What is the Bible?

Here's part two, Josh and Post...

Theories of Inerrancy (please not the one closest to your belief):

There are basically 7 positions. (From Millard Erickson's Christian Theology)

1) Absolute. Scripture contains no errors of any kind, including science and history, and indeed Scripture is intended to convey scientific information. When Scripture says the sun rises and sets, it does so, literally.

2) Full. Very similar to Absolute. The main difference is how scientific and historical references are understood. They are taken phenomenonlogically. So when the Bible says the sun rises or sets it is not teaching that the sun goes around the earth, but rather those events are reported as they appear to the human perspective.

3) Limited. The Bible is inmerrant only oin its salvific doctrinal references. Scientifc and historical references are to be taken as reflecting the understanding and limitation of knowledge of the biblical writers. God did not reveal science to the writers. So the Bible may contain scientific errors, but these are not important as the Bible was not wrottent for the purpose of revealing science. For the purpose for which Scripture was written i tis truly inerrant.

4) Purpose. Similar to 3). This defines purpose more narrowly, to say that scripture's purpose is to bring peple into fellowship with Christ, not communicate truths. So errors of "fact" of any kind are irrelevant.

5) Accomodation. This position emphasises that the Bible came thorugh human channels and is thus subject to the same flaws as we are. This would not only be true of scientifc and histrical matters but also matters of religion and theology.

6) Non-propositional. Some hold that the Bible is not reelation at all. It's function is to bring a person to a personal encounter with God (this event is considered revelation). The Bible does not relate propositions. In this case the Bible is not referred to in terms of true or false at all, but "genuineness".

7) Irrelanvancy. Some hold that inerrancy is simply irrelevant. Holding much in common with 6), this view simply disreagrds the entire debate.

Ok, so mark you ballots! (Boy I got that done a lot faster than I thought I would. God is good! (all the time!)

 

Latreia,
Briefly, b/c I'm busy at work. It depends on the part of scripture you are viewing. I think scripture contains sections that come from all (or nearly all) the theories you outlined.
(referring to part 1).

[ August 21, 2002, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: David Cooke, Jr. ]

 

I for one find it hard to make a claim that I’m closest to any one of these choices, since that would make it seem that the others don’t ever apply and I believe they do at times. The only one I don’t hold is number (1). I think that there are specific words that were “dictated” but limited to some authors, some of the time. I will place them in the order that I feel is more common to the Bible as I see it and that may help reveal my view.

4) Verbal theory: Very like the Dynamic Theory, except that it holds that the direction of the spirit can move beyond ideas to the selection of words. That is, in certain specific instances where the choice of a particular word is critical to the intended meaning, the Spirit directs the writer to choose a particular word, regardless of whether it is one that the human writer would "naturally" choose or not. This is not the same thing as "dictation" though since this "overriding" of the human author is restricted only to certain points where word choice is critical to meaning.

3) Dynamic Theory: There is in this theory an emphasis on the interaction of the Divine and the human in the process of inspiration and writing scripture. The Spirit gives the writer the concepts and ideas, and the writer then writes them down using words and expressions that are natural to the personality and culture of the writer. In this theory the Bible is divinely revealed truths expressed in ways characteristic to the human authors. (Again I do not hold to the Intuition Theory in any matter of scripture)

2) Illumination Theory: There is an influence of the Spirit on the person, but one that merely heightens natural abilities and sensitivities. The Spirit gives the writer a "higher religious consciousness". There is a greater ability to discover truth.

5) Dictation Theory: This goes way beyond Verbal theory to say that the Spirit dictated the Bible, word for word, to the writers. The writers were glorified typewriters. Authorial writing style, effectively, does not exist.

As for the 7 positions. (From Millard Erickson's Christian Theology) Again in order and only those I hold apply to scripture. This list apppears to not allow for cross over of definition and each definitions rule out each one of itself logically. But here goes.

3) Limited. The Bible is inerrant only on its salvaic doctrinal references. Scientific and historical references are to be taken as reflecting the understanding and limitation of knowledge of the biblical writers. God did not reveal science to the writers. So the Bible may contain scientific errors, but these are not important, as the Bible was not written for the purpose of revealing science. For the purpose for which Scripture was written it is truly inerrant.

