carsup@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Fisher Library support) (10/28/90)
Ok guys, I need help. I've been a christian for almost 4 years now, (gee.. getting old). I came to Jesus mainly through hearing arguments for the resurection.. historical stuff. Because I know the Bible is a good primary witness, I can accept that the gospels are the word of God, and that since Jesus said is was, the OT as well. HOWEVER, I have never realy heard a realy good reason why the rest (ie apistles etc) are the word of God. I respect Paul and the rest as very wise and holy people, but how do we know God was speaking through them? I find that the argument 'because James said so in the Bible' a little circular. Thanks for any help and peace James Uther 8841060@chico.cs.su.OZ.AU please mail any private replies to ^^^^^^^ or the others on this account may get touchy. [I think we need both the Gospels and the rest of the NT in order to get a complete picture of the significance of Christ. The Gospels (at least the first three) limit themselves mostly to what Jesus taught publically during his life. They do not discuss in much detail the significance of Christ's death and resurrection. But Christianity is based on what Christ did and what he was, as well as what he taught. Paul's letters and much of the rest of the NT is much more explicit than the Gospels about matters such as the nature of Christ and salvation. Of course if we imagine that these are simply theological reflections on the events of Christ's life, in more or less a private capacity, then Paul's letters have no more authority than my own speculations. However Paul certainly seems to think he is presenting Christ's own views in many cases. He was in a position to know what Christ taught his disciples, and he also claims to have met Christ himself. I'm inclined to think that Jesus said things to his disciples about himself and his mission that aren't reported in the first three gospels. John certainly gives that impression, though even there we don't necessary have a complete picture. There's some reason to think that John intentionally avoiding talking about some matters, because his Gospel was intended for non-Christians or catechumens. E.g. note that he uses eucharistic language a lot, but never actually describes the Institution. Whether Matthew, Mark, and Luke also intentionally left things out, or whether they simply took as their goal to tell the external story but not to go into theology, I'm not in a position to say. But I see no reason to think that Paul's letters are any less a part of the Gospel than the Gospels. If nothing else, Paul is our earliest Christian source. His writings are older than the Gospels, and additionally have the advantage that we know who wrote them and can reasonably estimate his sources of information. We can only make inferences about the Gospels. --clh]
mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (10/29/90)
In article <Oct.28.03.14.04.1990.24347@athos.rutgers.edu> carsup@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Fisher Library support) writes:
Ok guys, I need help.
I've been a christian for almost 4 years now, (gee.. getting old). I came to
Jesus mainly through hearing arguments for the resurection.. historical
stuff. Because I know the Bible is a good primary witness, I can accept that
the gospels are the word of God, and that since Jesus said is was, the OT as
well. HOWEVER, I have never realy heard a realy good reason why the rest (ie
apistles etc) are the word of God. I respect Paul and the rest as very wise
and holy people, but how do we know God was speaking through them? I find
that the argument 'because James said so in the Bible' a little circular.
Hmm...from my standpoint, the letters of Paul (and primarily the
"undisputed" ones (1&2 Cor, Rom, Phlm, 1 Thess, Gal, Phil)) are the
best insight we have into the early church's thought about Jesus.
Christianity is a religion "about" Jesus, and it's the apostles'
thinking about Jesus that has defined it. They are the ones who knew
and lived with him, or, in the case of Paul, very closely tied to that
community.
The gospels are somewhat removed. The Johannine author(s) present a
highly theological-ized gospel, and the synoptic gospels present a
religious history. None of them are an objective account. Luke-Acts
looks more objective than the rest, and clearly is, but has
disparities with Paul's letters. Most scholars treat Paul's letters
as far more informative and reliable than Acts.
The historicity of the resurrection is very important to me. But I
don't believe it because the gospels mention it as important. They
are far from unbiased sources!
But I see your problem in a different light. If you are looking for
solid rules you can follow, then the New Testament and Christianity
are not for you. Ours is a religion of freedom from rules and
guidelines.
--
Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true
LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day,
mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man.
CARPE DIEM / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) (11/02/90)
In article <Oct.29.02.25.47.1990.15265@athos.rutgers.edu>, mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) writes: > > > But I see your problem in a different light. If you are looking for > solid rules you can follow, then the New Testament and Christianity > are not for you. Ours is a religion of freedom from rules and > guidelines. > > -- > Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true Wait just a minute!!! Christianity is NOT free from rules and guidelines. WE must love God, we must love others, we must not steal, we must not commit adultry, we must turn the other cheek. God has given us laws which we must follow. Now, because we are living in the age of grace, we are free from the old Jewish laws. We are free from mechanical guidelines and repetitve acts. Yet, this does not mean that we are free from laws. The are still laws of God in existence today. Elizabeth Tallant
gt1104c@prism.gatech.edu (SILVERT,STANLEY DAVID JR) (11/02/90)
In article <Oct.28.03.14.04.1990.24347@athos.rutgers.edu> carsup@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Fisher Library support) writes: > >stuff. Because I know the Bible is a good primary witness, I can accept that >the gospels are the word of God, and that since Jesus said is was, the OT as >apistles etc) are the word of God. I respect Paul and the rest as very wise >and holy people, but how do we know God was speaking through them? I find >that the argument 'because James said so in the Bible' a little circular. James, I think that part of your problem exists in the belief that the Bible is the literal word of God. Nothing could be further from the truth. It can be shown quite conclusively that the Bible was not literally written or dictated by the Almighty. The modern term for the belief that the Bible is somehow divinely created (not just inspired) is called "Biblical inerrancy." Controversy over this belief is what is now destroying America's largest Protestant denomination, The Southern Baptist Convention, even though few Bible scholars actually support the inerrancy idea. Unless someone wants to start a new thread, I don't feel it is necessary to discuss the issue here. However, if anyone is interested in inerrancy then they can order an excellent new book on the subject by Clayton Sullivan called "Toward A Mature Faith: Does Biblical Inerrancy Make Sense?" It is being published by an independent Baptist newspaper who is selling the book at cost ($5.00 plus $1.50 shipping). You can write to: SBC Today 222 East Lake Drive Decatur, GA 30030 (404) 377-6822 The book is not about disproving the Bible. On the contrary, because of this book and the understanding I have gained through it I have a much deeper understanding of the Bible which I have continued to base my life upon for the last 22 years. I especially urge other Southern Baptists to read the Sullivan book as it is especially critical that Baptists understand the important issue of inerrancy at this time. -- Stan Silvert Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!gt1104c ARPA: gt1104c@prism.gatech.edu
mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (11/06/90)
In article <Nov.2.03.05.32.1990.3970@porthos.rutgers.edu> ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes:
Yet, this does not mean that we are free from laws. The are still laws of
God in existence today.
