credmond@watmath.UUCP (Chris Redmond) (06/18/85)
Somebody made a comment recently about the sloppiness of the press in
referring to "taking the Bible literally" when what was meant was a
different concept.
Well, maybe. But the example given was a bad one: of course nobody
takes the statement "I am the vine" as anything but a metaphor. It
would not be literalism to take that literally, it would be stupidity.
Literalism requires the reader to take literally the larger statement,
"Jesus said, I am the vine," because that's what is really being
said. In other words, "Jesus used a metaphor."
It is possible to accept that "the vine" is a metaphor, and tohave
any of a large range of opinions about the literal truth of other statements
in the Bible -- such as, to take a hoary example, Jonah and the whale.
Personally I do not find it either necessary or desirable to take
every such statement as historical truth. There is a line in one of the
traditional catechisms -- a Presbyterian one, I think -- which describes
the Bible as "the only infallible rule of faith and practice", and I
find that a more helpful approach than trying to take it as an infallible
history or science book.
However, that's a digression. Perhaps the person who made the original
comment would help us with a list of terms and definitions: infallible,
inerrant, literal, and so on? And perhaps a scale of them, from least
to most liberal?
Chrisjeand@ihlpg.UUCP (Diaz) (06/19/85)
> It is possible to accept that "the vine" is a metaphor, and tohave > any of a large range of opinions about the literal truth of other statements > in the Bible -- such as, to take a hoary example, Jonah and the whale. > Personally I do not find it either necessary or desirable to take > every such statement as historical truth. There is a line in one of the > traditional catechisms -- a Presbyterian one, I think -- which describes > the Bible as "the only infallible rule of faith and practice", and I > find that a more helpful approach than trying to take it as an infallible > history or science book. 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'? Either he knows everything and is infallible, and we should listen to him, or he is not infallible, and I may as well live my life without listening to anyone else. Jean Marie Diaz "Never play leapfrog with a unicorn."
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (06/22/85)
In article <675@ihlpg.UUCP> jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (Diaz) writes: >> Personally I do not find it either necessary or desirable to take >> every such statement as historical truth. There is a line in one of the >> traditional catechisms -- a Presbyterian one, I think -- which describes >> the Bible as "the only infallible rule of faith and practice", and I >> find that a more helpful approach than trying to take it as an infallible >> history or science book. > >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'? Either he knows everything >and is infallible, and we should listen to him, or he is not infallible, >and I may as well live my life without listening to anyone else. > I find two problems with this reasoning. The first(minor) one is the assumtion that God is the *author* of the Bible in the human sense, rather than tha *inspiration* or *source* for a book written by many human authors. Second, and more important, is the matter of *subject* material of the book. That is the Bible is *about* faith and religous practice *not* science and history. Thus any science or history in it is essentially incedental to the message of the book. To place excessive detail about incedental matters in a book is a sure way of making the book boring and incomprehensible. Reading the Bible for science(say for instance Biology) is like reading a Psychology text to learn Chemistry! It is even worse, since an absolutely scientifically correct text would be unreadable by anyone not himself omniscient, since it would include statements of facts not yet even imagined by our best scientists. If *we* could not understand such a book, how could we excpect a pre-technological citizen of Israel to do so? It simply had to be written in the vernacular, that is in simple, non-technical terms, and I have yet to find a non-technical text on science that did not contain significant distortions of reality(even Scientific American has this problem from time to time). In short, it is a mistake to read the Bible, or any other book, for anything outside of its primary subject. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
thiel@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (Stephen W. Thiel) (06/22/85)
Just a point of clarification: From credmond@watmath.UUCP (Chris Redmond) Message-ID: <15117@watmath.UUCP> >There is a line in one of the >traditional catechisms -- a Presbyterian one, I think -- which describes >the Bible as "the only infallible rule of faith and practice", and I >find that a more helpful approach than trying to take it as an infallible >history or science book. This is, I think, a correct interpretation of the Presbyterian view, but the wording is a little bit off. There are two possibilities for the source of the "infallible rule of faith and practice" statement. The first is the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter I, Section 2: 2. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these: [Here are listed the books found in most Protestant Bibles; the Apochrypha are not included] All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life. Closely related to this is Ch. I, Sect. 9: 9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. A second possible source for the "faith and practice" statement is the Larger Catechism, based, I believe, on the Westminster Confession: Q. 3. What is the Word of God? A. The holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, the only rule of faith and obedience. Q. 5. What do the Scriptures principally teach? A. The Scriptures principally teach, what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man. So, Chris Redmond's statement is essentially correct, except for that tricky word, infallibility. If I understand the situation correctly, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) makes no claims for scientific or historical accuracy; I know for certain that I, a Presbyterian, make no such claims. -- Steve Thiel ...ihnp4!ut-ngp!thiel