think we can all agree that the different translations are inconsistent for a variety of reasons. We can consider these as good or as bad. I consider it good. My English language, as difficult as it is to learn, is still incomplete when it comes to being able to adequately describe things.
2. Inconsistencies in the cannon. I liked Gene's example from Daniel above. When I read them both, they are both accurate reflections of what happened, but one has additional information that fills in some of the unknowns. And who can possibly know why these 66 books were chosen and not others? We have an historical perspective on it, but it is not entirely complete.
3. Inconsistencies in the original text. I think this is where Kathy started. However, I must admit that I have no clue, nor the education necessary to verify the original text at all.
These inconsistencies interest me. They show me that a pure, holy, perfect God can use a flithy, unholy, imperfect man. Not only can He, but He chooses to do so knowing full well we are imperfect while also knowing that these imprefections simply drive us closer to Him. If the Bible has inconsistencies it isn't because of God, but because of man's inability to be perfect, holy, pure. I see nothing wrong with this. It simply points me to the fact that I need a Savior, and if the Bible does that, then it is indeed the perfect Word, isn't it.
Thanks Kathy for a spectacular discussion. Well done good and faithful one. |
|
|
| October 28, 2007 |
|
|
|
| ....the thing about labels is they are necessary to find out what is in the can, whether soup or nuts....open the can ...mix it up!(musing in his beard)
Kathy, you were curious as to the beginning of fundamentalism, so, I expand on my previous comment:
The organization is Independent Fundamental Churches of America, which got started in 1930 but really had gained momentum by the late 60's in reaction to the Ecumenical movement, higher criticism, etc.
The really interesting thing about the following link is the specificity of the objections. They are found at the end of the statements of faith.
Mentioned are ecumenicism, neorthodoxy, and neo-evangelicalism.
http://www.bible.ca/cr-independant-fundamental-(IFCA).htm
There ya go! |
|
|
| October 29, 2007 |
|
|
|
Kathy,
There are over 2500 years between Adam and the exodus out of Egpyt, led my Moses. The Jews knew their heritage while in captivity, so how did they keep track of it all. If it wasn't written down until after the exodus, then they had to pass these accounts verbally from generation to generation. Something to think about when we start talking about who wrote what when.
Experiments have shown this to be an effective means of passing information over long periods of time. While we tend to think of communication problems inherent in the telephone game, this generataional means of verbal communication is self-correcting because there is a community-wide means of correcting errors.
After the exodus, this verbal means of passing on their heritage continued through various periods of captivity and conquest. Before the Roman occupation, the Jews lived under the Greeks, which was of course the dominant language of the region. Over time, more and more of what was being passed on verbally was written down..
Around 70 AD at the Cousil of Jamna (sp?), as I understand it, leaders gathered to make sure that there was agreement on what constituted the "official" set of transcripts of Jewish heritage. Concerned about pagan influences from other cultures, they declared that only accounts written in Hebrew would be included in their canon.
But early Christianity was spreading rapidly among the Greeks as well as the Jews. These early Christians had no problems with anything written in Greek.
Some 1500 years later, the reformers were so concerned about corruption that they took the same perspective as the Jews and stuck with the Hebrew only version of the Old Testament. Thus this view that Protestants have that the Apocapha is good for history but not much else.
Gene |
|
|
| October 29, 2007 |
|
|
|
Hey Voice,
you said, "These inconsistencies interest me. They show me that a pure, holy, perfect God can use a flithy, unholy, imperfect man. Not only can He, but He chooses to do so knowing full well we are imperfect while also knowing that these imprefections simply drive us closer to Him. If the Bible has inconsistencies it isn't because of God, but because of man's inability to be perfect, holy, pure. I see nothing wrong with this. It simply points me to the fact that I need a Savior, and if the Bible does that, then it is indeed the perfect Word, isn't it.
I love this paragraph. God's word is perfect in it's ability to draw us to Him.
thanks for that point. |
|
|
| October 29, 2007 |
|
|
|
Can I just say thank you? "Thank you!"
This is something I have struggled with for years, but could never express so eloquently. I have always felt that many Christians have moved from worshiping Jesus to worshipping the Bible. So many have attempted to replace the living breathing Holy God with the inanimate object that is the Bible.
When I was a baby Christian I remember an argument I had with another Christian. I insisted that he stop giving me words from a book and give me the real living God. I had real hurts inside and real struggles and at the time this person was only giving me a book. To me (at this time) the Bible was a mountain that I could not climb, it had rules and regulations to live by but not the healing I was desperate for. I felt the real need for the living God and had no idea how to find Him. Little did I know He was just waiting for me to start expressing that need so He could enter in.
I smile now looking back at that argument because little did I know what I was seeking for. He is indeed alive and is wild beyond measure, untamable and perfect in all His ways. Praise the Lord! |
|
|
| October 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
Eric, it is indeed critical and complex.
Voice said: "If the Bible has inconsistencies it isn't because of God, but because of man's inability to be perfect, holy, pure. I see nothing wrong with this. It simply points me to the fact that I need a Savior, and if the Bible does that, then it is indeed the perfect Word, isn't it." Well put, Voice. Thank you for your input here!
Thanks, Hal. I haven't had a chance yet to visit the website you posted. (It's been a really busy week!) I wonder, however, how the IFCA history fits into the overall fundamentalist movement. Is it significant in the overall picture or more a faction among many? I ask, not as a challenge, but because I don't know anything about the IFCA. (I will go to the website when I find some time to enjoy it!)
