Which Old testament events are historically accurate?

This does not sound very Christian to me. It sounds like a show down in the middle of downtown 200 hundred years ago. It sounds to me that you would like to kill off those who don't fit in your interpretation. Is this how you want to present yourself?

Shrug

[ July 30, 2002, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: Mark-in-Tx ]

 

Warm Christian greetings!

w-fortenberry is right to ask Mr Villines to tell us what parts of the Bible he believs are not inerrant so that we can examine his claims. Moreover, it is right to "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints".

I, and no doubt many others, await Mr Villines reply.

Kind regards

Robert J Hutton

 

No, this is not a "show down." It is, however, a debate, and it is common practice in debating to request proof of the positions debated. Mr. Villines has claimed that the Scripture contains errors. I have challenged that claim by requesting that he provide necessary proof.

It is not my desire to destroy or in any way harm those who hold to opinions different from my own. It is merely my goal to use Scripture as it was intended to be used, as a basis for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. Through the proper usage of Scripture we will be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. Thus I have asked Mr. Villines for the Scriptural support for his doctrine, and thus I have provided a Scriptural pattern for the study of what support he may provide, and thus I have set a Scriptural goal toward which that study will be directed.

I have not condemned Mr. Villines for his position; I have simply asked him for an explanation of that position. However, if that explanation cannot withstand the test of Scripture, it then becomes the responsibility of the Christian debater to "reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." (II Timothy 4:2)

If you still think of me as wanting kill off those who don't fit in my interpretation, then so be it. I will continue in the things which I have learned knowing of whom I have learned them. I need not show myself approved unto men, therefore I will study to shew myself approved unto God.

 

Maybe Joshua can use the same method employed by the "Search for the Historical Jesus" group -- black beads for words definitely not inerrant; grey beads for those probably not inerrant; red beads for those which are definitely inerrant; and pink beads for those probably inerrant. Then we can conduct a poll on the accuracy of the beads. After all, living in 2002 we are smart enough to know that the whole Bible cannot be inerrant. And who better to decide which parts are inerrant and which one are not than ............. ME!!!

I think the challenge for Joshua to reveal which parts of the Bible are in error is a legitimate one. Of course we will have to ask you to stay away from those copyists issues found in modern translations. What we are looking for are texts which demonstrate blatant errors that no doubt stem from the original autographs.

Get out the beads Joshua and let the voting begin!

 

I had lost track of this thread.

The Jesus seminar wasn't really about "inerrant vs. errant" but rather about which statements in the gospels were probably authentically from Jesus and which were later additions to the tradition. Most of the Gospel of John was in black, and I concur with that judgement (I seriously doubt that - when Jesus prayed - He said things like "I already know the answer to this prayer. I'm just praying for the benefit of those around me."

This is a much, much more complex topic than we're going to resolve on an Internet message forum, and I certainly don't have the time to spend in a lengthy discussion of it. I would strongly recommend Toward a Mature Faith: Does Biblical Inerrancy Make Sense? as a good starting point for people who want to do research on this topic.

The issue isn't so much the "errors" of the Bible but whether it was written by God or people. Paul saying in I Corinthians that part of the advice he was giving did not come from God is a strong argument for the latter. Matthews attempts to reconcile the triumphal entry of Jesus by placing Jesus on both a donkey and a colt during the triumphal entry (as well as his variant Scriptural citations) argues against divine authorship. Likewise Mark's poor geography in placing Gedara next to the Sea.

The variant chronologies of the gospels (see for instance the location of the cleansing of the temples), and the different accounts of events like the ascension also argue against divine authorship. These are basic textual issues that come off the top of my head.

They're simple to resolve if you don't begin with the premise that the Bible has to be inerrant for it to be authoritative for faith and practice.

I have links to secular critiques of the concept of an inerrant Bible. Some of those critiques are silly and taken out of context, but many are not. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel by doing all of this research over again for the board. I'll forward the links to Webmaster, and he can decide whether or not they are appropriate to post. I'll e-mail them to anyone who asks (with the caveat that I'm not endorsing the sites or even all of their apparent contradictions.)

Joshua

 

In my experience, inerrancy is the concept that people reject after closer examination. I believe that telling people that inerrancy is a prerequisite for true faith in Jesus is much more likely to lead people away from Christ.

Many, many people can come to faith in Jesus without needing the Bible to be inerrant. This will be more and more true as postmodernism becomes more of a cultural norm.