I was hasty in my speech. There are "laws", but they are completely
unrelated to salvation, and if we are following them "because God told
us to" then we are missing the point. The NT "laws" are a description
of what we will want to do because of the presence of God in our
hearts. If the NT "proscriptions" are the reason we do them, it is
better to avoid the rules entirely until they are a spontaneous
effusion from our soul.
--
Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true
LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day,
mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man.
CARPE DIEM / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (11/06/90)
In article <Oct.29.02.25.47.1990.15265@athos.rutgers.edu>, mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) writes: > But I see your problem in a different light. If you are looking for > solid rules you can follow, then the New Testament and Christianity > are not for you. Ours is a religion of freedom from rules and > guidelines. In article <Nov.2.03.05.32.1990.3970@porthos.rutgers.edu>, ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes: > Christianity is NOT free from rules and guidelines. WE must love God, we must > love others, we must not steal, we must not commit adultry, we must turn the > other cheek. God has given us laws which we must follow. > Now, because we are living in the age of grace, we are free from the old Jewish > laws. We are free from mechanical guidelines and repetitve acts. > Yet, this does not mean that we are free from laws. The are still laws of > God in existence today. There's a paradox right at the heart of Christianity. (One of many.) It's a mistake to reject either end of the paradox; we have to embrace it in order to understand it (credo ut intelligam). We can find both ends of the paradox stated very sharply in one short letter: Colossians. Colossians 2:16-23. "Freedom" Therefore don't let anyone judge you with respect to food or drink or feasts or New Moon festivals or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of the things to come, but the body is of Christ. Don't let anyone defraud you of the prize, humbling your mind to do that one's will and worship angels, intruding into things he hasn't seen, vainly puffed up in his carnal mind, so that you don't hold fast to the Head, from whom all the body (which is supplied and knitted together by the joints and sinews) grows with the growth of God. If then you died with Christ from the elements of the world, why do you subject yourselves to decrees as though you were still alive in the world. "Don't handle!" "Don't taste!" "Don't touch!", all of which tend to corruption in their use, according to the injunctions and teachers of human beings. These things do indeed have the appearance of wisdom, in voluntary worship, humility, and disciplining the body rather than holding the satisfaction of the flesh as a principle. Colossions 3:3-10. "Law" Because you have died, your life has been hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is our life will be revealed, then too you will be revealed with Him in glory. Therefore put to death your earthly limbs, fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is a kind of idolatry. On account of those things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience, amongst whom you used to walk when you were alive in those things. But now, put off all those things and anger, indignation, malice, blasphemy, and foul language. Don't lie to one another, because you have put off the old man with his deeds and put on the new that is being renewed into knowledge according to the imagine of the creatoer. And so it goes. There are some positive commands after that. That's quite a sharp paradox: "you're dead, so don't let anyone judge you with respect to dietary or ceremonial laws, but your life is hidden in God with Christ, so don't do any of these evil things and do do these good things." Consider 1 Cor 5:11. "If anyone claims the name of a brother [in Christ] but is a fornicator or is covetous or is an idolater or is a reviler or is a drunkard or is rapacious, don't associate with him, don't even eat with him." If that isn't a mechanical guideline, it'll do until one comes along. A Jewish friend, talking about the Jewish idea that Goyim can be righteous if they obey the seven Noachian commandments, clarified it this way: "they're not righteous if they just keep the 7 commandments, but only if they keep them _because_ they're *God's* commandments." I think that helps me with this paradox. I'll leave the final word with the letter to the Romans; the very letter which taught Luther about the centrality of Grace: Romans 6: 15. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but grace? May it not be so! 18. Having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness! -- The problem about real life is that moving one's knight to QB3 may always be replied to with a lob across the net. --Alasdair Macintyre.
crf@tomato.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) (11/08/90)
In article <Nov.2.04.02.26.1990.4464@porthos.rutgers.edu> gt1104c@prism.gatech.edu (SILVERT,STANLEY DAVID JR) writes: >I think that part of your problem exists in the belief that the Bible is the >literal word of God. Nothing could be further from the truth. It can be shown >quite conclusively that the Bible was not literally written or dictated by the >Almighty. The modern term for the belief that the Bible is somehow divinely >created (not just inspired) is called "Biblical inerrancy." Controversy over >this belief is what is now destroying America's largest Protestant denomination, >The Southern Baptist Convention, even though few Bible scholars actually >support the inerrancy idea. > > ... [more stuff deleted] I'm a bit uncomfortable with the paragraph above, for the following reason: it seems that different people mean different things when they talk about "inerrancy." Of course one common meaning is what you've described: the idea that God directly created the Bible (often accompanied by a belief that such-and-such pastor or church understands it completely so that nothing they say is ever wrong). IF that's what you think when you hear "inerrancy" then I agree with your comments. I'm no expert, but I've heard that when Bible scholars talk about inerrancy their definitions are not the outrageous ones above. Apparently they have no problems with saying yes, the Bible was written by men (men inspired by God, but still men); yes, the Bible is subject to the same sorts of textual corruption as any other book; and yes, we still have to put work into understanding the cultural background, figurative language, ... before we can have any hope of fully understanding what the Bible is saying. (Let me emphasize that this refers to what _scholars_ say; some of these subtleties tend to get lost before they find their way out to the average Christian-in-the-street.) None of these things affects the Main Issue. As I see it, the Main Issue boils down to this: Premise A: The Bible is, somehow, inspired by God. Premise B: God does not lie. ---------------------- Conclusion: *If* (and yes, this is a BIG if) we could completely understand what God is trying to say to us through the Bible, we would find it all to be true. Stated in this form, I think any Christian would agree with this. The unfortunate thing is that some understand inerrancy to mean this, and thus call themselves inerrantists; and others believe inerrancy to mean something more, something untenable, and thus say that they reject inerrancy. I would welcome any corrections, comments, questions, ... I would not welcome flames, rotten tomatoes, ... :-) Grace and peace, Charles Ferenbaugh
dhosek@sif.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) (11/09/90)
In article <Nov.7.23.43.27.1990.19942@athos.rutgers.edu>, crf@tomato.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) writes... >I'm no expert, but I've heard that when Bible scholars talk about inerrancy >their definitions are not the outrageous ones above. Apparently they have >no problems with saying yes, the Bible was written by men (men inspired by >God, but still men); yes, the Bible is subject to the same sorts of textual >corruption as any other book; and yes, we still have to put work into >understanding the cultural background, figurative language, ... before >we can have any hope of fully understanding what the Bible is saying. >(Let me emphasize that this refers to what _scholars_ say; some of these >subtleties tend to get lost before they find their way out to the >average Christian-in-the-street.) None of these things affects the >Main Issue. >As I see it, the Main Issue boils down to this: >Premise A: The Bible is, somehow, inspired by God. >Premise B: God does not lie. >---------------------- >Conclusion: *If* (and yes, this is a BIG if) we could completely understand > what God is trying to say to us through the Bible, we would > find it all to be true. Exactly. Last week, I finally understood Biblical fundamentalism and why people are willing to accept the idea of the literal truth of every word in the Bible (i.e., the obvious meaning of some phrase, e.g., the world was created in seven days, etc., is the only correct interpretation). And that's because it's difficult to view the bible as a teaching story. A favorite quote of mine from Umberto Eco (from _Name of the Rose_) is in order here: Books are made not to be believed, but to be subjected to inquiry. When we consider a book, we musn't ask ourselves what it says, but what it means. The important thing about Genesis, chapter one is not how God created the world or how much time He spent on it, but rather the fact that God created the world. I won't argue the issue of creationism because it doesn't matter whether the universe was created in a week or ten zillion years. All that matters is that it's God's work. And this sort of understanding does not come easily. Nor does the necessary inquiry. Take for example the creation of Eve in Genesis 2. That nasty phrase, about her being a helpmeet to the man. How many of you know that the word for help there is the same Hebrew word used elsewhere to describe God's relationship to humanity? Interesting insight isn't it? -dh "You can study Greek on your own time, but we prefer the original King James version around here." (I _like_ that one).
