SoF question

[ydoaPs]

"We believe that the Bible is inspired by God in its entirety, and is without error in the original autographs, a complete and final written revelation from God."

I have questions about that. Mainly, why? I'm not trying to start a debate or anything, I just never really got an answer elsewhere.

 

[handy]

So, what are your questions?

 

[veteran]

"We believe that the Bible is inspired by God in its entirety, and is without error in the original autographs, a complete and final written revelation from God."

I have questions about that. Mainly, why? I'm not trying to start a debate or anything, I just never really got an answer elsewhere.

Well, first of all, why not start with what YOU believe? Do you have a declaration to make?

 

[ydoaPs]

So, what are your questions?

I was just wondering WHY, pretty much. I never really got a good answer. I've been given Bible quotes that would imply that it is true for the OT, but nothing for the NT.

 

[ydoaPs]

"We believe that the Bible is inspired by God in its entirety, and is without error in the original autographs, a complete and final written revelation from God."

I have questions about that. Mainly, why? I'm not trying to start a debate or anything, I just never really got an answer elsewhere.

Well, first of all, why not start with what YOU believe?

That's too complicated for this thread, and it's somewhat off-topic. I'm just interested in the justification of that SoF in this thread.

Do you have a declaration to make?

Not especially.

 

[veteran]

"We believe that the Bible is inspired by God in its entirety, and is without error in the original autographs, a complete and final written revelation from God."

I have questions about that. Mainly, why? I'm not trying to start a debate or anything, I just never really got an answer elsewhere.

Well, first of all, why not start with what YOU believe?

That's too complicated for this thread, and it's somewhat off-topic. I'm just interested in the justification of that SoF in this thread.

Do you have a declaration to make?

Not especially.

Well firstly, you posted a statement in quotes. And then asked a leading question with "why". I'm prepared to give answer even if you're not a believer and just want to know why Christians believe God's Word is divinely inspired and without error. But since you're not willing to reveal your stand on the subject, I won't give answer.

 

[ydoaPs]

Well firstly, you posted a statement in quotes. And then asked a leading question with "why". I'm prepared to give answer even if you're not a believer and just want to know why Christians believe God's Word is divinely inspired and without error. But since you're not willing to reveal your stand on the subject, I won't give answer.

Odd. Ok.

My 'position' is that I think the Bible is largely taken out of context as a whole in modern Christianity. There's not a lot of thought given to what kind of documents comprise the Bible. AFAICT, the Gospels aren't even intended to be entirely historically accurate; they're largely midrashic. I've yet to see any indication that the authors of the NT wrote expecting their text to be included in a holy compilation rather than just be read by the intended audience. I don't really want to talk about this in this thread, however, as I asked why "We believe that the Bible is inspired by God in its entirety, and is without error in the original autographs, a complete and final written revelation from God."

I would gladly discuss this further in another thread should you desire justification and/or further discussion of my 'position.'

Now, would you please continue discussion of the topic at hand?

 

[handy]

The reason why I agree with the SoF on this matter is because

a: I've spent the last 30+ years of my life studying both the OT and the NT and find that there is complete harmony both in what is written and the Spirit with which it was written. Since Jesus obviously trusted and operated on the basis of the validity of the OT, and I find the NT to be inspired in the same way, I agree that both are fully inspired by God.

b: I've yet to see any real error or major disparity within these 66 books that were written over a span of 1000+ years. Something that I have to attribute to God's supernatural invovlement here because there is no other set of books on the face of this earth that is so free of error.

and mostly

c: the only way one can come into understanding the Bible is via the Spirit and the Spirit within me confirms the SoF on this.

Short answers, but a jumping off point. Is there anything in particular that causes you to disagree with the Scriptures?

 

[ydoaPs]

Short answers, but a jumping off point.

So, essentially personal opinion. I can respect that.

Is there anything in particular that causes you to disagree with the Scriptures?

It's not really doubting the scriptures as much as doubting the SoF. I'll give one example here. If any of you want to discuss my position further, please make another thread, so this one doesn't get full of 'why not' instead of 'why.' That would be greatly appreciated. I'm even open for a 1 on 1 discussion if you would like.

The promised example:
There's much reason to believe that Matthew is heavily midrashic. One example of many is the virgin birth. This is one example of which Matthew is forcing prophecy on Jesus, because Matthew wanted to make it clear that Jesus WAS the promised Messiah. Keep in mind, that in midrash, literal truth isn't nearly as important as meaning; saying it is prophesy is good enough to make his point.