Joshua

 

The Jesus seminar was about denying the Biblical Jesus by so call Bible scholars such as Crossan and Borg ( You will be assimilated ). It is an attack on Christianity by unconverted men posing as Christians. It's the same old tired lame arguments you find in the writings of Bishop John Spong who hypocritally confesses the Nicene creed (yet denies it in his writings) every Sunday as well as being a contributer to a pornographic magazine.

The Jesus Seminar "scholars" following the Spong model wished to re invent a peasant Jesus that is basicaly a martyred leader in the same way of Gandhi. Their study is basically ignorant radical liberal theology that has been rejected by credible theologians.

 

Paul never actually said such a thing, not in the way you are apparently misinterpreting.

A colt is also the proper definition of a young donkey. Also, Matthew indicates he rode both; meaning apparently he was at times upon one, then the other (Matthew 21:2), as even prophesied in the old testament (Zechariah 9:9).

And apparently during the time of Christ, a certain Gadara was on the east side of the sea of Galilee. However, Mark doesn't say that Christ went into the city of Gadera, but to the "country" of the Gadarenes;" possibly meaning the ruling jurisdiction of the Gadarenes, or perhaps an area well used by those of such a city of "Gadara."

None of the four gospels contradict each other, so therefore each is unique in its revelations and insight. The problem is that skeptics try to interpret scripture from a non-objective standpoint, and stumble from such a poor foundation.

And praise God he wrote the Bible that way intentionally.

Anything can be so-called "resolved" simply by conjecture, suppositions or surmisings, to those who are convinced of such things. However, truth is hidden from natural man, and can only be discerned through the Spirit of truth.

Why should any Christian trust the interpretations of scripture by anyone in the "secular world," when the Bible explicity states that the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God (I Corinthians 2:14)?

God bless.

[ August 01, 2002, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Ruht ]

 

I am well aware of the intentions of the various Jesus seminars. My TIC point was that perhaps you could employ a similar method in deciding which parts of the Bible are authoritative and which are not. Either way at the end of the day, a human being is making a decision on which parts of the Bible can be trusted and which cannot.

It is interesting to me how many non-evangelical scholars [?] (which is where Joshua would fall) want to dismiss the majority of John's gospel as inauthentic. But when you read John you understand why. If I am working from a certain anti-supernaturalistic presupposition, it is just easier to dismiss John than explain it. Often scholars who fall into the same camp as Joshua want to criticize presuppositionalism, yet they build upon the same foundation when they come to the text.

Case and point: it is very easy to explain the few "complexities" Joshua raises and not forfeit divine authorship. However if I am approaching the text from the Higher Criticism bias that the Bible is a human document primarily (and exclusively many times), then it is easier to just say, "see the bible was written by humans who made mistakes and tried to gloss over mistakes by embellishing or adding to what actually happened, oh by the way, the Bible can be fully trusted in those areas that speak of the death and resurrection of Christ (but not on the Virgin Birth or even the bodily resurrection of Christ)."

Such logic makes no sense therefore it becomes illogical (unless you are working from this humanistic mindset that exalts humanity's opinion over the self-proclaimed word of God).

Joshua and others like him want to try and convince everyone that inerrancy is just not that important, but in the end, to strip the Bible of its authority (which is inherent in its inerrancy) is to undermine the authority of God Himself.

Critical studies are important to help us understand the meaning of a text in its context, etc. but the moment critical studies undermine the authority of God's Word, they have stepped outside the boundaries of productive scholarship and entered the world of destructive humanism.

BTW, if Jesus is the criterion by which Scripture must be interpreted, someone please point me to that place where Jesus ever did or said anything to take away from the authority and historical authenticity of God's Word.

Once again Joshua, get your beads out b/c working from your presuppositions your opinion is as good as God's.

 

I'd lost track of this thread, too.

To answer the question posed in the title: all of them are historically accurate. Please understand that they were, however, told from the point of view of the person doing the reporting, as in the sun standing still in Joshua's time. There is no other way they could have described it! What actually happened was probably a wobble in the axis tilt of the earth, but that does not negate what happened or how it was reported. I am just using that one as an example, not trying to throw it up for analysis, please...

Ruht, you asked me, several pages ago (and I just saw it now!) about which translations, etc...

Historical accuracy does not depend on which word is used where, actually. If the words are faithful to the original as much as we can do, then we will have a good picture of what happened. Even an eyewitness, however, is going to 'make mistakes' due to seeing things only from that particular point of view. This is one reason the four gospels are so important. Four different points of view, same Jesus, same historical events.

So whether a cubit is, say, 18" long or an inch or two more or less is of no import in this particular discussion. The point might be, "Yeah, but was there a Noah, a Flood, an Ark? And was is worldwide?" I would answer yes to all four without worrying about the precise measurement of a cubit. Does that make sense?

Regarding the virgin birth -- it is totally necessary, folks. It was prophesied by God Himself in Genesis 3, regarding the seed of the woman. Luke obviously had interviewed Mary regarding her memories and she told him what she remembered. There is no reason for Mark or John to have recorded this as they both had other purposes for their writings and neither dealt with anything other than the adulthood of Jesus. Matthew, concerned with showing how prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus, of course deals with the virgin birth. Look at it this way, if you deny the virgin birth, you are denying the historical accuracy of Luke, who is known by critics to be one of the most accurate historians ever read, and also denying the prophetic accuracy of Matthew, which was the entire purpose of his gospel! That's throwing out half the gospel accounts.

Not where I'm at.

If we are going to depend on our human understanding and analysis to determine what parts of the Bible are 'true' and what are not, why have a Bible? We have plenty of other history books we can tear apart.

But God Himself gave us the Bible via different inspired authors and eyewitness historical accounts. I don't know how many times I have said this, but take it or leave it on ITS OWN TERMS, folks. If it is the Word of God then that is exactly what it is. If it is not, go your way and good luck to you, because that is all you will have left!

 

Actually, Helen, I was referring to the fact that even if I wrote something, and another person came and translated it into a way I would not have done, I still, nevertheless, would be able to properly interpret what it was I was originally trying to say.

It's like this: If I were to write "the cat is green," and someone came along and rewrote it into "the feline is as grass," I would still be able to properly translate what it was I originally wrote.

A further example:

Original writing by Ruht:

"The cat is green." - By Ruht

The same writing re-translated different, various ways:

"The feline is as grass." - By Ruht, translated by so and so.

"The cat is as grass." - By Ruht, translated by so and so

"The cat appeared as an emerald." - By Ruht, translated by so and so

"The feline was as an emerald." - By Ruht, translated by so and so

Etc.

Even though the four examples of translation were not as I originally meant them to be, nevertheless since I wrote the original version, I am therefore still able to properly interpret what it was that I meant by what I originally wrote, even though someone came along and offered another translation of what I wrote.

This is a secret of the Bible. For only the author of the Bible can properly interpret the Bible, and the author of the Bible can still properly interpret the Bible even when it is rewritten poorly.

See if you can discern this truth in the following scripture:

"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." - I Corinthians 2:11

What this verse means is that just as only I can properly interpret what I mean by "the cat is green," since I am the author of that writing, even so only God can properly interpret the things he has written, since he is the author of what he wrote.

This is one of the most powerful passages in the Bible. This truth is revealed in I Corinthians chapter 2, and it is actually the answer to all of the contention when it comes to those who claim the Bible contradicts; is errant; etc. For the problem lies not with the Bible, but with ignorant man who foolishly thinks his own interpretations of the Bible is what the Bible means, not realizing that he is simply misinterpreting scripture.

For God did not write the Bible in a way that the natural man can properly interpret, and God did this intentionally. For he has hidden his wisdom from the natural man, because the natural man is not entitled to it, because it is eternal life. For the natural man does not have the right to the things of eternal life, until the natural man is saved.

Therefore we see natural man boasting great, swelling words of foolishness against the Lord and his word, foolishly thinking that his/her own interpretations of the Bible are correct, when they are not.

And this is proven also by my analogy of "the cat is green. For I challenge anyone in here to tell me what I mean by that. But before you do, here is a hint: The word "cat" does not stand for a house cat, and the word "green" does not mean that the color of the house cat is green. Also, the word "cat" does not stand for a lion, and the word "green" does not mean that the lion is sick. Also, the word "cat" does not stand for a jazz musician, and the word "green" does not mean that the jazz musician is new in the band; etc.

Now, seeing that there can be a practically endless amount of possibilities as to what I mean by "the cat is green," it is now made manifest that the only way someone who is trying to interpret what I mean by what I wrote, to properly know for sure what I mean, is for me to tell them; just as the Bible bears witness to in I Corinthians 2:11.

And God tells us that it is the same with what he wrote. Once again, the verse:

"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? ("the cat is green") even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." - I Corinthians 2:11

Just as you cannot properly tell me what I mean by "the cat is green," without me telling you what I mean, "even so" we cannot properly interpret the writings of God without him also telling us what he means.

This is where men make their mistake in accusing the Bible of not being inerrant, or being contradictory, and this is where God has taken such men in their own craftiness.

God bless.

[ August 01, 2002, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Ruht ]

 

Mr. Villines, thank you for your reply. You have presented what appears to be a copout. Let me remind you that I am only responding to your lack of necessary proof in one of your previous posts. I have requested only that you provide that evidence on which you base your claims.

Yes, this topic could lead to a very lengthy discussion, but it is not really all that complicated. If you will read my original post again, you will find that I have not requested a full dissertation on the errancy of the Bible. You will, instead, find that I have simply requested that present a single passage of Scripture which you can prove contains errors. This would not require a lengthy discourse, nor should it occupy a great deal of your valuable study time. It would seem that you have already devoted a great deal of personal study to the topic. Therefore, you need only draw up from your study the single passage which you found to contain the most obvious error, present that passage to the board, and divulge a simple explanation of the error.

You have already alluded to several occurrences in Scripture, but you have not presented the actual reference of the passages in question, nor have you given any explanation of the error contained in those passages. However, I am prepared to present a detailed explanation of their inerrancy. If those passages were presented as a response to my challenge, please let me know and I will post that explanation.

You have suggested certain online critiques of the Scripture. I have myself just finished a complete rebuttal of Mark Isaac’s 279 pages of verse by verse criticism, and am currently working on a similar rebuttal of the skeptics annotated bible. I have found such online critiques to be entirely unsatisfying.

 

Helen:

WHEW!!??

 

Mr. Villines has not answered. It is my opinion that he is unable to provide the necessary proof of his position. I will therefore open my challenge to any who hold to the position of Biblical errancy.

Can you present me with one passage of Scripture which you can prove is errant?

 

You seem to forget that there are those who do not subscribe to the theological construct of "inerrancy" who believe that the Bible is completely trustworthy for faith and practice. People who hold that belief are not claiming "errancy" for the Bible.

 

Well, the word "inerrant" is itself sort of slippery. I can truthfully say the Bible is inerrant when "properly interpreted". But sometimes the interpretation that saves inerrancy seems a bit strained and unnatural. Where does that leave us?

Now here is an example of "errancy" taking the natural simple plain interpretation:

"I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in my own name" I Cor 1:14-15

I have it on the highest authority that Paul also baptized the household of Stephanus among them.

Now the best thing I've ever seen to explain this verse was an explanation of why Paul originally missed thinking about Stephanus - that is, he baptized Stephanus elsewhere and Stephanus moved to that church. But an explanation of why an error occurred does not get rid of the fact that the error occurred! Any thoughts on this passage?

 

Hello all!

Just took the poll, and noticed that anywhere from 5% to 12+% said that the event didn't take place at all (on all of them!). This tells me that we have in our midst, 3 to 6/7 athiests, or the same number of professing Christians who are to be most pittied, because of their delusioned assurance of salvation! Sorry for the strong rhetoric, but in this case, I'm glad the truth hurts!

 

First, please call me Joshua - as everyone else here does.

Secondly, I'm sorry you see it as a copout. I see it as making good use of my time. I come here for casual conversation and sharing ideas. I don't see any point in researching biblical inconsistencies, only to have you do the kind of cognitive backflips for which inerrantists are notorious. In my experience, the small number of people who need the Bible to be inerrant and written by God to believe are going to bend their minds however necessary to cling to that doctrine (although some of them can't handle the theological dissonance and either drop Christianity or drop inerrancy - presumably before their heads explode).

Nevertheless, I'll give you an opportunity to demonstrate the persuasiveness of your argument. I'm sure it will win much acclaim here.

Please explain why the gospels provide different accounts of the events surrounding the empty tomb.

Joshua

 

Joshua Villines said:

Please explain why the gospels provide different accounts of the events surrounding the empty tomb.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

In what way are you saying thay are diffrent?

 

Matthew:

- women witness the earthquake and an angel descending from heaven to roll away the tomb
- angel speaks to them outside the tomb
- angel gives a speech somewhat different from the others (i.e. no mention of Peter)

Mark:

- stone is already rolled away when they arrive
- "young man" is waiting for them inside the tomb, and speaks to them there
- they tell no one

Luke:

- stone rolled away when they arrive
- two men in dazzling clothes suddenly appear and speak to the women
- the men's speech does not include instructions to go to Galilee

John:

- As usual, a totally different account. Mary Magdalene finds the tomb empty, runs and gets Peter & John. John & Peter also find the tomb empty and go back to their homes confused. Mary stays behind weeping and encoutners the risen Lord.

________________

These are remarkably different (and even contradictory) accounts to have all been written by the same God.

Even a simple question like "When did Mary Magdalene realize that Jesus had risen from the dead?" can't be answered in view of the conflicting accounts.

Joshua