randy@uutopia.dell.com (Randy Price) (11/09/90)
[Stanley Silver comments that "it can be showed the the Bible was not literally written on dictated by the Almighty", and says that controversy over this belief is destroying the Southern Baptist Convention. crf@tomato.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) writes: |> I'm a bit uncomfortable with the paragraph above, for the following reason: |> it seems that different people mean different things when they talk about |> "inerrancy." Of course one common meaning is what you've described: the |> idea that God directly created the Bible (often accompanied by a belief |> that such-and-such pastor or church understands it completely so that |> nothing they say is ever wrong). IF that's what you think when you hear |> "inerrancy" then I agree with your comments. -clh] I am more than a bit uncomforable with the above paragraph. It has been attempted to "show conclusively" that the Bible is not inerrant, with little success. The criticism of Biblical inspiration is much like evolution, where the theory must be revised to fit new information. The principle in Biblical inerrancy is the inerrancy of the autograph, which we do not have. Corruption of the text is possible, but the multiplicity of sources limits this as well. We have three thousand years text of Isaiah that do not differ from the texts from which modern translation are derived. The idea of dictation of the Bible is a theory held only by a small sect of churches, and then usually only pertaining to certain books. When examining the criticism of any Biblical scholar investigate his theology. If his axe to grind is liberal or social theology, onn of the linchpin of that theology is the Bible cannot be correct. The truth cannot be compromised, so the truth must be questioned. There is a tendency to assume that any "new discovery" or theory is somehow more correct that older information. In the case of Biblical criticism this is dangerous, because much of the new criticism follows the money -> liberal theology. Realize also, that much of this scholarship is based on different interpretation of the same material. Before anyone decide that Biblical inerrancy is for backwoods buffoons, read a thorough study from the inerrancy viewpoint. A good testbook quality volume is by Geisler and Nix. There are others. Randy ________________________________________________________ Randy Price randy@uutopia.dell.com The opinions are my own, not my employers, cognito. "Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?" Thomas Jefferson
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (11/09/90)
In article <Nov.5.22.05.28.1990.20942@athos.rutgers.edu> mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) writes: >I was hasty in my speech. There are "laws", but they are completely >unrelated to salvation, and if we are following them "because God told >us to" then we are missing the point. The NT "laws" are a description >of what we will want to do because of the presence of God in our >hearts. If the NT "proscriptions" are the reason we do them, it is >better to avoid the rules entirely until they are a spontaneous >effusion from our soul. (Note: emphasis is mine in the passages below) "Not every one that saith unto me "Lord, Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven but he that *doeth* the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Mat 7:21) He that heareth these sayings of mine and *doeth* ...[is like a wise man whose house does not fall in the storm] He that... doeth them not...[is like a foolish man whose house falls in the storm]. (Mat 7:24-27) Those who feed the hungry, visit the sick, clothe the naked, visit the prisoners etc. are "sheep" to be put on the right hand of Jesus while those who do not are "goats" on his left hand who go away into everlasting punishment but the righteous into life eternal. (Mat 25:31-46) "If ye love me, keep my commandments." (John 15:14) (Maybe you think those who do not love Jesus will be saved. If so, I disagree.) I believe the laws are closely related to salvation. The confusion comes from the Law of Moses which had been fulfilled. However we neglect love of our fellow man and caring for him at our eternal peril.
gt1104c@prism.gatech.edu (SILVERT,STANLEY DAVID JR) (11/10/90)
In article <Nov.9.00.48.16.1990.28971@athos.rutgers.edu> randy@uutopia.dell.com (Randy Price) writes: >[Stanley Silver comments that "it can be showed the the Bible was not >literally written on dictated by the Almighty", and says that >controversy over this belief is destroying the Southern Baptist >Convention. crf@tomato.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) writes: > >I am more than a bit uncomforable with the above paragraph. It has been >attempted to "show conclusively" that the Bible is not inerrant, with >little success. The criticism of Biblical inspiration is much like That's not true. One only has to point to one error to get a proof by contradiction to the statement "The Bible is perfect." The Bible claims in Mark 4:31 that the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the world. We know that there are other smaller seeds (the orchid for one). Therefore, a contradiction is made and the statement "The Bible is perfect" is false. There are at least a couple of hundred similar (and equally unimportant) examples. BTW, I never doubted Biblical inspiration. In fact, I acknowleged it in my original posting. > >The principle in Biblical inerrancy is the inerrancy of the autograph, >which we do not have. Corruption of the text is possible, but the Since we don't have the autograph, the whole point of inerrancy is lost. If we did have the autograph it might do us some good, but since we don't the whole inerrancy argument from this angle is moot. >translation are derived. The idea of dictation of the Bible is a theory >held only by a small sect of churches, and then usually only pertaining >to certain books. This is also not true. I come across fundamentalists all the time who cling to this silly idea. > >When examining the criticism of any Biblical scholar investigate his >theology. If his axe to grind is liberal or social theology, onn of the >linchpin of that theology is the Bible cannot be correct. The truth >cannot be compromised, so the truth must be questioned. Please define "liberal". It has taken on a very different meaning in the past few years. I'm not really sure what you meant in his paragraph. If you don't feel that theological scholorship is important then I must protest. > >There is a tendency to assume that any "new discovery" or theory is >somehow more correct that older information. In the case of Biblical >criticism this is dangerous, because much of the new criticism follows >the money -> liberal theology. Realize also, that much of this >scholarship is based on different interpretation of the same material. Why is liberal theology dangerous? In this paragraph "liberal" seems to mean "new" or "modern". All theology was new at some time. > >Before anyone decide that Biblical inerrancy is for backwoods buffoons, >read a thorough study from the inerrancy viewpoint. A good testbook >quality volume is by Geisler and Nix. There are others. > I will try to find the text you cited. As was mentioned in an earlier posting, different people mean different things when they talk about inerrancy. In my original posting I was only trying to dispel one of the myths concerning the issue. Ignorance combined with labels such as "inerrancy" have caused major problems in the Southern Baptist Convention. I hope that through understanding on both sides of the Southern Baptist controversey we can come to some agreement. I did not want to air SBC dirty laundry here which is why I was reluctant to start a new thread. I have found that those who read this newsgroup are much more enlightened than the average churchgoer so I really didn't expect anyone to argue from the backwoods buffoon viewpoint. So far, nobody has. -- Stan Silvert Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!gt1104c ARPA: gt1104c@prism.gatech.edu
ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (11/13/90)
In article <Nov.10.08.35.22.1990.25377@athos.rutgers.edu>, gt1104c@prism.gatech.edu (SILVERT,STANLEY DAVID JR) writes: > That's not true. One only has to point to one error to get a proof by > contradiction to the statement "The Bible is perfect." > The Bible claims in Mark 4:31 that the mustard seed is the smallest seed in > the world. We know that there are other smaller seeds (the orchid for one). > Therefore, a contradiction is made and the statement "The Bible is perfect" is > false. I've seen Biblical inerrancy defined by a Catholic author as the notion that the Bible contains no mistakes in things pertaining to salvation. The trouble with that is that as a criterion it is practically useless; if I _decide_ solely on the bases of my own preference and of what will enable me to fit in with the contemporary world that the ethical teachings of the NT do not pertain to salvation then I will smugly ignore them and tell people who are bewildered by my apparent intellectual disintegrity "yes I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, inerrant in all that it teaches pertaining to salvation, but no, I don't believe any of that stuff about ethics, that's obviously mistaken." We need a view of the Bible which will allow _it_ to correct _us_. On the other hand, we have the fact that the Bible exists in the form of written documents and is subject to copying errors (what a _pity_ that we didn't adopt the error detection techniques of the Jews!) and to both intentional and unintentional errors in translation. (Which is one of the reasons why I recently bought a copy of the Tanakh, the fresh 1986 translation brought out by the Jewish Publications Society. So far it is reassuringly familiar, although they do say "a wind from God moved on the face of the waters".) Yet even these imperfect copies, and even slanted translations, are effective in bringing people to Jesus, so absolute literal perfection can't be _necessary_. I haven't completely worked out what I believe about inerrancy, to be frank. One thing to bear in mind is the philosophy-of-science distinction between "naive falsificationism" and "methodological falsificationism". Lakatos points out that Newton's theory of gravity is not falsifiable. In just the same way, a theory of the Bible as "perfect" (modulo variations in extant texts) is not falsifiable. But Newton's theory of gravity _was_ eventually dropped, because the implicit "research programme" (when experimental results do not agree with the predictions of the theory, assume that the experimental setup was not what you thought it was, e.g. look for hitherto unnoticed forces) began to look less plausible than the research programme based on Einstein's theory. What am I getting at? "Inerrancy" is best understood as a RESEARCH PROGRAMME rather than as a THEORY. The idea is that when we detect what appears to be an inconsistency the "inerrancy" programme is to doubt our interpretation. Instead of sticking fast to our interpretation and claiming that that falsifies the Bible, we look for another interpretation. We look for _methods_ of interpretation which minimize difficulties, using the assumption of the Bible's trustworthiness to criticise the _methods_ rather than the other way around. If you believe that the Bible speaks with authority, then you ought to have the utmost respect for the text. You should be concerned to hear what the text _is_ saying rather than what you _think_ it is saying. This involves attention to genre: some of the Bible is "teaching stories" but a very great deal of it isn't. It involves attention to the distinction between quoting and affirming. And so on. So what _does_ Mark 4:31 say. _Does_ it "claim" "that the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the world"? Bearing in mind the adage "a text without a context is a pretext", let's look a bit at the context. Bracketed [alternatives|choices] or [omissions] reflect textual variants. Mark 4:30 Kai elegen [tivi|pos] homoiosomen ten basileian tou theou; And he said [to what|how] shall we compare the kingdom of God? e en [poia parabole parabalomen auten|tivi auten parabole thomen]; or [with what parable shall we compare it|what parable shall we use to set it forth]? Mark 4:31 Hos [kokko|kokkov] sinapeos, hos, hotan sparon EPI TES GES like a grain of mustard, which, when it has been sown ON THE LAND [mikroteros|mikroteron on] panton ton spermaton [estin] [is|being] less than all the seeds [ton EPI TES GES], -- Lachmann's text omits this [which are ON THE LAND], -- phrase, the others have it Mark 4:32 kai hotan spare, anabainei, and when it has been sown, it grows up, kai ginetai [panton ton LACHANON meixon|meixon panton ton lachanon], and becomes greater than all the {other} HERBS GROWN ON LAND CULTIVATED BY DIGGING, kai poiei kladous megalous, hostei dunasthai hupo ton skian autov and produces large branches, ta peteiva tou ouranou kataskenoun. so that the flying birds of the sky can come and dwell under its shade. Q1. What is the genre of this text? A1. Parable. It is an analogy. Q2. What is Jesus claiming here? A2. The kingdom of God is like a cultivated plant that starts out small, grows up big, and then provides shelter. Q3. Could Jesus' hearers have possibly understood him as claiming that mustard was the smallest seed in the world? A3. No. There's a word for "tree" (dendron), there's a word for "plant" (phyteia), and there's a word for "herb grown in ground cultivated by digging" (lachanon). Since the plant in question only grows to about 3 metres (10 feet) tall, it's clearly not "bigger than all the plants including trees", so "lachanon" shouldn't be taken outside its usual meaning. Q4. But doesn't it say "in all the world"? A4. No. The phrase which has been twisted to "in all the world" literally says "on the land", and in context, that's the natural way to read it. Rearranged somewhat, here it is again: When a grain of mustard seed has been sown on the land it is the smallest seed [sown] on the land but when it is grown it is the largest of cultivated herbs. The relevant category is quite obviously herbs grown in Judea by sowing them onto ground that had been prepared by digging. So the other poster who objected that orchids aren't sown on the land was perfectly correct. If