2) Full. Very similar to Absolute. The main difference is how scientific and historical references are understood. They are taken phenomenonlogically. So when the Bible says the sun rises or sets it is not teaching that the sun goes around the earth, but rather those events are reported as they appear to the human perspective.

1) Absolute. Scripture contains no errors of any kind, including science and history, and indeed Scripture is intended to convey scientific information. When Scripture says the sun rises and sets, it does so, literally.

[ August 21, 2002, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

I feel that Joshua and Post only believe in the therory or anology of confussion and conflict and chaos. Too many time Joshua you have changed you idea of what this thread is. if the Bible is not God's Words...well then what do you preach? I find Post to be a straggler of a stirring pot...who whatever the pot is; only likes adding to it. He has no real thought of what he writes as long as it has conflict...it is right up his alley. He means none of which he writes only the sheer joy of being the one to stir the pot. He has no ideas or values. Even Post does not know what he means.
If either only means to bring two sides together...then where is the middle? It has to start with the Word of God.

John 1:1,2

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.

Colossians 2:8

8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principals of the world, and not according to God.

John 8:44-47

44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murder from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.
45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.
46 "Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?
47 He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God."

 

Sherrie, I liked your three c's statement. Apparently Erickson didn't take that theory into consideration in writing his book. I will have to contact him about it. Perhaps he can introduce a special 2nd edition to accomodate the lost.

Please stop with the John 1 references to Scripture. They refer to Christ, the living Word. This is a discussion about Scripture, the written Word. Both are the revelation of God and are perfect and in harmony.

 

Mr. Villines said in (Virgin born pg 7):

Helen, if the virgin birth accounts are later additions to the tradition, we have no idea how Joseph reacted to the news. What we have instead are either two older story retrofitted to accomodate the story of Jesus or new ones that grew up around his legacy. Either way, included the response of the indignant father would have been part of the whole story, not an independently preserved tradition.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
than Mr. Villines said in this form:

John, when have I said that I don't believe in the virgin birth.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Mr. Villines did I missunderstand you?

Could you make it a little clearer?

 

The word "scripture" here refers to the Jewish scriptural writings, probably including what we know as the deuterocanonicals/apocrypha. It did not refer to the New Testament, since many of the NT books were probably not even penned yet.

Now don't get me wrong, I think that the Bible in its entirety is the inspired by the Holy Spirit, but it's important to not uses biblical verses like this one in a manner they were not intended by the author. After all, God doesn't need our help exemplifying the bible.

 

Post,

Thanks, I think that will be very helpful to those others here trying to discus things with you on this topic.

A word about 2Tim 3:16,17...

Paul does have to be referring to the OT, but it is not likely that he had the Apocrypha in view. There is no eveidence that the Jews ever accpeted the Apocrypha as inspired.

As to what these verses refer to as faras the NT is concerned, well, 2Timothy was written at about the same time as 2Peter, which refers to Paul's writings as Scripture, so it is quite viable to see Paul referring to all that he had written to that time. Also, given that Paul has prior to writing these words already referred to a portion of Luke as a Scripture (1Tim 5:18) it is reasonable to say he had at least Luke, and quite [possibly all the synoptic gospels in mind. More than that we canot say. Less than that we must not say for it denies the evidence.

 

post-it:

Can you give us an approximate percentage of the Bible that you think is in opposition with other scriptures? According to my learning through our Baptist Ministers, there are only a very few scriptures that can be considered as such AND these are not scriptures that make any difference one way or the other. I will say that there are a few errors when a company comes out with a NEW version of the Bible, but even here, it is very little. The KJV has been tested to the original writtings many, many times and is virtually a perfect Bible.

Also, if you have some scriptures that make a major difference in your thoughts, would you share them with us? Maybe this would be an easier way to get to "square one". Thanks......

God Bless.................Alex

 

Joshua:

What I say about you is based on you as being a liberal. ALL liberals are in left field when discussing the Bible. You aren't as bad as most but you are still a liberal with liberal views.

Liberals can always get more and more liberal and at some point,want to re-write the Bible like the Mormons did. Liberals are dangerously close to that point. The fact is, that even Baptist and other denominations can drift to this side as it seems you and your church has. Your sermons really do not matter as long as you think as a liberal.

A few questions for you or post-it:

Should a Homo be alowed to stay in a church if he doesn't accept Christ and change?