Gene, I agree. The oral tradition played an enormously important role in the preservation of the OT accounts, and I agree that there was probably much less error than in our present day oral communication, due both to the fact that they were community-shared stories, not just stories told by an individual, and that oral story-telling was their entertainment, their tv, their internet . . . They heard the same stories retold over and over. Even so I would suspect there was probably some small amount of evolving over the centuries, don't you? And I agree that the question of the apocraphal writings is one worth consideration, as it was also humans who chose the canon. I have personally not chosen to study them in light of their possible inspiration, although I acknowledge that some of them certainly may be so (and were I Catholic, I'm sure I would not question the inspiration of those accepted by the Church.) Having not taken the time to even read them in their entirety, it would be irresponsible for me make any definitive statement of my own on the subject, and I appreciate you sharing your own here!
Thank you, Debora. Often we just know something in our soul, but the words are hard to find. I'm glad this blog resonated with what you were feeling!
Glenn, always great to see you!
Arctic, nice to meet you! Thanks for adding your comments!
Pastor Tim and Jack, as with Hal, I haven't gotten around to looking at your cited sites yet, but will hopefully find some time soon! Thank you for sharing them! |
|
|
| October 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
Just a moment ago while looking into the doctrine of God's sovereignty, I ran across this statement: "God is sovereign over sinful acts of men and Satan: 2 Sam 24:1; 1 Chr 21:1; Gen 45:5; Gen 50:20" Of note for this thread, it lists both 2 Sam 24 and 1 Chr 21 side by side, the ones you said contained a mistake, interpreting God as active in both (God -> David), but in 1 Chr 21, more detail is given (God -> Satan -> David). I just thought that was interesting. |
|
|
| November 02, 2007 |
|
|
|
Hal, Pastor Tim, and Jack, I finally got a moment to take a look at your sites.
Thanks, Hal. An interesting post to better understand your background. As with any particular group, however, I found the definitions of other movements quite biased, which is why it is so important that we listen to each other rather than just listening to what our own group says about all the other movements or fellowships. If I wanted to understand one of the movements mentioned on your IFCA site, for example, I would balance what I read there by seeking what the movement says about itself.
Pastor Tim, your inerrancy site makes some good points and is a good overview of the inerrancy position, to which many adhere. It seems "friendly" toward other opinions, but still, like any positional site, has its definite bias, coming to the writing to prove its preconceived conclusion, rather than coming to the Scripture as a blank slate seeking the Spirit's input alone (which I acknowledge none of us can do, as none of us is a blank slate). Thank you for adding this link.
Jack, your "Reading the White" post has a lot of wisdom. There is so much more to be gleaned from God's word than just what's in the ink. Much of our inability to see the larger picture comes from our church training, but unfortunately much of it also comes from poor general literacy. There was a time when readers were better able to read between the lines. Our current schools are largely failing at literacy thought, graduating a nation of people who read only the words. When I read the Letters to the Editor in my local newspaper, I am amazed at how so many readers are missing the satire, the hyperbole, the irony, the emotion. A balance though. We have to have a spirit-led balance in interpreting God's Word. Good article, Jack. As for your second link, I can attest to the difficulties of translation and agree that translation is more an art than a science (as would anyone who is truly bilingual). I reserve the right, however, to be a proud skeptic, when I read anything that contradicts what I've always accepted as truth, especially when I have not personally studied the topic and do not speak Aramaic or Greek.
Likewise, I respect the skepticism of all readers who find my blog a difficult and maybe even offensive read. If you are included in this category, I hope you will pray for me as God leads, and move on. If God has a message for you here, He will bring it back up later when He has prepared you for it. It is healthy to fear what we have never heard (and to throw much of it away), although it is only in hearing something new that learning takes place.
Eric, God is certainly sovereign. I have read that same explanation and do not disclaim the possibility, although it seems to me, again, man's attempt to justify his preconceived conclusion. Very pertinent here though! Thank you for sharing what you found on this passage! I always appreciate hearing and pondering your thoughts! |
|
|
| November 02, 2007 |
|
|
|
"It is healthy to fear what we have never heard (and to throw much of it away), although it is only in hearing something new that learning takes place." - Kathy
...And it is only when we are willing to let the Holy Spirit lead us to a place where we do not want to go that we can really grow in faith. To do otherwise is to retain control, to tell God that we know what's best for us instead of Him. That is the original sin.
Gene |
|
|
| November 02, 2007 |
|
|
|
I agree, Gene. We have to be receptive to learning something new (and admitting that our knowledge and even the knowledge of our mentors is incomplete) if we ever want to grow. Otherwise we are just maintaining. We fear new knowledge because we rightfully see the danger of accepting every new theology or thought that comes along, and we choose the safety of maintenance. I remember when I when I was in school, saying and hearing repeatedly, "When will I ever need to know this stuff?" But I have needed it, and have wished I had paid more attention many times over!
Readers, I received this private question in response to this blog and wish to open it up to anyone who has an answer for this reader:
" I think that the original writings were actually God breathed,then as time went on the translations were mixed with man's interpretation. I even read in Church history that the bible was taken away from the common man and when King James Translation came out it was written by people who wrote it how they believed.