the seeds of leeks or onions or any of the garden vegetables cultivated at the time in Judea are smaller than mustard seeds, THEN we have a false claim in the text. What strategy have I used to this point? BEFORE CLAIMING THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE IN THE BIBLE, OR IN ANY DOCUMENT WHICH DID NOT ORIGINATE IN YOUR OWN TIME IN YOUR NATIVE LANGUAGE, MAKE SURE YOU HAVE AS GOOD A TRANSLATION AS YOU CAN GET. THE _TRANSLATOR_ MAY BE AT FAULT, NOT THE AUTHOR. That's not an "inerrancy" strategy, it's elementary honesty in scholarship. Suppose we discovered that there was a garden vegetable of the time which had smaller seeds than the mustard plant. Then we would not be able to hold (as in this case we currently _are_ able to hold) that the text was literally true. What then? Well, look at the genre. It's a parable, an analogy. For that to work, the "known" end of the analogy has to be something the hearers accept as true. Was Jesus interested in mustard seed as such? No, what He wanted to convey to His audience was an idea about the kingdom of God. That'll work even if their belief about mustard seed is wrong. So one might get away with arguing that Jesus is here QUOTING a popular belief or saying about mustard seed (like our "Great oaks from little acorns grow"), not TEACHING it. I would be very uneasy about adopting that argument. What I'd want to see before accepting it is independent evidence that the idea _was_ accepted or proverbial, which would mean surveying a lot of 1st century text. So the strategy I would accept here is IF there is independent evidence that something was accepted or proverbial or idiomatic, AND the dubious claim can be read without straining the text as an illustration of some kind rather than a central claim THEN tentatively assume "quoted, not taught". This needs to be safeguarded at both ends: you need to _demonstrate_ that the claim in question is likely to be proverbial &c and you need to check that the claim is not elsewhere used as a basis for doctrine which is relevant to salvation. In _this_ case, however, what we have is a bad translation, _not_ a mistake in the Bible. -- The problem about real life is that moving one's knight to QB3 may always be replied to with a lob across the net. --Alasdair Macintyre.
mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) (11/16/90)
In article <Nov.13.04.18.51.1990.1066@athos.rutgers.edu> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >I've seen Biblical inerrancy defined by a Catholic author as the notion >that the Bible contains no mistakes in things pertaining to salvation. >The trouble with that is that as a criterion it is practically useless; It works in the context of Catholicism. The claim of the Catholic church is that as the body ordained by Christ to carry out His work it is in a position to decide which parts of the Bible pertain to salvation. As you rightly point out, if this is left entirely to individual conscience, the whole thing collapses. Your message seems to read to me that it is only possible to be a Protestant if one is prepared to make a huge effort and go to the extent of considering the original Greek and Hebrew versions. This is not too far from the Islamic insistence that the Koran be studied only in the original Arabic - in this way Islam maintains some sort of unity without a central organising structure. In practice, I guess that most Protestants are satisfied to rely on the interpretation given by their pastor. This is in itself dangerous since the pastor cannot claim any particular authority. Matthew Huntbach
ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (11/17/90)
In article <Nov.13.04.18.51.1990.1066@athos.rutgers.edu>, ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) wrote > On the other hand, we have the fact that the Bible exists in the form of > written documents and is subject to copying errors (what a _pity_ that > we didn't adopt the error detection techniques of the Jews!) and to both > intentional and unintentional errors in translation. (Which is one of > the reasons why I recently bought a copy of the Tanakh, the fresh 1986 > translation brought out by the Jewish Publications Society. So far it > is reassuringly familiar, although they do say "a wind from God moved > on the face of the waters".) Yet even these imperfect copies, and even > slanted translations, are effective in bringing people to Jesus, so > absolute literal perfection can't be _necessary_. Today I received E-mail from a Jew who reads soc.religion.christian (and why not? I read soc.culture.jewish, though I wouldn't dream of posting) and who seemed rather angry at what he took to be a claim that the JPS translation of the Tanakh was "slanted". That's not what I wrote and it's not what I meant. I thought that it was clear from the extract above that "one of the reasons why I recently bought a copy of ... the 1986 [JPS translation]" was to help me check for "intentional and unintentional errors" in *OUR* translations. That runs a risk of being misunderstood too. I'm not saying that where Christian translations and Jewish translations disagree the Jews are right. I _am_ saying that where there's a difference there is something worth looking into. One of the themes of Bible translation in the 20th century is the attempt to produce translations which reflect good scholarship rather than sectarian interest. The Revised English Bible, for example, was "planned and directed by representatives of The Bapist Union of Great Britain, The Church of England, The Church of Scotland, The Council of Churches for Wales, The Irish Council of Churches, The London Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, The Methodist Church of Great Britain, The Moravian Church in Great Britain and Ireland, The Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, The Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, The Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, The Salvation Army, The United Reformd Church, The Bible Society, and The National Bible Society of Scotland, to quote the back cover, and was brought out by OUP and CUP. One idea, of course, is to get the best scholars you can wherever you can find them. Another is to try to avoid bias; to avoid slanting things. The 1986 JPS translation of the Tanakh "represents the collaborative efforts of academic scholars and rabbis representing the three largest branches of organised Judaism in America." In looking at it, I can be reasonably confident that it represents "Jewish" understanding rather than "Orthodox" or "Reform" special interest. I think it makes a useful and interesting comparison against the REB or the NIV precisely because I believe that the translators took pains NOT to slant it. Which slanted translations did I have in mind? Well, that posting was not intended to give offence to anyone, and neither is this. Suffice it to say that I had in mind two religious groups which call themselves Christian. What's more, I particularly had in mind their translations of the New Testament, not of the Tanakh. -- The problem about real life is that moving one's knight to QB3 may always be replied to with a lob across the net. --Alasdair Macintyre.
ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (11/19/90)
In article <Nov.13.04.18.51.1990.1066@athos.rutgers.edu> I wrote > I've seen Biblical inerrancy defined by a Catholic author as the notion > that the Bible contains no mistakes in things pertaining to salvation. > The trouble with that is that as a criterion it is practically useless; I should make it clear that I was careful to say "by a Catholic author"; I have no idea what the teaching of the Catholic Church is. I suppose I should find out. In article <Nov.16.03.04.51.1990.8433@athos.rutgers.edu>, mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes: > It works in the context of Catholicism. The claim of the > Catholic church is that as the body ordained by Christ to carry > out His work it is in a position to decide which parts of the > Bible pertain to salvation. As you rightly point out, if this > is left entirely to individual conscience, the whole thing collapses. What _is_ the teaching of the Catholic Church on the authority of the Bible? I know that they regard the Church as essential to interpret the Bible, but _do_ they in fact regard some of it as _not_ inspired or _not_ having authority (when interpreted by the authentic church)? > Your message seems to read to me that it is only possible to be > a Protestant if one is prepared to make a huge effort and go to > the extent of considering the original Greek and Hebrew versions. > This is not too far from the Islamic insistence that > the Koran be studied only in the original Arabic Well, that's certainly not what I meant to say, and I don't think that's what I said. There is a distinction to be drawn between those people who profess to be able to tell *other* people what the Bible says and those who sit in the pews. People who profess to be able to interpret the Bible to others (and in particular people who profess to be able to show that the whole thing is unreliable) should be judged by a higher standard. Personally, I don't see it as "making a huge effort" to consider the original Greek of the NT. I've not yet learned Hebrew, but even that doesn't count as a huge effort. (I _can_ read the letters and _can_ find a passage in an interlinear and _can_ look things up in a good dictionary, it's just that I have little vocabulary and less grammar! So I'm not in a position to make interpretations of my own, but I _am_ in a position to check _some_ of the things that commentators say.) But that's beside the point. I *do* think that ministers ought to learn Hebrew and Greek. I *do* think that people who write commentaries should learn Hebrew and/or Greek (as appropriate to the text they are commenting on). I *do* think that someone who wants to argue that the Bible is full of mistakes ought to get his facts straight. But for the ordinary Christian-on-the-Clapham-omnibus, no, I don't think this is called for, and I don't recall having said that it is. Here's what I actually said: BEFORE CLAIMING THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE IN THE BIBLE, OR IN ANY DOCUMENT WHICH DID NOT ORIGINATE IN YOUR OWN TIME IN YOUR NATIVE LANGUAGE, MAKE SURE YOU HAVE AS GOOD A TRANSLATION AS YOU CAN GET. THE _TRANSLATOR_ MAY BE AT FAULT, NOT THE AUTHOR. That doesn't look to me like an insistence that people study in the original languages, it looks like a recommendation to get a good translation! The Revised English Bible is a pretty good translation, and the Catholic Church in Britain had a hand in it. The New International Version, where I've checked, is very good. There are quite a few other good modern translations. > In practice, I guess that most Protestants are satisfied to > rely on the interpretation given by their pastor. This is in > itself dangerous since the pastor cannot claim any particular > authority. I was told by a Methodist minister in the USA that Methodists rely on "The Wesleyan Quadrilateral": - scripture - tradition - reason - and experience Unfortunately, her ethical teaching was not only at variance with the teaching of the Catholic Church, but at variance from the teaching of Wesley himself. She never would explain to me how come she understood the Wesleyan quadrilateral better than Wesley. I have heard of a Baptist minister in England teaching quite explicitly that you could sleep with anyone you chose to and that that wasn't "fornication". That really horrified me, because I think of myself as a Baptist. Hence the question which I really would like to see someone from the "other side" try to answer, "may Richard O'Keefe visit a legal brothel in Victoria". So yes, the danger is real. On the other hand, the Reformers argued that the Catholic Church had fallen into error on a number of points (indulgences, for example). Protestants would thus argue that the danger is not restricted to them. (I would have been an iconoclast, or at any rate an iconomach.) It's worth bearing in mind that there are Catholics saying (for example) that homosexual behaviour is wrong, and there are Catholic priests who say not only that homosexual behaviour is excellent but that people _can't_ be celibate (I have a particular book in mind in the Catholic bookshop down the road). Can _both_ of these groups be presenting the authentic message of the Holy Spirit for today with the authority of the Church? If one of these groups is right, aren't ordinary people who listen to a priest from the other camp in exactly the same kind of danger as people who listen to a Protestant pastor? Is every point of Liberation Theology taught with the full authority of the church? Luther himself was a Catholic doctor of theology and taught as a Catholic. What guarantee is there that the Catholic Church won't have other Luthers? Wasn't Arius a priest of the Church, and Nestorius a bishop? The Catholic Church may plausibly claim that it has always _overcome_ error _in the end_. But for someone sitting in a pew _this_ Sunday, it can provide no guarantee that _this_ sermon will be orthodox. -- I am not now and never have been a member of Mensa. -- Ariadne.