In Matthew 1:22-23, the author of Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14. That's all fine and dandy until we go and actually read it in context. The author of Matthew even cuts off Isaiah mid-sentence. The prophecy in question(read the whole chapter and you'll see), is that the pregnant woman in the room will have a son named Immanu-El and the principle enemies of Ahaz will be defeated before said boy is old enough to know right from wrong. The birth isn't what is being prophesied at all; it is the timescale for the actual prophesy-the defeat of the armies.

Other things about 7:14. The word 'virgin' is the Hebrew word 'alma' meaning 'young woman'. It in no way implies anything about sexual experience or lack thereof. It is likely that Matthew used a greek word meaning virgin in order to make Jesus even more special. The author of Matthew essentially invented his own prophesy for midrashic purposes.

From a book by a Christian:

A danger in functional equivalency is importing too much into the target language, supplying more meaning than the original provided. An example is adding specificity lacking in the original. Many English translations did this in Isaiah 7:14 when they rendered the Hebrew word almah, meaning "a female...who has not yet borne a child,"69 as "virgin." The lack of sexual experience that is an integral part of the meaning of the English term virgin is not part of the specific meaning of the Hebrew term. That is, an almah may (Isa. 54:4) or may not have had sexual relations, since that is not the distinguishing semantic feature for the word, while virgin by definition cannot have had sexual relations.

69. John Walton, NIDOTTE 3.415-19, here 418. The LXXX renders the word as parthenos, which also indicates sexual maturity but not sexual experience or its lack.

 

[handy]

I truly wish I had more time this morning. Our house sustained some damage in a wind-storm and we have contractors showing up in about 10 minutes. However, again short answers for this morning and perhaps when I have more time we can delve into this even deeper.

There's much reason to believe that Matthew is heavily midrashic. One example of many is the virgin birth. This is one example of which Matthew is forcing prophecy on Jesus, because Matthew wanted to make it clear that Jesus WAS the promised Messiah. Keep in mind, that in midrash, literal truth isn't nearly as important as meaning; saying it is prophesy is good enough to make his point.

You do realize that you are starting with a pretty big assumption that Matthew cannot be speaking the truth, as you say "forcing prophecy on Jesus". Why assume that or assume that anyone 2000 years after the fact can read Matthew's heart and motives? Why can't Matthew simply be telling the events that happened as they did? If Matthew is giving a honest account (and there were those around who could correct his facts if he got them wrong) then can you see that what happens then reshapes the texts in Isaiah to be the prophetic utterance that it turned out to be?

There is more to go into, the dual nature of prophetic utterances (needed for the stipulation that a prophet's words had to come true or else he faced death) and so on, but I really don't have time this morning. I just want to encourage you to think through your own assumptions in this matter and keep an open mind.

 

[ydoaPs]

You do realize that you are starting with a pretty big assumption that Matthew cannot be speaking the truth, as you say "forcing prophecy on Jesus".

Not reallly. I could have chosen my words better, but there are many other examples. Some of which even stretch it to ridiculous lengths. As I said before, in midrash, the truth of the text isn't as important as the meaning; it doesn't matter if the prophesy was true.

Why assume that or assume that anyone 2000 years after the fact can read Matthew's heart and motives?

Textual criticism. The same way we can tell the motives of ANY text's author.

Why can't Matthew simply be telling the events that happened as they did?

There's much reason to believe it's midrash, that's why. As I said, this is only one example.

If Matthew is giving a honest account (and there were those around who could correct his facts if he got them wrong) then can you see that what happens then reshapes the texts in Isaiah to be the prophetic utterance that it turned out to be?

The people in those days knew what midrash was. As I said, most Christians today take the Bible out of context. I've seen no reason to think that the authors meant for their letters to be included in some holy inerrant anthology. They were simply people writing to other people about what they believed about God and Jesus.

I just want to encourage you to think through your own assumptions in this matter and keep an open mind.

I encourage you to take your own advice.

 

[cyberjosh]

Textual criticism. The same way we can tell the motives of ANY text's author.

There are different hermeneutics for textual criticism, so how do you assess which person's theories are correct? Even historians (who must work with written material - though not exclusively) of rather well established events (say Napolean's conquests) don't always agree with one another. What I'm getting at is why and how do you determine that looking at the gospels as midrashic is valid? Can you show the midrash to be typological like the NT? Revelation of types are a pattern throughout the NT.