So then what is your take on all of the division in the body of Christ? If as Paul says there is One Lord, One Faith,And One Baptism, how is there so many denominations? Why are we taught more( from a historical view ) about the Church at Rome 325 A.D. and less about the Church that started in Jerusalem?"
As I mentioned in the blog, I don't believe our factions are God's desire. Jesus spoke and prayed strongly for the unity of His Body, that we would be as one, not scattered and arguing. Just as God allowed Israel to have a king, at their insistence, I think He has allowed us to separate ourselves by theologies, but I suspect the desire of His heart is to see us all get along and love each other, focusing on Him and on serving Him together to reach the world we all share. Not arguing amongst ourselves over who is more right. |
|
|
| November 02, 2007 |
|
|
|
I thought it was my turn to chime in, but its late...or early...and I have nothing to say. Anything I had to say I lost scrolling down trying to keep a log of everything. How do you do it?
But I can paint |
|
|
| November 03, 2007 |
|
|
|
Hi Kathy
This article kind goes in line with this thread
Read it here
Extract:
The oldest and most authentic Christian documents are the New Testament.
There are two ways to approach the New Testament. You can come to it with a religious belief, that is to say, you can entertain a mythological view of the New Testament which exists independently of any investigation of what the documents say for themselves. You can treat the New Testament like the "scholars" of the Middle Ages treated the horse’s mouth. Rather than take a look at the real mouth, you entertain religious belief about that mouth and that is the end of the matter. You resolve not to look, not to ask questions, and God forbid that you doubt the religious belief.
The other approach is to see what the New Testament documents say for themselves. This is the scientific method. This is a literary science. It employs not just a grammatical interpretation but the historical interpretation of reading each passage in its historical context. (See my 1983 Verdict essay, The Historical Method.)
For instance, you may approach the Bible with the religious belief that it was verbally inspired or dictated by Mighty God, and that for all intents and purposes it dropped straight out of heaven free of all human idiosyncrasies, cultural conditioning, social context, world views etc. |
|
|
| November 03, 2007 |
|
|
|
Thanks, Seeker. As I have discussed here about other categories and labels, I'm not one to try to fit everyone into any man-made categories, although such categories can be of value for discussion purposes. You would probably agree with me that most Bible readers fall somewhere between the two extremes you've painted here. Imho, to be completely on one side or the other is either iconic or pointless. I read the Bible to know God, but I try to read it responsibly, paying attention to its authorship, time period, purpose, etc. It is both a human document and a God-breathed one, and I find no contradiction in that at all, because God is constantly at work through His people. How would you respond to this? Are we far apart?
Patrick, you were up late! I know that you have plenty to say, and I hope you'll come back when you're more awake! I wish I could paint! :) |
|
|
| November 03, 2007 |
|
|
|
I love your blog! I have been studying the origins of the Bible for awhile now. I have read the Apocryphal books, Lost Books, etc... I have read about how the Bible we know now came into being. There is nothing wrong with questioning the current Bible. So many writings were left out, by men, judged and found unworthy. Who are we to decide which writings were God inspired and which were not? All this studying only made me appreciate God all the more. I guess you have to have a certain frame of mind to understand. :-) |
|
|
| November 03, 2007 |
|
|
|
TP there is an answer to your question "Who are we to decide which writings were God inspired and which were not?" The question is are you really looking for it?
There were many writings, of which most of those written by Christians were specifically in writing not inspired by the Holy Spirit but rather to record an account...there are thousands of them...all which reinforce the Word of God. God used man to write the Law, He used man to keep an accurated history of the world, he used men to think that there was some hidden power in owning the original greek documents and keeping them locked away in family vaults for centuries not having a clue they were preserving what would eventually be given away and had no clue they were being used by God in whom most of them did not believe.
If you want an accurate account of the Bible, I have a source you should consider...and not the history channel. But the Word of God is where we are introduced and learn of God and there is no revelation outside of the Word...God set it up that way. All men are to be held accountable through the Word and eachother |
|
|
| November 04, 2007 |
|
|
|
Hi TP! Welcome to MyChurch, and thank you for adding your perspective here. Although I agree there are many writings that add much to the Biblical picture, I choose to accept by faith that God had His hand in the canonization process, although there is no such proof or Biblical claim. Many of the writings done under names of the apostles ("ghost writing" was not unusual or considered deceptive if done by followers of the named one) were written much later, and others were written by some of the outside sects of early believers. Still I find them all interesting and have gleaned much from reading the ones I have read. You said " All this studying only made me appreciate God all the more." Amen, TP! I look forward to hearing more from you.
Thanks, Patrick. Indeed, the best place to learn the Bible is from the Bible itself! |
|
|
| November 05, 2007 |
|
|
|
Greetings Lady Kathy,
Wow, I have been attempting to point out some of the very same intrinsic distinctions you have made within this Article for years, and likely have encountered much the same "type" of resistance as you seem to have encountered. Excellently written and presented M'Lady...Well Done !
Be Blessed in Christ |
|
|
| November 05, 2007 |
|
|
|
Hi Ki! Welcome to MyChurch, and thanks for your comments!
