David Cooke Jr
New Member
Joshua, two predictions:
1) there will never be a satisfactory, logical response to the above, and
2) you'll nonetheless continue to be ridiculed for saying it.
Keep posting anyway.
D
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Just to Clarify
- Thread starter Rev. Joshua
- Start date
1) there will never be a satisfactory, logical response to the above, and
2) you'll nonetheless continue to be ridiculed for saying it.
Keep posting anyway.
D
Joshua, two predictions:
1) there will never be a satisfactory, logical response to the above, and
2) you'll nonetheless continue to be ridiculed for saying it.
Keep posting anyway.
D </font>[/QUOTE]And two answers:
1) For 2000 years there has been a satisfactory answer. People who choose not to believe cannot accuse the lack of a solid answer; they can only accuse their own skepticism.
2). There has been no great ridicule here. People's failure to accept the biblical text does open them to certain charges of willful ignorance (2 PEter 3) or willful blindness. If someone were to stand and affirm with great authority that 2+2=5, they would rightly be open to correction. So it is here, when some stand and affirm with great authority the falseness of truth that is as clear as a math equation, it opens them to certain charges and rightly so.
You being a lawyer would jump on the inconsistencies of testimony or a witnesses failure to acknowledge known facts. But you give yourself and your friends a free pass when theology is involved. We find that an inconsistent and small minded way to approach Scripture.
Daniel Dunivan
New Member
Pastor Larry,
First of all, I was be rhetorical with the word "dictation" above, to point out the similarity of your position to such,
and you have not answered my real question. What is the content of revelation and what is its relationship to the bible? How could the Bible be inspired as you describe it (to the very words if you will read your own position) and not be a complete revelation of God's person? If God cannot err, can God be incomplete?
To Joshua and David, keep positing, because you make me feel like there might be some hope for baptists.
Grace and Peace, Danny
First of all, I was be rhetorical with the word "dictation" above, to point out the similarity of your position to such,
and you have not answered my real question. What is the content of revelation and what is its relationship to the bible? How could the Bible be inspired as you describe it (to the very words if you will read your own position) and not be a complete revelation of God's person? If God cannot err, can God be incomplete?Historians in fact say that inerrancy as everyone today describes it is a function of the enlightenment--thus they have only been giving your answer for about 200 years. In fact, people have only been saying the the NT as we have it is a guide to faith and practice for about 1700 years max.
And I think our position is that you are the ones who fail to acknowledge known facts, and therefore come up with the inconsistent hermenutic. What could you mean by known facts? You mean to say that you know the bible is inerrant in the same way that we know sacrificing your child because you promised God is wrong? As I have pointed out in other places, holding the bible as inerrant comes from the presuppositions the reader takes to the text and cannot be a logical deduction from the text, because there is no instance when you would allow inconsistancies to prove your position is false.
To Joshua and David, keep positing, because you make me feel like there might be some hope for baptists.
Grace and Peace, Danny
Interesting thread. Joshua made three specific charges in his opening post:
John Wells and David A. Bayless responsed directly and specifically to these assertions, pointing out that Joshua is misinterpreting the verses. Rather than respond to their comments directly, Joshua simply lobbed this broadside at fundamentalists:
Joshua, I'd like to see you respond to the arguments that have been advanced. A discussion conducted in this way might be beneficial. It would difinitely be preferable to the bomb-throwing occuring on both sides.
Rev. Joshua
<img src=/cjv.jpg>
Actually, they only responded to one of them - which is the one regarding rape inside a town. Unfortunately, all of my Torah material is in my office so I can't offer much critical support; but the plain reading of the text is that the law is offering two different rape scenarios.
Even if we leave off that example, however, if they addressed any of the others I missed it. The idea that rape is a crime against a woman's owner (her father or her betrothed) for instance...
The larger picture is that a fundamentalist hermeneutic goes something like this:
- I have a single, bound book that is called the Bible.
- It must be the literal Word of God.
- That means God picked every word that's in it.
- God doesn't change at all.
- So it must be possible to interpret every single verse in such a way that it supports the social and theological views of a modern, conservative evangelical.
My hermeneutic has been outlined here several times before (if someone can find the "Hermeneutic of a Liberal" thread I'd appreciate it. The short version is:
- the faithful people of God have collected certain writings that illustrated their understanding of God's will at various times
- these writings should each be treated separately as having different purposes and illustrating different points.
- the people of God have believed different things at different times and in different situations - therefore the writings somtimes make different (even contradictory points).
As a genuine "for instance," I've never understood how fundamentalists answer the question: "Does the God who never changes approve of polygamy?"