sc1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Chan) (11/21/90)
>Excerpts from netnews.soc.religion.christian: 19-Nov-90 Re: Bible the word of God? Richard A. O'Keefe@goann (6032) > > >What _is_ the teaching of the Catholic Church on the authority of the > >Bible? I know that they regard the Church as essential to interpret > >the Bible, but _do_ they in fact regard some of it as _not_ inspired or > >_not_ having authority (when interpreted by the authentic church)? The official position of the Catholic Church is that the Bible *is* inspired. Originally there were many, many more books associated with Christianity - but during the first few centuries AD, the Church culled out the ones which were either: a) loony b) non-essential c) uninspired Therefore, as a text, the Bible (the whole Catholic Bible) is complete, inspired and authoritative. However, the Catholic Church believes that the Bible must be interpretted within the context of sacred tradition as a whole. The protestant cry of "Sola Scriptura!" strips the Bible of it's relevant and necessary context - thus opening the door to too much divergence in interpretation. (no flames from protestants please, someone asked for the Catholic position)
meuer@uunet.uu.net (Mark V. Meuer) (11/21/90)
In <Nov.19.03.41.54.1990.1447@athos.rutgers.edu> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >It's worth bearing in mind that there are Catholics saying (for example) >that homosexual behaviour is wrong, and there are Catholic priests who >say not only that homosexual behaviour is excellent but that people >_can't_ be celibate (I have a particular book in mind in the Catholic >bookshop down the road). Can _both_ of these groups be presenting the >authentic message of the Holy Spirit for today with the authority of >the Church? If one of these groups is right, aren't ordinary people >who listen to a priest from the other camp in exactly the same kind of >danger as people who listen to a Protestant pastor? Yes and no. The Catholic Church never claims that individuals speaking in the name of the Church could never fall into error. It says that the official, traditional teaching set in place by the bishops over the centuries will not contain error. >The Catholic Church may plausibly claim that it has always _overcome_ >error _in the end_. But for someone sitting in a pew _this_ Sunday, it >can provide no guarantee that _this_ sermon will be orthodox. That is true. That is one of the reasons why the Church places so much emphasis on education, so that the members of the congregation will know what orthodoxy is and not be misled. But I agree, there is no ironclad guarantee. -mark -- Mark Meuer | Geometry Supercomputer Project | meuer@geom.umn.edu "Scientists have determined that the world's fastest animal, with a top speed of 120 ft/sec, is a cow that has been dropped from a helicopter." - Dave Barry
zhou@brazil.psych.purdue.edu (Albert Zhou) (11/23/90)
Instead of saying that Bible is the word of God, I would say that Bible is a` human account of God's word. Therefore you can explain some erroneous or contradictory records are found in Bible.
eric@wdl47.wdl.fac.com (Eric Kuhnen) (11/27/90)
zhou@brazil.psych.purdue.edu (Albert Zhou) writes: >Instead of saying that Bible is the word of God, I would say that Bible is a` >human account of God's word. Therefore you can explain some erroneous or >contradictory records are found in Bible. I think that would explain things as they are now. But what about at the time that certain books were actually written? If one accepts Isaiah as a prophet, for example, then one must accept that his writings were prophetic, or the word of God, by definition. I would say that the Bible is the word of God so far as it is translated correctly. This would permit one to explain away the erroneous and contra- dictory without denigrating the author. "Q"
johnw@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Warren) (11/30/90)
In article <Nov.2.03.05.32.1990.3970@porthos.rutgers.edu> ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes: >In article <Oct.29.02.25.47.1990.15265@athos.rutgers.edu>, mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) writes: >> >> >> But I see your problem in a different light. If you are looking for >> solid rules you can follow, then the New Testament and Christianity >> are not for you. Ours is a religion of freedom from rules and >> guidelines. >> >> -- >> Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true > > >Wait just a minute!!! > >Christianity is NOT free from rules and guidelines. WE must love God, we must >love others, we must not steal, we must not commit adultry, we must turn the >other cheek. God has given us laws which we must follow. > >Now, because we are living in the age of grace, we are free from the old Jewish >laws. We are free from mechanical guidelines and repetitve acts. > When Paul talked about the Law and our freedom from it, he was not referring to just the mechanical/ repetitive nature of it. He was referring to the demand the law has not just on the external act but the internal state of mind of the actor. This is what a large part of the Sermon on the Mount is about. Jesus said, "You have heard it said to you. . .(e.g., don't covet your neighbor's wife), but I say unto you. . . (e.g., even if you look lustfully at her, you're committing adultery);" thus he underscored the extent of the Law's authority (for those who would live by following it). It cuts straight to the heart. **This** is the law (i.e., law with the meaning understood) that Paul in Romans 7 said that we died to, not just the repetitive/mechanical nature of the Jewish law. In Galatians, he said **this** law was a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ. Any set of rules that has the intent to make better people, however good those rules are, are law that we have died to. I cannot love God, until I first trust him. I cannot love others until God puts that love in me. I cannot turn the other cheek, maybe somebody else can, but I cannot, at least now. But the Spirit of God, which is in me because of my faith (act, based on belief, supported by confidence), is more than able and willing to put in me the desire to do so. It is NOT my responsibility to make myself into more of a Cheek Turner. It is my responsibility to act in faith. >Yet, this does not mean that we are free from laws. The are still laws of >God in existence today. > Christianity is not free from rules and guidelines, but we are. What I mean is that in order to please God, he only wants faith. He then puts in us the desire and the ability to follow rules and guidelines that are eternally true. The Law IS good, but we don't have to follow it. And yet the spirit of God, in us, will change us so that we do follow it more and more. >Elizabeth Tallant