I appreciate resistance (although I admit it can be hurtful when offered carelessly). I would hope that no one would take my word (or anyone else's) for anything that seems contradictory to what they have always heard. Be skeptical. Ask questions. Search the Scripture. Pray. Journal. And be open to God's working in your heart and mind. If a particular idea upsets me, I pray for the blogger, voice my opinion respectfully, and move on. Resistance is a healthy part of growing. |
|
|
| November 05, 2007 |
|
|
|
| It is only through the resistance to the earth that the flower comes to greet the sun. |
|
|
| November 08, 2007 |
|
|
|
| Sounds like the beginning of a great sermon, Gene! |
|
|
| November 14, 2007 |
|
|
|
Wow Kathy, it took a couple hours to go through all I missed after I left for my trip.
There have been numerous references to political throughout the responses. I find it interesting that that is a negative term. If I am doing something tha another doesn't like it is called political. This could refer to the denominational issues or people in the public square such as James Dobson. I think they have a right to be heard and I think we Christians need to be in the public square to try to affect change with a Godly World View.
Anyway, enough chasing a rabbit. I have throught a lot about what I really think on the issue of errancy/inerrancy. I do believe that the writers were God-Breathed in that they didn't get dictation but were inspired with God's direction/leading/etc. I do believe there have been translation works that are flawed to some degree or another. I think some of what we call errors or differences could be our limitations and not outright errors. You see the one thing that bothered me when I first read this was that truth was accepted where I saw interpretation. Perhaps a perspective problem, eh? *grin*
Some have asked how can a God have errors in His written Word. I don't know why this can be. Jesus spoke to the people in parables where I would have wanted the speaker to speak the truth plainly. God is revealing Himself through His Holy Spirit/Helper/Holy Ghost and his revealed Word. God is awesome in his whole approach to the separation we have with Him. Do we trust Him to lead us in all truth? I don't have any trouble discovering truth and following it. Look at the Scientists who continue to prove what the Bible has written. True Science points to God if really following the facts to their truthful conclusion.
Sorry to be so long. I wanted to thank you for the interesting discussion and comments. I feel like we are not really far apart after I consider what you had to say. It doesn't matter that we differ because we can discuss and explore and consider what each has to say and prayerfully allow God to give us discernment.
I hope you have a great week. Time for work! Your brother in Christ, Brent |
|
|
| November 14, 2007 |
|
|
|
Thanks, Brent, and welcome back! You did some serious thinking on your trip! :) In response to a few of your points:
I agree with you that Christians should be involved in "the public square," and I accept that in the public square there will be politics. I can only speak for myself when I say that my negative view of politics is not of politics itself, but of politics that disguises itself as theology. If I am going to believe everything the Republican party wants me to believe, or everything the SBC Fundamentalists want me to believe, then I should be able to own my politics and not confuse my politics with God. There is neither one political party nor one denominational faction that has the corner on God, and to claim His blessing or a purer understanding of Him above other parties or factions is a definite "negative" in my opinion. And yes, I would include James Dobson in this discussion. For many years he was an excellent Christian family psychologist. Now, however, he has become a politician, using his power to shape the structure of America by leading his vast flock who will follow him anywhere, no questions asked. This scares me, because we the Christian have lost our way except to follow blindly those who would lead us. We need to seek God, not theology. His Word, His face, spend real time with Him daily, not so we can say we did, but so we can know Him. So we can ask Him for help then we feel we may be being led astray. Our leaders can give us a theology, but they cannot give us God. Politics has its place, but its factions are never God vs. Satan. Politics is not Theology, and it's not Faith. As for Dr. Dobson, he has every right to promote his causes in any way he chooses. The scary part is us. That we have so equated his word with God 's that we readily accept every word he says.
You said, True Science points to God. Yes! It definitely does! I never understand why Christians are so afraid of science! God created science. He created all the laws of the universe, and planted seeds in our little minds that we would discover them over the centuries. He created matematical perfections and natural order. Science is not His enemy! When we treat it as such, we once again look foolish to those we pretend we want to reach with the Gospel. Do we really want to reach those lost souls who will never join our political factions? Do we want people to find Christ if they would not join our fundamentalism . . .?
I'm not sure I understand what you were saying here: the one thing that bothered me when I first read this was that truth was accepted where I saw interpretation. Please explain if you have the time. I enjoy your thoughts. They stir my thinking! |  |
|
|
|
| November 14, 2007 |
|
|
|
Kathy,
you asked waaaaaaaay back if I had any thoughts on what additional books might also be inspired beside the cannonized scriptures of the Protestant Bible. Two books in the Apocrypha come to mind: Prayer of Manasses (Manasseh) and Fourth Book of Machabees.
Regarding the last post by Brent (hello, Brent!), I couldn't agree more. I am reading a book in our book club at church about a fascinating man Spirit of Fire: The Life and Vision of Teilhard De Chardin. He was a Jesuit priest who had a love for rocks. he was involve din both the Piltdown man and the Peking man "discoveries). The one thing that he said over and over again was that science points man toward God at every turn; not in what is shown or discovered but in the amazing complexity and harmony that it shows.
Science seeks to understand how. Religion seeks to answer why. Science was the bane of the church when Galileo looked through that silly glass a few centuries ago. We now accept the fact that the earth travels around the sun and that the earth is not the center of the universe. Yet, the church leaders at a the time we convinced through philosophical theology that the scientists were wrong. Neither should hold themselves up to be irrefutable. The difference is that science questions everything and religion seeks to hold fast to Truth. They both seek the truth.
Sorry to take so long to dredge up that question back there.
Peace! |
|
|
| November 14, 2007 |
|
|
|
Kathy - My comment on politics is more generic and not focussed on the discussion here. It seems that in general we talk about something being political when there is a grroup that opposes our point of view. When there is something that we agree with we think nothing of it. Politics in the church or in any organization will happen. There will be groups that have an idea of what they would like to accomplish. This is neither good nor bad (IMHO) but is how this is handled on both sides that matter.
As far as the Republicans, Democrats, Greens, etc. All political parties are in the business to be in power so they can effect the changes they want. You are right, we need to think for ourselves. We should consider what others say filtered through the grid of our world view that is shaped by our relationship with our Lord and Savior. To call something political just seems to be another way to put down someone or discredit that person. Again I am not focussing on your comments about Dr. Dobson alone, I am just saying that I hear that political description and most of the time it is not complimentary. *grin*
As for Science pointing ot God, we agree on that. What I was trying to say there was we should follow Truth where it will lead us and not be afraid that our ideas in our little box may not fit. I pray that God, will show me His reveled Truth by His Holy Spirit and change me and shape me into the person He wants me to become.
I have to think about how to answer the last question. Remind me in a week if I have not done so. It will take more time than I have right now.
Thanks for being so gracious with all of our comments. Your brother in Christ, Brent |
|
|
| November 15, 2007 |
|
|
|
Gene, I have only read parts of the Maccabees and none of the Prayer of Manasseh. I will make a note of those (for when my life slows down a little)! Have you read all the apocrypha? Have you read any of the "other gospels"?
Brent, as is often the case with thought-provoking posts, I don't think my comments were directly responsive to yours, except that your thoughts stimulated my own. I always enjoy what you have to say. I understand your point that the word politics is often used to describe opinions that differ from our own. I've never thought about that, but it makes sense. I'll give it some more thought, especially pertaining to my own attitude!
Back to the science issue, scientists can surely be wrong and often are, just as are Christians, but science itself (not as a field of study, but as a reality of nature) is never wrong, and never in opposition to God. If there is tension between truth and Truth, the tension is within our own minds. |
|
|
| November 15, 2007 |
|
|
|
Kathy - I love the way we can stimulate each other and the dialog we can have over difficult issues. I was listening to a radio program on the way home from work. The speaker was talking about the greatest of these is love. We can communicate the truth in many ways, but if we don't speak in love, we have missed it. I thought of this site in how we can discuss and share together, if we do so in love we are doing well. Bravo on the science comment. |
|
|
| November 15, 2007 |
|
|
|
Kathy,
I know your last comment was for red shirt Gene, but I felt compelled to comment on reading the "other gospels". One of the problems the early church faced was that some believed that individuals would receive from God a hidden truth, which became the basis for the Gnostic gospels. Since neither Catholics nor Protestants accept these other gospels, I would be very careful to put on your literary awareness cap before reading them.
Nothing wrong with reading them per se. Just be aware of what these documents are not.
The Other Gene |
|
|
| November 15, 2007 |
|
|
|
Kathy,
ditto the other Gene and Brent's comment on science regarding your comment on science which comments on my. . . oh, never mind.
The red shirt Gene
Seriously, , , , ,
I've read most of the Apocrypha and many of the "other Gospels" and while much of it seems to be quite interesting I would definitely put on the literary cap when reading the "other Gospels." There are not only improbabilities in them, portions are totally inconsistent with things in the cannon. Some of the stories are not in the cannon and seem to portray quite a different God (and Jesus) that what is included in the Torah, Old Testament or Cannon. |
|
|
| November 16, 2007 |
|
|
|
Genes of all shirt colors, I agree about the "other gospels." I have read many of them and enjoy them, but I would echo your cautions to read them as outside works that broaden our understanding of the vast religious landscape of the early centuries. It seems their sects were almost as varied as today's!
Brent, you are SO right! Any discussion such as this one is valuable only when bathed in love. When we love each other as brothers and sisters in Christ we can stretch each other's thinking and strengthen each other (even if we see that the other is in error). Without that love, most such discussions are not only futile, but often dangerous to those who pass through unseen to listen. See my post The First Thing I Want To Ask When I Get to Heaven. FYI: I love and appreciate all of you who so thoughtfully hone my thinking! I am thankfully a work in progress, and you are a gift! |
|
|
| November 16, 2007 |
|
|
|
Kathy, I love your comments about science. I think that in many ways faith is science and science is faith. I find it interesting that forensics is called a science when applied to criminal investigation, but called faith when those same principles apply to evidence for a Creator. I also find it interesting that some Christians who are untrained in science, are so dogmatic about evolution and other scientific discussions, and some scientists who are are untrained in theology are so dogmatic about Christianity and other matters of faith.
I have only known one person who was BOTH a well trained biologist and theologian. His personal conclusions actually do not fit in any text book with pat answers. Harmonizing both worlds is more difficult than some simplistic Sunday School lessons I have seen. His approach taught me a lesson that we "know it all Christians" and "know it all scientists" perhaps don't really "know it all" as we think.
On God's self-disclosure in the Bible, I offer a few comments. If God exists then we may presume that he wants to communicate with us. We believe that God does God reveal himself in many ways. He reveals himself to us anthropically (in human forms or ways familiar to us) because we are limited beings. He reveals himself to us generally in his creation, whereby we and all human kind can learn an awful lot about him. He also reveals himself to us specially in cases like the Bible or in a personal theophany.
However, the Bible alone does NOT reveal God to us but ABOUT God. It is only via the action of the Holy Spirit that what we read there becomes illuminated to our understanding. When we follow that understanding and develop a personal relationship with him, then we begin to KNOW God. The Bible is a tool, not a goal. The goal is an eternal family relationship with God.
I find it absolutely amazing that one of the few times in ALL Christian history when the Church was in unity over something was in the canonization of the Bible. The New Testament canon was finalized at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. Before that time, most of the books we know as the NT today were being used, but in a rather loosely recognized fashion. Some of the reasons we have the books that we do are that they are apostolic (written by an apostle or apostle's writer), catholic (i.e. universally recognized), Christ-centered (rather than fad centered), orthodox (teaching accepted Christianity), and contained substantial internal evidence for their authority.
I may be wrong on this history, as I'm just writing it from the top of my head without referneces. So, I welcome any corrections: We Protestants owe our limited 66 books to the Reformation. However, long before we smartie pants Protestants came along the 77 books were accepted for most of Christian history. However, we cannot blame the ancient churches, the Catholics or Orthodox for that. We must blame the Jews. Sorry, but the difference came about between the two versions of the OT. The Septuagint (Greek OT) contained the extra books. The Hebrew OT did not. So, the blame must go to the Jews not the Christians churches. An interesting thing that we smartie pants Protestants don't realize is that the OT that Jesus quoted was actually the Septuagint, the one that contained the extra books.
This difference is the reason why the Catholics and Orthodox call the extra books the secondary canon, deuterocanonical books. It is we Protestants who love the word Apocrypha, because we love to slam the Catholics even still today. Even after they too went through a Reformation. Oh, we call it the Counter Reformation. They merely call it the Catholic Reformation. Interesting how language prejudices us, eh?
An intersting aside is that I think it's the Ethiopian Church's Bible which contains even more books, 81. So, the bottom line is that Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, or even Ethiopian Orthodox all have at least the 66 books. We all ACTUALLY agree on that. We Protestants have what I call our minimalist Bible, and by the way, I AM satisfied with that. |
|
|
| November 16, 2007 |
|
|
|
| Grant, amen on science and on God's revelation of Himself! And thanks for sharing such interesting history about the canon(s). I so enjoy your intelligence and wisdom! |
|
|
| November 26, 2007 |
|
|
|
Kathy, just a further note --something I found in Wiki while researching another topic. I see by your profile that you are in a Southern Baptist Church. Just thought you might get a smile out of this!
EEEEEEkkkkk The Fundamentalists tried to take over!
I done tole you chile that the fundamentalist movement started somewhere in the '70s --and the IFCA was the result! I didn't stutter! LOL
Remember, my church is not part of the IFCA. |
|
|
| November 26, 2007 |
|
|
|
Thanks, Hal! That actuallyappears to be a good summary of the many years of SBC struggle. I am quite familiar with it all, but it is not easy to summarize so succinctly. The last line is the only part that shocked me:
Patterson writes. "I confess that I often second guess my own actions and agonize over those who have suffered on both sides, including my own family."
As for you, Hal, you never stutter! I am just a bit of a Thomas. I want to ask all the questions before accepting what I hear . . . :) |
|
|
| November 26, 2007 |
|
|
|
Hal and Kathy - We had a ring side seat into the Baptist struggle over the past 25 years. I remember when Texas broke away from the SBC. We have not been invovled in the SBC for 22 years now so I don't know of what this means to the man in the pew. It is sad that the news gets to report about all these disagreements. I agree with sadness with your comment on Patterson at the end. By the way, the General Baptist Conference (old Swedish Baptist Conference) that I grew up with in Minnesota is struggling with similar issues. I do agree that we need to teach the Truth and follow as teh Holy Spirit guides no matter what our preconceived ideas are. It just saddens me that my observations for a lot of these conflicts are for control of positions of power or control of thought, not wanting anyone to think differently. Sorry for going off topic Kathy. IN the Grip of His Grace, Brent |
|
|
| November 27, 2007 |
|
|
|
| Thanks, Brent, and I don't think your comments are off topic. On the contrary, much of this controversy is based, at least at one level, on whether God wrote the Bible (albeit not stated in these words). And as you stated, on another level it is a power play, an attempt to control the thinking of every Christian. Those Christians who refuse to be packaged in that box generally are validating of all Christians despite personal differences. The ones inside the box, however, claim "If you are not in our box, you are not in God's." Thus, from their point of view, there is no room for compromise or for working together in God's work. This, imo, is the tragedy. Not that we think differently on certain issues, but that we cannot work together as children of God to do His work. Jesus' prayer for us was not that we would all agree on everything, but that we would live and work together in unity as a Christian family despite our differences. I believe God is inside the box, but those inside the box cannot see that God is also very much outside it. |
|
|
| November 27, 2007 |
|
|
|
Brent,
I think your comments are very on-topic. I've encountered too many people who no-kidding become irate at the mere mention of anything that doesn't line up squarely with their view of how the Bible was written or how it is to be understood or applied. Your last comment reall hit home for me. I think conflicts at the convention level filter down to the person-on-the-street level. Many of these discussions, in retrospect, are absolutely about control of position or control of thought. It always comes out in the tone of voice and the overall spirit (or lack thereof) of the discussion.
