hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) (06/20/85)
In article <675@ihlpg.UUCP> jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (Diaz) writes: >My question here would be, if the author of the Bible <God> is not reliable >in the fields of history or science, why should I think that he is >reliable in the fields of 'faith and practice'? The issue here is the sense in which God is responsible for the Bible. If God were the author directly (e.g. he wrote it on stone tablets and gave it to us physically), then your argument would make sense. But he didn't. Human beings actually did the writing. Christians believe that they were guided by the Holy Spirit. But that fact alone does not make God directly responsible for the contents. The two models prevalent among Christians are: - the authors were eyewitnesses, or at least had accounts from eyewitnesses, and did their best to report what the witnesses saw. In this they were competent, but no more infallible than any other human reporter. - similar to the above, but in addition God arranged that the process have no errors. It is generally not said how he did this. I would imagine that one idea would be that as part of his Providence, he simply made sure that the transmission process introduced no errors, but that it was otherwise a human process. The other idea would be that there was direct information transfer from him to the authors. The only one of these that I think can be dismissed out of hand is the idea of direct information transfer from God to the authors. This would make the Bible essentially an account of a revelation from God to the authors, and not a historical document. No normal criteria could be used to evaluate its accuracy, nor would it be very useful in dealing with non-Christians. A non-Christian is not going to be very interested in what God has revealed to someone. I assume however that most fundamentalists intend that the process was a historical one under God's providence, and not this. The statement I have quoted from your article implies this viewpoint. I have heard of only two arguments for the position that God guaranteed the process against error. One is that the Bible itself asserts this. Of course that in itself is not a final proof. If the Bible is wrong, then the fact that it claims to be infallible means nothing. But it would at least indicate what the authors thought they were doing, and if one found the Bible attractive for whatever other reasons, would support the literalist case. The other argument is essentially a speculative one, namely that God would not leave people without a reliable source of information about himself, and it is hard to believe that God would allow this to contain errors. I believe the Biblical argument is the more important one. However I don't think it says what the literalists claim it says. The most typical passage is 2 Tim 3:16: "All Scripture is inspired by God, and is useful for teaching the truth ..." That does not say that God guarantees Scripture to be error-free. People who think it does generally say things like "but God isn't going to inspire a mistake." However we are now getting into areas of speculation. We are no longer dealing with the plain sense of Scripture, but with Scripture plus some sort of argument that what God inspires can't have errors. That claim is clearly false for cases other than Scripture. God has inspired lots of people since the Biblical authors, and none of them has been infallible. So we are back to a speculative argument that essentially involves claiming to know what God would or would not do. Interestingly enough, this argument is of almost the same form as the R.C. argument for papal infallibility. It also has Biblical authority: "You are the rock ...", and also revolves around a speculative argument that God would not allow errors in a certain thing. I think we should be very wary of assertions that God would not allow certain things to happen. The Jews felt very certain that God would not allow the Messiah to be killed. It seems that God is willing to subject himself to the processes of human history in ways that we would not guess beforehand. My position is that the Biblical authors were competent but not error-free, and not independent of the knowledge of their times. This position is very different than the more extreme critical one, which holds that the Bible can't be used as a source for historical knowledge at all.
ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) (06/24/85)
In article <2330@topaz.ARPA>, hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) writes: > > The issue here is the sense in which God is responsible for the > Bible. ... There are two major theories ... > The only one of these that I think can be dismissed out of hand is > the idea of direct information transfer from God to the authors. > This would make the Bible essentially an account of a revelation from > God to the authors, and not a historical document. Exactly, a revelation, just like the book of the same name. God specifically claims to be revealing Himself to mankind, why would it seem odd that many of the writings (portions of Isaiah, Daniel and many other of the books of prophesy) claim to be direct revelations from God to another individual but also with relevance to us. I would feel much safer with a direct revelation from God than with someone else's observations of what Christ was like, unless God also takes a hand in that. > Nor would it be very > useful in dealing with non-Christians. A non-Christian is not going > to be very interested in what God has revealed to someone. First of all, what does it matter whether non-christians are interested in it. The word of God isn't intended to be a book to entertain people or to make the best seller's list (although it does both) but it's purpose is clearly stated in the Psalms, "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path." The Psalms are songs of David, many written as prayers to God, but we read those, and more often than not see the application to our own lives. Most of the books of prophesy contain messages to other people and other countries of a time period thousands of years back, but we can still find meaning and application in them. The trick of the Bible is that it was written by specific people at specific times concerning specific problems, but, it can be applied to almost everyone, everywhere at any time. Most people consider Shakespeare such a great writer because his books aren't tied to just on time period or one event. Sure Julius Caesar deals with the life and times of Julius Caesar, but it deals with much more and in the same way that the Bible deals with specific events and times, but also, much more. > I believe the Biblical argument is the more important one. However I > don't think it says what the literalists claim it says. The most > typical passage is 2 Tim 3:16: "All Scripture is inspired by God, and > is useful for teaching the truth ..." Hmm, that's not how my translation reads and the ending is also crucial. "All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for doctrine, correction, reproof and instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished unto all good works." (II Tim 3:16,17) It would seem odd that a book with errors would perfectly enable us to do all of the good works God asks of us, including correction and instruction, granted, "in righteousness." But also, think about some of the other promises about the word of God. Psalm 116:9, "How can a young man keep his way pure, by keeping it according to Thy word." If the Bible has errors in it, then how will my way be pure if I happen to be following or believing in one of the errors? Another verse is Hebrews 4:7 (somewhere around there) "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." How could a book of errors judge the heart? > My position is that the Biblical authors were competent but not > error-free, and not independent of the knowledge of their times. > This position is very different than the more extreme critical one, > which holds that the Bible can't be used as a source for historical > knowledge at all. I think for the most part I would agree with you on your last statement, all but the not error free part. There's at least one other theory about the inspiration of the scriptures that you didn't put forth, so let me try to explain it. Imagine God, sitting up in heaven, deciding that He wanted the Bible written. While in some cases He did simply tell people what to write (i.e. Isaiah, John), for the majority of the New Testament He wanted it to be by the hand of the author's themselves. God had certain things He wanted to see written in the Bible, and He had certain ideas about the way they should be written. So instead of God either just letting things go and hoping for the best or completely coming down and taking someone over He conceivably could have looked over the whole world and all the people in it and "arranged" it that the people who He KNEW would write it the "correct way" would end up writing it. This might sound a little far-fetched at first, but think of an analogy. If you have a job you want done at work and there are a number of people who might offer to do it, but you want it done a certain way, you can arrange certain circumstances or adjust the way you introduce the project such that you get the person you want to do it to do it. But if we as people can arrange such things, think about God who knows everything about everyone of us and has the ability to "arrange" events such that the author need not be controlled, but chosen out of the available pool of authors that God knew perfectly and completely. For example, the Bible talks of Paul being chosen in the fulness of time. Paul wasn't taken from his crib and converted to Christianity, he was trained as a Pharisee and was allowed to persecute the church for a great while. All of this background enabled Paul to see certain things and to have a foundation that was exactly what God needed to get across the letter to the church at Rome and the book of Hebrews and all of Paul's other letters. I'm not saying that Paul had no free will in the matter, but God seems to have a way of working in and around our choices such that we get what we want but He also gets what He wants. By no means do I claim this to be the only possible correct explanation for Biblical inerrancy (and I haven't really even talked about the historical aspect of the question) but this idea of God choosing an author whom He knew would write the Bible exactly as He wanted it is not beyond my faith so it couldn't be beyond what God is capable of doing. Rick Frey "The grass whithers and the flower fades, but the word of our Lord shall stand forever" Isaiah 40:9