Should a Christian church perform Gay marriages?

Can a practicing Homo be a Christian?

God Bless............Alex

[ August 21, 2002, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Alex ]

 

Joshua I am curious...how do you feel?

 

Most of my arguments come from interpretation rather than error in scripture. Although the ill used verbage of the authors make for fertile grounds for claiming "God would have said it clearer if he had dictated all of the Bible"

The problem is that the few errors that do exist, make a big impact in areas of doctrine and traditional Baptist beliefs.

Hell is not a place of eternal torture. Whereas verses attributed to Jesus in the parable of Lazarus says it is a place of torment. We have most every other verse about hell saying hell is death or destruction of the body and spirit, not eternal life in torture and agony.

Then there are the virgin birth verses which we are addressing on another thread. They conflict with other verses.

 

Although I have an argument that homosexuality is not a sin, if I argue from the standpoint that it is a sin, which it seems you would agree to by your use of the word "homo", basically equal to "blacky" in the gay world, this would be my answer. I would answer with this question.

Should a sinner be allowed to stay in a church if he doesn't accept Christ and change? No, a sinner should not be allowed to do so, but if the sinner accepts Christ yet can't change his sin nature like every other member in Church, then yes, unless the sin hurts others, he should be allowed to stay. But... a church is a private "members only" group and has the right to kick anyone out that they don't wish to have attend including a fat ugly woman or a homosexual. But... is it right to do so? Not when the person offers no threat to others. To kick out such a person is not following the precepts of Christ. "What ye do to the least of these, you do to me."

Not only should they, they already are. Many homosexuals are Christians. The "practice" you refer to is null when we equate what happens in the mind to deed as Christ instructed. Even a Christian homosexual, who has bought into not practicing, is still a homosexual in thought.
Just as men who lust after some model or in sexual thought commits sin.

Either they are damned due to it being a sin as we all would be, or they are not since it may not be a sin, or they are forgiven as each of one of us are for the sins we continue doing until the day we die.

[ August 21, 2002, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

I found it rather strange, but our Pastor was discussing which of the bibles was the most accurate as a translation AND how the NT books were considered as legitimate writtings. Strange that this topic is what we are discussing now. Divine intervention????

First, he said that of the bibles we now have, he considers the NASB and the NIV as being the closest translations of the scrolls. I have heard this before and also that the KJV has more translation errors than any BUT all are complete enough for the studying of God's Word.

For the legitimate selection of the books that became the bible as we know it, there had to be several criterias to be meet. He said there were actually hundreds of writings about Jesus and other books written about the Christian population during that time period.

Many of these books were just plain books written about the times and some off the cuff stories about Jesus. To select from all these, the arthor had to be one of the Apostles OR a very close friend of one or all of them or one that was close to Jesus. The rest were considered as ordinary arthors of their own books with NO divine guidence.

This makes me have to back up a little as I said that ALL bibles were God inspired(translations). However another Minister said that even translations were God inspired, so I may still be right. To my knowledge, a new version(translation), as well as older ones, were translated from the orginal scrolls with as many as 50 on a committee to review the bible before it was accepted and they had to be almost all in total agreement as to it's authenticity.

I hope to hear from all about this post. I am open to correction or even to being bashed!

God Bless.............Alex

Joshua and post-it:

Thanks for the responses but I cannot accept Homos as Christians nor should they be in a church while still as homosexuals or lesbians. As you said, no more here...maybe a new thread latter! I go with God's Word about Sodom and Gomorra as one reference.

[ August 21, 2002, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: Alex ]

 

God loves the man, HATES him being queer!

The Bible is the inerrent, inspired, absolute Woord of God! And is where we get our Baptist Doctrines from!

"It is always better to stand up for conservatism, then to fall into liberalism" Justified Version

 

Joshua:

Thanks for your response. I hope that others will take note of it and be able to interact with you better because of it. At least now no one should say you don't believe the Bible is inspired or inerrant (though the theories of each you accept are far less than what I accept).

 

DHK, surely you must know that one cannot "choose" to believe something when he believes something else. So how can I "refuse to believe"?

All belief is through Faith or knowledge. And Faith is based on some (usually) small piece of evidence. Knowledge is based on more solid fact(s) than faith requires. I have knowledge that something is wrong with hell doctrine. I have faith that I am right.