Thanks,
Gene |
|
|
| November 27, 2007 |
|
|
|
Hi Gene! Looks like you and I were posting at the exact same time and with similar thoughts! |
|
|
| November 27, 2007 |
|
|
|
Kathy/Gene - You know great minds think alike, so I guess that means that great bloggers post alike or at the same time. *grin* I think there are some things that are critical to break fellowship over. We have talked about those already. I think the sneaky thing about this is when we put ourselves in the role of Holy Spirit in protecting untruth from going places and taking root where it can really take those away from the faith. Just like the Pharasees in the Macabean period they made laws to protect us from breaking the real Mosaic Law. We do that in today in trying to keep from getting astray. Not a bad motiviation, trying to protect the wrong thinking. It is not that I disagree with some of those that try to control thinking, just that they try to control it. Who are we to think we are going to keep those from thinking wrong. As Ephesians says, our struggle is not against flesh and blood: 6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places]. 6:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. So we can't with human energy and organizations protect against that which is spiritually discerned. So what do we do then? How about pouring our heart out to God on our knees to reveal Himself to everyone and trust that He will? I know there is more to that, but we need a stronger emphasis on the God-thing and less on our organizations. The more I am dependent on God knowing I don't control these things the more I can trust Him to lead and guide and protect those I love. Sorry for being so long winded. I couldn't help myself. In the Grip of His Grace, Brent |
|
|
| November 29, 2007 |
|
|
|
Thanks, Brent. We definitely need more focus on God and less on our organizations. If only we could see and accept that that none of us has all the right answers, and commit to work together as a spiritual family united in serving and pleasing our Father, then it would be amazing what we could accomplish together for His kingdom! We damage the Kingdom and its attraction when we spend our energies slinging mud at each other, and it seems we make our faith perfect fodder for media free-for-alls. We claim to love God (and all people). Yet we can't seem to even "play nice" with our own brothers and sisters.
4:20 If any one says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.
|
|
|
| November 29, 2007 |
|
|
|
| Amen sister. |
|
|
| December 21, 2007 |
|
|
|
There have been so many hands in the wrings. Jeremiah 8:8 tells us: How do ye say, "We are wise, and the law of the Lord with us?"
Lo, certainly in vain made He it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
They hired people whom they knew only could write. Many were not men of faith. They wrote into it as they wished. Though much has been cleaned up. There is a tremendous part which still remains unexplained. It has been kept in this form (King Jame's) because so many people have a copy and would not be comfortable seeing several new translations of it around. Even the newer translations are still not corrected rightly. Being educated in it's writing is most likely the best way. I would think it would take an auful great many years to get there. I know of those scholars who have studied fifty of sixty years still learning more of what is messed up thanks to evil scribes. In my opinion, we can't know the WORD without study. To know him is to love him. But we can't know him with faith alone. That is why the WORD was sent to us through Divine intervention. God bless!! Merry Christmas!! |
|
|
| December 21, 2007 |
|
|
|
i am sorry but i do not agree with this theory!
God is almighty! He can do wutever He sees fit.
God did write the Bible and He did it through His disciples.
|
|
|
| December 21, 2007 |
|
|
|
Amanda, that too is an interesting "theory." The only thing that is not theory is what the Bible itself says. It says that all scripture is God breathed or as some translations put it inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16). That is a different idea than God directly "writing" scripture.
Now as to the theories as to how he inspired scripture, there are several:
1. The Intuition Theory is that a special gift of religious genius was given to the human writers.
2. The Illumination Theory is that the Holy Spirit gave the human authors a heightened consciousness.
3. The Dynamic Theory suggests a combination of human and divine elements in the inspiration.
4. The Verbal Theory is that the Holy Spirit inspired even the words chosen.
5. The Dictation Theory is that the Holy Spirit dictated the exact wording without the human personality involved at all. |
|
|
| December 21, 2007 |
|
|
|
Pastor Tim, I haven't forgotten your articles. I just haven't gotten around to reading them yet. I have to have the time and be in the right mood for that kind of reading!
Golden, although God can reveal Himself to someone who has never read or studied at all, I agree with you that the more we study the Word, the more we know Him, and that there is so much there that we never "arrive." I find the more I read the Word, the more there is that I don't know. Everything I learn brings new questions for further study!
Amanda, welcome to MyChurch! I am overjoyed when I see 17-year-olds who love Jesus and are ready to stand up for what they believe. Keep Him in the forefront of your life, and continue to read and study His Word.
Grant, thanks for the good info., and Gene, thanks for the support! |
|
|
| January 14, 2008 |
|
|
|
Another awesome blog Kathy, your insight is amazing.
I am known by my family and friends to be a simple man. I tell them that all the time. I proclaimed for years I was not smart enough to know if I should believe the Big Bang or the Bible. Both seemed unfathomable to me.
The irony is I could not accept God because I could not have blind faith. I could not believe the Bible as truth I saw too many holes in it. Being simple I explained to everyone I can say I want to believe, I can say I believe but, in my own mind I couldn't truly and by all accounts I was going to hell because I wasn't smart enough.
Once my Pastor, whom I thank God for daily, stuck with me (over a 5 year span), answered all I threw at her, and yes finally told me the Bible is not all accurate. I COULD BELIEVE!!!! Even a simple man can believe in something that isn't perfect.
I always told people I didn't believe in God but I believe in me and my family. Well, we weren't perfect so I could believe. So now I am Baptized, I love God and I still bombard Pastor Gaye with questions.