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (06/25/85)
In article <2129@sdcc6.UUCP> ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) writes: >> The only one of these that I think can be dismissed out of hand is >> the idea of direct information transfer from God to the authors. >> This would make the Bible essentially an account of a revelation from >> God to the authors, and not a historical document. >Exactly, a revelation, just like the book of the same name. God >specifically claims to be revealing Himself to mankind, why would it >seem odd that many of the writings (portions of Isaiah, Daniel and many >other of the books of prophesy) claim to be direct revelations from God >to another individual but also with relevance to us. I would feel much >safer with a direct revelation from God than with someone else's >observations of what Christ was like, unless God also takes a hand in >that. But that's the same problem; all you've done is substitute "revelation" for "inspiration". The question is still the same: how do we get from God to the paper? In any case, Isaiah is vastly unlike much of the Bible. Take the Gospels, for instance. It's unclear how you apply a "God told the authors what to write" theory to them, expecially considering the strong evidence within the texts that Matthew and Luke both derive from Mark. >The Psalms are songs of David, many written as prayers to God, but we read >those, and more often than not see the application to our own lives. >Most of the books of prophesy contain messages to other people and other >countries of a time period thousands of years back, but we can still >find meaning and application in them. The trick of the Bible is that it >was written by specific people at specific times concerning specific >problems, but, it can be applied to almost everyone, everywhere at any >time. Most people consider Shakespeare such a great writer because his >books aren't tied to just on time period or one event. Sure Julius >Caesar deals with the life and times of Julius Caesar, but it deals with >much more and in the same way that the Bible deals with specific events >and times, but also, much more. I agree with this passage with one reservation: it must not be assumed that ALL of the bible speaks to ALL situations and times. >> I believe the Biblical argument is the more important one. However I >> don't think it says what the literalists claim it says. The most >> typical passage is 2 Tim 3:16: "All Scripture is inspired by God, and >> is useful for teaching the truth ..." >Hmm, that's not how my translation reads and the ending is also crucial. >"All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for doctrine, >correction, reproof and instruction in righteousness, that the man of >God may be perfect, furnished unto all good works." (II Tim 3:16,17) >It would seem odd that a book with errors would perfectly enable us to >do all of the good works God asks of us, including correction and >instruction, granted, "in righteousness." But also, think about some of >the other promises about the word of God. Psalm 116:9, "How can a young >man keep his way pure, by keeping it according to Thy word." If the >Bible has errors in it, then how will my way be pure if I happen to be >following or believing in one of the errors? Another verse is Hebrews >4:7 (somewhere around there) "For the word of God is living and active >and sharper than any two-edged sword and able to judge the thoughts and >intentions of the heart." How could a book of errors judge the heart? This argument is erroneous and misleading on four counts: 1) The last sentence misrepresents the opposing viewpoint; it is not claimed that the bible is generally erroneous, only that it is not error-free. 2) It fails to distinguish that much of the bible makes statements on the symbolic and metaphorical levels, as well as on the literal. A literal fallacy may not have a bearing on the metaphorical truth. 3) Even the passages cited do not claim inerrancy (and I note that the word "doctrine" does not appear in either the RSV or the Jerusalem Bible' [Editorial note: please include versions with scrpitural references]). Moreover, Jesus a two points denies the perfection of scripture: in Mark 7:15, he sweeps away the dietary law, and at another point, he claims that the divorce law given in the Mosaic law is a concession to (Jewish?) human nature. 4) Finally, Jesus himself says that you have to look at the spirit rather than the letter of the law. He breaks the Sabbath more than once. It follows from this position that the law is NOT perfect, for if it were, one could just do exactly what it says. What Jesus seems to be saying is that it is by following the spirit of the law that a man could be perfect, and the law is the surest guide to that spirit. The bible can therefore contain errors and yet be necessary for teaching. >> My position is that the Biblical authors were competent but not >> error-free, and not independent of the knowledge of their times. >> This position is very different than the more extreme critical one, >> which holds that the Bible can't be used as a source for historical >> knowledge at all. > >I think for the most part I would agree with you on your last statement, >all but the not error free part. There's at least one other theory >about the inspiration of the scriptures that you didn't put forth, so >let me try to explain it. Imagine God, sitting up in heaven, deciding >that He wanted the Bible written. While in some cases He did simply >tell people what to write (i.e. Isaiah, John), for the majority of the >New Testament He wanted it to be by the hand of the author's themselves. >God had certain things He wanted to see written in the Bible, and He had >certain ideas about the way they should be written. So instead of God >either just letting things go and hoping for the best or completely >coming down and taking someone over He conceivably could have looked >over the whole world and all the people in it and "arranged" it that the >people who He KNEW would write it the "correct way" would end up writing >it. Well, I think this is a perfectly reasonable theory, and I think I believe in it, but it sure doesn't get you inerrancy. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