~Josh

 

[ydoaPs]

Textual criticism. The same way we can tell the motives of ANY text's author.

There are different hermeneutics for textual criticism, so how do you assess which person's theories are correct?

Read each book in isolation. Read it for what the author had to say. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to ask.

What I'm getting at is why and how do you determine that looking at the gospels as midrashic is valid?

The above example is one of many. If we take it as midrash, we can say that each individual work is inerrant in the meaning it portrays, but not necessarily in the 'facts' with which said meaning is presented.If it's not midrash, then there are serious problems for the inerrantists.

For example:

Herod reigned until his death in 4BC. Upon Herod's death, his kingdom was split among his sons. In 6AD, Herod Archelaus(one of King Herod's sons) was deposed and his land thus fell into Roman control. One of Archelaus's replacement was a man by the name Coponius. At the same time as the appointment of Coponius, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria in 6AD. Upon the appointment of Quirinius, since this was the first time the land was under Roman control, it was decreed by Caesar Agustus that there should be a census. This census was the first Roman census of the area.

"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him."-Matthew 2:1-2

"And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son."- Matthew 2:13-15

"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. ([And] this taxing was first made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child." Luke 2:1-5.

Now, there is a problem. Jesus was said by one gospel to be born prior to the death of Herod the Great(4BC, but another says he was born after the census(which is a direct result of Herod's death) in 6AD. Prior to 6AD, Rome didn't even have the authority to take a census of that area.

We are left with a 10 year discrepancy between gospels. This cannot be a simple case of mistranscription, because one gospel's chronological anchor is a direct result of the other's.

I've made another thread for the discussion of what I think on the subject and why. I'd really rather reserve this thread for discussion of the SoF at hand and the justification thereof.

 

[follower of Christ]

"We believe that the Bible is inspired by God in its entirety, and is without error in the original autographs, a complete and final written revelation from God."

I have questions about that. Mainly, why? I'm not trying to start a debate or anything, I just never really got an answer elsewhere.

No one believes or has faith unless God gives them the ability.
Regrettably, this means that at this point He either hasnt given that to you yet....or He has and youve rejected His calling.
No one comes to the Son unless the Father draws them. God makes the first move.
Without His doing so you will NEVER believe simply because you cannot choose to do so on your own. None of us can.

When the day of visitation comes and your eyes are opened, then and only then will you be capable of comprehending 'why'.

Im sorry, but this is simply how it works.

.

 

[ydoaPs]

"We believe that the Bible is inspired by God in its entirety, and is without error in the original autographs, a complete and final written revelation from God."

I have questions about that. Mainly, why? I'm not trying to start a debate or anything, I just never really got an answer elsewhere.

No one believes or has faith unless God gives them the ability.
Regrettably, this means that at this point He either hasnt given that to you yet....or He has and youve rejected His calling.

One need not be an inerrantist to be a Christian.

 

[follower of Christ]

One need not be an inerrantist to be a Christian.

Certainly do.
If you cannot trust the scriptures for anything else, why then do you claim to trust them for anything pertaining to the redemptive work of the Savior ?
Do you just pick and choose what you want to believe in scripture...accept salvation but reject anything that you dont like or doesnt make sense to you ?

If the details you dont like are in error then ANY of it is subject to suspicion.

.

 

[ydoaPs]

One need not be an inerrantist to be a Christian.

Certainly do.
If you cannot trust the scriptures for anything else, why then do you claim to trust them for anything pertaining to the redemptive work of the Savior ?
Do you just pick and choose what you want to believe in scripture...accept salvation but reject anything that you dont like or doesnt make sense to you ?

I've given one example of methods used in this thread and another in the other thread. To think that because a few details of a story(especially one that is likely full of metaphorical subarcs) of a story is false that the overarching message must be false is in direct contradiction with the Bible. Jesus conveyed truth through false stories often; we call those stories parables.

If the details you dont like are in error then ANY of it is subject to suspicion.

Only if you are 'finding' things in error based on your personal preferences. There is a difference between saying something is wrong because of preconceived notions and personal preference and saying something is wrong because there are reasons to think it is wrong.

One can convey meaning through a story that's not necessarily true. Jesus did it all the time.

 

[follower of Christ]

I've given one example of methods used in this thread and another in the other thread.