Have a blessed day. =0) |
|
|
| January 14, 2008 |
|
|
|
| Oh one more thing..I am not saying God is not perfect, I can accept now that He is, just not everything written is totally accurate...Sure makes Bible Study fun!!! |
|
|
| January 16, 2008 |
|
|
|
| Thank you, Bob, for your kind words! And thank You, God, for every Pastor Gaye you send into our lives when we are struggling! |
|
|
| May 06, 2008 |
|
|
|
I'm glad you referenced this blog. This has got some good stuff in it. The comment section alone is worth printing out and reading.
Great thoughts Kathy. |
|
|
| May 06, 2008 |
|
|
|
Thank you, Loren, for reading and for the kind words! I believe this discussion is a valuable one for today's church, and one we need to address. |
|
|
| September 02, 2008 |
|
|
|
| Thanks, Dan! You make good points that this issue is not essential to salvation, and that Scripture is profitable for training in righteousness! Thank you for joining this discussion! Your photo wins the "most likely to make me smile" award! :) |
|
|
| May 19, 2009 |
|
|
|
Warren, I'm glad you're here! Thank you for reading and for your encouraging words! |
|
|
| July 02, 2009 |
|
|
|
Kathy,
I was watching the video commentary of Appleseed - Ex Machina the other night. Appleseed is a Japanese CG movie-length "cartoon" (for want of a better word). It's really very well made.
Anyway, one of the guys on the commentary said repeatedly that he had to convince the director (Jon Woo) not to include certain elements in the story because they wouldn't make sense or because they would be inconsistent. Jon Woo said, "Why does it have to make sense?"
Eastern people tell a story for different reasons than we Westerners do. Our Hellenistic sensibilities insist on factual accuracy throughout. Easterners are not so constrained. The West equates "truth" with "facts". That is NOT the way the East views it.
Which means that truth is something other than fact. We have an expression that I like to use: "The facts may be that I have sickness but the truth is, 'By His stripes I am healed'". God's reality is not always our reality and where they diverge, we have big problems.
Rob |
|
|
| July 02, 2009 |
|
|
|
| Hi Rob! It's nice to meet you! Thank you for reading and for adding your thoughts! |
|
|
| July 15, 2009 |
|
|
|
Rob, is God "western" or "eastern"? How about logic or truth or facts or morality? Is the Bible one or the other, or a mix of both? The people it arose from we now call "middle-eastern." I contend these concepts are universal, flowing from the very nature of the One, universal God. I've run across so many philosophies labeled "eastern" that are simply illogical. "He who speaks does not know; he who knows does not speak" (Lao Tzu). Very mystical, but self-refuting. When you say, "truth is something other than fact," is that a fact or a truth? I heard an atheist say that Koans ("what is the sound of one hand clapping?") are "super-logical," or in a class above logic. I'm inclinded to categorize them as "absurd." "What is truth?" Jesus asked this, and I find no better answer than in the Bible. Jesus is the prime source of Truth, the Creator of the universe, who's very power of Being and Reality ("I AM") is wrapped up in Himself. It is a fact that Jesus actually died for our sins and rose again to evidence what is to be our spiritual reality, guaranteed (for Truth cannot lie). I don't call it a coincidence that science arose from the Christianized "western" mindset that facts are equated with truth. The impression I get from the Bible is that there is but one reality, and that alignment with God's knowledge is wisdom and understanding (Pr 9:10). I think your last sentence bears this sentiment as well. |
|
|
| July 16, 2009 |
|
|
|
Eh, sorry about that, Robb. I wrote the above after coming away from debating some atheists, so my skepticism was ratcheted up a bit high. |
|
|
| July 16, 2009 |
|
|
|
Eric, Your point is well taken but you cannot ignore the fact that truth means different things to different people - and different cultures. No one can ignore the facts because facts represent a certain reality but truth is in the eye of the beholder. Logic, truth, facts, and morality are four different things. To pursue this discussion, we have to define each of these components. Facts are real. My reality is my truth. Logic is the process we use to rationalize our reality. If my life is miserable, I cannot help but ask why. How I answer that question determines where I go to church. Logic and theology are the process of stringing truths and facts together to form the answer to the $64 question. Catholicism has long ago abandoned the scriptures as the sole source of truth. That would be fine if the scriptures did not prohibit such a theology. Mormonism is off on it's own journey too. Truth varies because each person's reality varies. This is why there is one bible and a thousand Christian and Jewish denominations. Each denomination has it's own method of connecting the dots. Each person is trying to use the scriptures to justify his reality (his truth). But that right there is my personal judgment of their logic. My truth is my reality. So is yours. We cannot help it. There are some parts of the bible that we like and other parts that we don't like. Most of us have never repented. Here's an example: If I focus on salvation from sin, I will read the bible a certain way. If I focus on forgiveness of sin then I will read it a different way. Both ways are correct but these theologies are fundamentally incompatible. In other words, a person who believes in salvation from sin cannot go to church with a person who only knows forgiveness of sin. One is focused on victory and the other on "the second chance". Each person is disgusted by the other. Here's a fact for you (not necessarily "truth"). Jesus didn't ask, "What is truth?", Pilate did. :-) Rob |
|
|
| August 10, 2009 |
|
|
|
 [star!] |
This is a great blog post. I am going to come back and study all the responses to it when I have time. |
|
|
Follow this blog