bennet@gymble.UUCP (Tom Bennet) (06/29/85)
>From mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Tue Jun 25 12:48:26 1985 >From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) >Subject: Re: About Literalism: in what sense is God the author of Scripture? >Message-ID: <465@umcp-cs.UUCP> > > 3) ...Moreover, Jesus a two points denies the perfection of > scripture: in Mark 7:15, he sweeps away the dietary law, and at > another point, he claims that the divorce law given in the Mosaic > law is a concession to (Jewish?) human nature. I don't think Mk 7:15 says that at all. In context, Christ has just finished chewing out the Pharisees for saying things in conflict with the commandment to honor one's parents, and then he turns to the crowd and says "...there is nothing outside the man which going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man." (NASV) It's clear that Christ is criticizing the P's for being so concerned with eating the right things but teaching (saying) the wrong ones. Jesus likes to get points across by making extreme statements; he does so elsewhere. As for divorce, I don't see that Jesus' statement is inconsistent with the correctness of the OT; it merely adds new consistent information. > 4) Finally, Jesus himself says that you have to look at the spirit > rather than the letter of the law. He breaks the Sabbath more than > once. It follows from this position that the law is NOT perfect, > for if it were, one could just do exactly what it says. ... I don't see this. If law is perfect, I think we would expect that no imperfect (any) human being could keep it perfectly. As for the Sabbath, Jesus' usual claim was not that he was breaking it, but that the S & P had mis-interpreted the laws concerning it. For instance in Luke 6. (He also claims there to be "Lord of the Sabbath" in v.5, in which case he would be claiming authority to override the OT, not that it's incorrect.) > ... What Jesus > seems to be saying is that it is by following the spirit of the law > that a man could be perfect, and the law is the surest guide to that > spirit. The bible can therefore contain errors and yet be necessary > for teaching. > Be that as it may, I think Christ had a rather high regard for the OT Scriptures. When he argues with the Pharisees, he makes his case from them, as in Lk 6 cited above. An even more interesting example in is Mt. 22:23-33. Jesus has gotten into an argument about the existence of an afterlife, and he says, quoting from Exodus, "...have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of the dead but of the living." (22:31-2 NASV) God said this to Moses long after the deaths of the persons listed; Jesus' argument is based on the tense of a verb. This shows a rather high regard for the OT text. >>> My position is that the Biblical authors were competent but not >>> error-free, and not independent of the knowledge of their times. >>> This position is very different than the more extreme critical one... >> >>...Imagine God, sitting up in heaven, deciding >>that He wanted the Bible written. ... for the majority of the >>New Testament He wanted it to be by the hand of the author themselves. >>... He conceivably could have looked >>over the whole world and all the people in it and "arranged" it that the >>people who He KNEW would write it the "correct way" would end up writing >>it. > >Well, I think this is a perfectly reasonable theory, and I think I believe >in it, but it sure doesn't get you inerrancy. > Given some reasonable definition of "error-free," one that only requires a document to say correctly the things it intends to say, to the precision which it intends to say them ("I live about a half mile from school" is not inconsistent with "I live 2587 feet from school"), and allows that non-literal language can be interpreted non-literally, I think it is possible to have a document which is error-free. If we then also accept that God can and does act through history, then it seems a simple matter to form a theory of inerrancy that would permit God to communicate to us by such a document produced in the manner described above. > >Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A balanced diet is important: one must | Tom Bennet @ U of MD Comp Sci Dept occasionally change pizza places. | ..!ihnp4!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!bennet
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/03/85)
In article <183@gymble.UUCP> bennet@gymble.UUCP (Tom Bennet) writes: > >Given some reasonable definition of "error-free," one that only requires a >document to say correctly the things it intends to say, to the precision >which it intends to say them ("I live about a half mile from school" is not >inconsistent with "I live 2587 feet from school"), and allows that non-literal >language can be interpreted non-literally, I think it is possible >to have a document which is error-free. > >If we then also accept that God can and does act through history, then it >seems a simple matter to form a theory of inerrancy that would permit God >to communicate to us by such a document produced in the manner described >above. > I think I can live with this definition of "inerrency", since it allows the Bible writers freedom in areas not "intended" in by them. Thus a reader need not slavishly accept the exact wording on peripheral matters. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen