sjreeves@eedsp.gatech.edu (Stan Reeves) (07/10/89)
In article <Jul.5.01.44.25.1989.10517@athos.rutgers.edu> tytso@athena.mit.edu (Theodore Ts'o) writes: >problem to "prove" that the >Bible is inerrant. >But it does determinedly insist that none of them {\em is} God. All of >them, being involved in history, are mixtures of the divine with the >human; and since the human is never perfect, these instruments partake >of relativity and imperfection too. Jesus Christ -- fully human and fully divine. Did he then partake of relativity and imperfection too? Those who seek to refute the inerrancy of Scripture based on the above argument (i.e. human = imperfect) cannot avoid the implication that Christ himself was imperfect. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stan Reeves Georgia Tech, School of Electrical Engineering, Atlanta, GA 30332-0250 UUCP: ...!{allegra,hplabs,ulysses}!gatech!gt-eedsp!sjreeves INTERNET: sjreeves@eedsp.gatech.edu
rei3@tank.uchicago.edu (ted reichardt) (07/11/89)
In article <Jul.10.00.34.17.1989.10414@athos.rutgers.edu>, sjreeves@eedsp (Stan Reeves) writes: [commenting on an argument that the human side of scripture implies relativity and imperfection in scripture: ] >Jesus Christ -- fully human and fully divine. Did he then partake of >relativity and imperfection too? Those who seek to refute the inerrancy >of Scripture based on the above argument (i.e. human = imperfect) cannot >avoid the implication that Christ himself was imperfect. Actually, they (we) can avoid it quite easily: when the humanity of Christ is spoken of, it is a "perfect" humanity; when the humanity of the scripture authors is spoken of, it is a manifestly imperfect humanity. >Stan Reeves tedr [Actually I thought Stan's response was perhaps a little unfair. The point of the original article was that only God is infallible. Far from attacking Christ, this was intended to make clear his unique status. --clh]
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (07/13/89)
[In article <Jul.10.00.34.17.1989.10414@athos.rutgers.edu> sjreeves@eedsp.gatech.edu (Stan Reeves) responded to a comment by tytso@athena.mit.edu (Theodore Ts'o). Theodore was talking about the Bible, like other human creations, being imperfect. Steve was concerned that this implied an imperfection on the part of Christ. --clh] Most of us believe in a perfect God who created men who became imperfect. To me this is a much greater problem than errors in the Bible. If He could create men and allow them to be imperfect why could he not allow "printers errors" in his book. The Bible came through the prophets and I don't think many people would claim that these men were perfect. That is, the perfect Creator used imperfect men to give us his word. I don't find this to be a problem. Why not say that although the creator is perfect he allows freedom among his creations which allow them to be imperfect. Certainly the Bible is a creation, not the Creator. We should worship the Creator and consider the Bible only as an aid to our understanding of Him. I fear that a few Christians hold the Bible in such high esteem that their veneration approaches worship. This would be less of a temptation if they understood that it although it is remarkably accruate it does contain errors.
BVAUGHAN@pucc.princeton.edu (Barbara Vaughan) (07/15/89)
In article <Jul.13.02.20.03.1989.28488@athos.rutgers.edu>, hall@vice.ico.tek.com >[In article <Jul.10.00.34.17.1989.10414@athos.rutgers.edu> >sjreeves@eedsp.gatech.edu (Stan Reeves) responded to a comment by >tytso@athena.mit.edu (Theodore Ts'o). Theodore was talking about the >Bible, like other human creations, being imperfect. Steve was >concerned that this implied an imperfection on the part of Christ. >--clh] > >Most of us believe in a perfect God who created men who became >imperfect... >...he allows freedom among his creations which allow them to be >imperfect. I agree with this, and would go even further: the whole of ceation is by design imperfect by virtue of the fact that it is finite. Our finite knowledge cannot comprehend the whole of divine knowledge; our imperfect human language cannot express perfectly the Divine Word. It is obvious that at the time the New Testament was written, it was perf- ectly acceptable to interpret Old Testament scriptures allegorically. There are frequent examples of allegorical interpretations given to scripture by Christ and the apostles. I think it is a particularly 20th century delusion to think that everthing can be resolved to im- mutable facts. Speaking of allegory, we could profit from an allegorical inter- pretation of the story of the Tower of Babel. Any human attempt to attain perfect knowledge of the Mind of God results in confusion and division. Barbara Vaughan
zach@drutx.att.com (Zach Lewis) (07/15/89)
I have seen many different postings of the Bible is not perfect, but I want to ask if the Bible is clear ? Does the Bible leave me in doubt about what I should be doing ? Does the Bible give me signs along my walk to let me know if I am going the right way ? One text comes to mind that helps me understand how I can know what God's doctrines are about. Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. John 7:16,17. The question now is what does this text mean ? Is it saying that when I do what Jesus did for his neighbor I will understand what God's will is ? What does it mean to you ? Also what does Luke 10:25-28 mean ? Zac
TTAERUM@ualtavm.bitnet (07/21/89)
In article <Jul.15.04.53.29.1989.620@geneva.rutgers.edu>, zach@drutx.att.com (Za >One text comes to mind that helps me understand how I can know >what God's doctrines are about. > >Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent >me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it >be of God, or whether I speak of myself. John 7:16,17. BACKWARD > >The question now is what does this text mean ? > An interesting question Zac. I remember as a young teenager thinking that some of the good looking girls would look even better in bed. Aside from the problem of treating people as objects, it raised a moral qualm within me; after all, scripture said, "Thou shall not commit adultery". Now was this REALLY adultery, I said to myself, after all, they weren't married, and I was really only thinking those thoughts, and one of these days I'd be getting married (you know you've got to 'look' if you're going to see the one your going to marry), and there's nothing wrong with admiring a beautiful rose (in bed???), and how can I be certain everything works unless I try it out, and how do I know I should marry someone unless we know we're compatible, and I don't want to be known as a prude and ... I don't understand why but it wasn't until I "agreed with His word" that I began to (I believe) "understand His word". It has gotten to the point that, when I don't understand something in the Bible I sometimes ask myself, "is there some area of my life that this scripture is talking to or about that is in conflict with God's word." Remove the conflict (or at least agree with God's word on that point) and seemingly unrelated areas of scripture begin to make sense. The converse also seems to hold. I find it fascinating that many people who engage in 'witchcraft' do not simply engage in witchcraft (the casting of a few innocent spells, a dabbling into books on the occult ...) but rather they eventually take part in the ceremony - with its blood sacrifice, the pentagram, and even the fertility rites. As they move into it, scripture makes less and less SENSE to them until, eventually, they are in open rebellion against it. This may explain, for instance, the severe penalty against adultery and witchcraft in scripture (stoning). That is, ultimately these acts will, in and of themselves, lead to the death of the individual. Conversely, we can also see that this penalty was for those who were unrepentant and refused to turn from their ways (David, for instance, was forgiven for both his adultery and his murder after his confession. So what does all this mean? I would suggest we attempt a rather scary experiment. I suggest we agree with G-d that some specific area of our life is wrong - based on scripture (even if we don't immediately change our behavior in that area) and test whether or not particular scriptures, which didn't make SENSE before, begin to make sense. Terry Taerum
paulj@uunet.uu.net ( Joey Paul x4129 ) (07/21/89)
In article <Jul.13.02.20.03.1989.28488@athos.rutgers.edu>, hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) writes: [some stuff deleted] > The Bible came through the prophets and I don't think many people > would claim that these men were perfect. That is, the perfect > Creator used imperfect men to give us his word. I don't find this > to be a problem. Why not say that although the creator is perfect > imperfect. Certainly the Bible is a creation, not the Creator. We > should worship the Creator and consider the Bible only as an aid to > our understanding of Him. I fear that a few Christians hold the > Bible in such high esteem that their veneration approaches worship. > This would be less of a temptation if they understood that it > although it is remarkably accruate it does contain errors. I do not advocate "Bible worship" for only God is to be worshipped. I must ask, however, when one begins to question the reliability of the scriptures, what then becomes of its authority in the believers life? It seems to me that with- out an absolute authority there can only be chaos. Also, is it not true that whoever questions the authority of the scriptures is thereby setting himself as the authority over the scriptures (ie, this is reliable, that isn't; this is true, that isn't) ? There are four selections of scripture (among several) which, when followed as one thought, have laid to rest the question of scriptural authority (for me at least). They are: Phil. 2:9-11 - "...God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name..." (his name is above every name) Neh 9:5 - "...and blessed be thy glorious name, which is exalted above all blessing and praise." (his name exalted above all) Psa 138:2 - "...for thou hast MAGNIFIED THY WORD ABOVE ALL THY NAME. (God himself has placed his word above his name) 2 Pet. 1:16-19 - "...We have also a more sure word of prophecy..." (In context, the word is more sure than the very voice of God) >This would be less of a temptation if they understood that it >although it is remarkably accruate it does contain errors. Please specify. Although many people have made this statement none have yet given me any (not even one) examples. Standard disclaimer
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (07/23/89)
[This continues a discussion on the perfection or otherwise of the Bible. Hal initially presented the view that "although it is remarkably accruate it does contain errors." A response from Joey Paul b8!paulj@uunet.uu.net said that although he did not advocate "Bible worship", it is necessary for the Bible to be thought of as reliable in order (1) for it to have the authority that it needs for us to base our lives on it and (2) in order to avoid having us have to make judgements on what is reliable and what isn't. He proposed 4 passages, of which this response deals with two. (The others talked about God's name being exalted, and were background to these two.) --clh] >Psa 138:2 - "...for thou hast MAGNIFIED THY WORD ABOVE ALL THY NAME. > (God himself has placed his word above his name) [RSV: for thou hast exalted above everything thy name and thy word --clh] But this does not say exactly what His word is. Also it does not say He prevents imperfection in his word any more than he makes it impossible to take his name in vain. Clearly it is possible to take the name of the Lord in vain. I submit that it is also possible to be careless with his word. >2 Pet. 1:16-19 - "...We have also a more sure word of prophecy..." > (In context, the word is more sure than the very voice > of God) [after describing how God spoke to them at the transfiguration: "we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word made more sure." RSV --clh] I don't think that the context gives that any more than any other scripture is the very voice of God. It surely does not say that it would be impossible for men to make mistakes with this prophecy. More sure than what? Is Peter saying his word of prophecy is more sure than the Old Testament? I think so and if so that places one scripture as more reliable than another in some sense. > >>This would be less of a temptation if they understood that it >>although it is remarkably accruate it does contain errors. > >Please specify. Although many people have made this statement none have >yet given me any (not even one) examples. Well, I don't want to spend a lot of time looking up errors but a few come to mind immediately. First, how did Judas die? Did he hang himself (Mat 27:5) or did he fall and all his bowels gush out (Acts 1:18)? Second, when Saul of Tarsus was on the way to Damascus and had his vision, what about those who were with him, did they hear the voice but not see the vision (Acts 9:7) or did they see the light but not hear the voice (Acts 22:9)? Admitedly these are not of great consequence but they are contradictory, so one of each pair of passages must be in error. Perhaps of more consequence, John 1:18 says "No man hath seen God at any time." However, several OT passages describe theophanies: Gen 32:30 Jacob saw God face to fact. Ex 33:11 Moses likewise Ex 33:23 Moses would see His back parts Ex 24:9-10 Moses & 70 elders of Israel saw God From the NT, Acts 7:56 Stephen sees Jesus on the right hand of God This list is certainly not exhaustive but only provides examples. I have also only given contradictions. There are many other Bible passages believed to be in error for various reasons. I do not want to get into an argument here over their veracity. This is intended only to illustrate that there are imperfections. Also please do not take this as an indication that I do not study and learn from the Bible, I do. I simply realize that the object of my worship is God, not the book his servants wrote.