No, you pretty much used complete irrelevance to try to make a pointless point.
The issue ISNT whether Jesus used allegory and parable. The issue is whether a REAL man named Jesus even lived and spoke at all.
I dont think anyone here is ignorant or stupid enough to believe that allegory is anything other than just that.
That allegory and parable exist in scripture casts NO doubt whatsoever on the validity of the life of the man named Jesus.

To think that because a few details of a story(especially one that is likely full of metaphorical subarcs) of a story is false that the overarching message must be false is in direct contradiction with the Bible.

Oh please friend. Use this tactic with someone with whom it may work.
There is no contradiction against the scriptures in KNOWING that they are true and that those who reject that truth are believing a lie.

Jesus conveyed truth through false stories often; we call those stories parables.

Ive already refuted this absurdity. Making the same assertions over and again wont make them true, Im afraid.

The issue ISNT whether Jesus spoke in parables. We ALL know that He did.
The issue is whether the HISTORICAL accounts of His life are accurate or not.
If ANY of the other historical accounts are FALSE then NONE of the others can be trusted.

I hope you can understand this fact. If not, then we're wasting both our times here.

.

 

[follower of Christ]

Only if you are 'finding' things in error based on your personal preferences.

Please
This hasnt a single thing to do with preference. It is based solely on whether historical details can be trusted or not.

One can convey meaning through a story that's not necessarily true. Jesus did it all the time.

Which again isnt the issue here....even tho its clear why you have to keep trying to make it the issue.

The ISSUE is whether the historical accounts are accurate or not.
If those account details are wrong then ANY of them can be wrong...including the ones that speak about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

.

 

[ydoaPs]

No, you pretty much used complete irrelevance to try to make a pointless point.
The issue ISNT whether Jesus used allegory and parable. The issue is whether a REAL man named Jesus even lived and spoke at all.

Nope. The question is whether the NT was intended to be literal history or if it was telling a story to convey a message. It has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus existed. That's a topic for a different thread. I am in no way suggesting that Jesus never existed.

That allegory and parable exist in scripture casts NO doubt whatsoever on the validity of the life of the man named Jesus.

What's with you and thinking I'm 'casting doubt'?

[quote:24q1fgw8] To think that because a few details of a story(especially one that is likely full of metaphorical subarcs) of a story is false that the overarching message must be false is in direct contradiction with the Bible.

Oh please friend. Use this tactic with someone with whom it may work.
There is no contradiction against the scriptures in KNOWING that they are true and that those who reject that truth are believing a lie.[/quote:24q1fgw8]There are multiple places where we know the Bible is wrong historically.

[quote:24q1fgw8] Jesus conveyed truth through false stories often; we call those stories parables.

Ive already refuted this absurdity.[/quote:24q1fgw8]No, you asserted that it's an absurdity. There's a difference. You've yet to even describe how Jesus telling stories that aren't necessarily true to convey meaning is different from the author of Matthew telling stories that aren't nessecarily true to convey meaning about Jesus.

Making the same assertions over and again wont make them true, Im afraid.

Quite so. I'm glad you learned that.

The issue ISNT whether Jesus spoke in parables. We ALL know that He did.

I didn't say he didn't.

The issue is whether the HISTORICAL accounts of His life are accurate or not.

No, the issue is whether the stories need to be true for the message to be true.

If ANY of the other historical accounts are FALSE then NONE of the others can be trusted.

Who is right(Matthew or Luke)?:


Herod reigned until his death in 4BC. Upon Herod's death, his kingdom was split among his sons. In 6AD, Herod Archelaus(one of King Herod's sons) was deposed and his land thus fell into Roman control. One of Archelaus's replacement was a man by the name Coponius. At the same time as the appointment of Coponius, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria in 6AD. Upon the appointment of Quirinius, since this was the first time the land was under Roman control, it was decreed by Caesar Agustus that there should be a census. This census was the first Roman census of the area.

"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him."-Matthew 2:1-2

"And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son."- Matthew 2:13-15

"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. ([And] this taxing was first made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child." Luke 2:1-5.

Now, there is a problem. Jesus was said by one gospel to be born prior to the death of Herod the Great(4BC, but another says he was born after the census(which is a direct result of Herod's death) in 6AD. Prior to 6AD, Rome didn't even have the authority to take a census of that area.

We are left with a 10 year discrepancy between gospels. This cannot be a simple case of mistranscription, because one gospel's chronological anchor is a direct result of the other's.

The answer: it doesn't matter! The meaning matters.