Joshua
[ February 14, 2003, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua ]
Even if we leave off that example, however, if they addressed any of the others I missed it. The idea that rape is a crime against a woman's owner (her father or her betrothed) for instance...
The larger picture is that a fundamentalist hermeneutic goes something like this:
- I have a single, bound book that is called the Bible.
- It must be the literal Word of God.
- That means God picked every word that's in it.
- God doesn't change at all.
- So it must be possible to interpret every single verse in such a way that it supports the social and theological views of a modern, conservative evangelical.
My hermeneutic has been outlined here several times before (if someone can find the "Hermeneutic of a Liberal" thread I'd appreciate it. The short version is:
- the faithful people of God have collected certain writings that illustrated their understanding of God's will at various times
- these writings should each be treated separately as having different purposes and illustrating different points.
- the people of God have believed different things at different times and in different situations - therefore the writings somtimes make different (even contradictory points).
As a genuine "for instance," I've never understood how fundamentalists answer the question: "Does the God who never changes approve of polygamy?"
Joshua
[ February 14, 2003, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua ]
First, let me say I will not be exhaustive. I will give only very surface answers, due to the nature of this forum. The Bible is revelation. Some have called it merely the record of revelation, but that in a real sense is a distinction without a difference. The Bible is the revelation from God. PLenary inspiration does not mean dictation. If I understood on your use of "dictation" I apologize.
Because truth does not require exhaustivity. I can say 2+2=4 but that is not exhaustive. It depends on a number of other things as well (like the laws of math and the consistency of the universe), ultimately the existence of God. Your assumption appears to be that my position is that perfection/inerrancy requires completion. This is not true. Inerrancy affirms that the Bible has no errors in whatever it talks about. It does not affirm anything with respect to what the Bible does not talk about. For instance, it has rightly been said that the Bible is not a science book. However, that does not mean it is in error when it speaks about science. Inerrancy means that when it speaks about science or scientific (or historical or whatever else) matters, it is inerrant in what it actually says.
But I think many of these historians would say that inerrancy was not an issue until the enlightenment and there was therefore no reason to address it in depth. This is indeed the case with many doctrines which are delineated only at the time in which they come into controversy. The enlightenment brought attacks on Scripture that needed to be defended. Therefore inerrancy became an issue. This historical development of doctrine is well known phenomenon of theological history.
But you have yet to show where our hermeneutic is inconsistent. The fact that you can voice an (ill-informed??) opinion does not negate the viability of the truth. Nor does your ability to articulate an opinion about my hermeneutic invalidate my hermeneutic. I think my hermeneutic is the only consistently defensible ones.
The hermeneutic you use enables you to pick and choose, without necessary argumentation, what you choose to believe as real and what it myth (in your sense of the word). For instance, Joshua (and probably you) have denied many of the miracles of Scripture. Yet the greatest miracle of all is clearly affirmed (the resurrection). When asked what makes hte resurrection different, Joshua argues that its closeness to the fundamentals of the faith mean that it must be true (I know I have greatly oversimplified here). But when asked on what basis he makes that distinction, he can provide no other reason than the fact that his mind will only allow that belief. He cannot consistently supply a hermeneutic that allows him to take some at face value while ignoring others. That is a textbook definition of "inconsistent hermeneutic."
That which conforms to reality.
A great many disagree with your interpretation that your reference here. The Bible does not explicitly say one way or the other and the Bible does not condone human sacrifice even if you are right. You have simply read something into the text to support your view. But that is not in the text. Assuming you are referring to Jepthath, I have no idea what he did because we are not told. Why import your opinion into this verse? Why not leave at "This happened but we are not exactly how and we are not given God's reaction to this occasion."
While I disagree at face value, I question whether your position is any difference. You will not allow the explanation of inerrancy because it condemsn human understanding. Here you have placed your own human understanding over the Bible and read the Bible from your presuppositions about it. I can argue that my position on the Bible is drawn from teh Bible itself. At the heart of the issue is, what does God-breathed and borne along by the Holy Spirit really mean? You believe one thing, I believe another.
Joshua says, in effect, that the Bible is a collection of things that Yahwists have found significant over the years. But that cannot suffice for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the closed canon and the absence of other writings which are referenced as legitimate and informative. Aside from inspiration and the "borne along" ministry of the Holy Spirit, there is no explanation for why these 66 books out of the myriads of myriads of other books. That can only be attested by the nature of Scripture as God's revelation. There is no reason for these books to be preserved, except for their nature as "from God."
I would argue that not much real thought is being put into arguments like that. They stem from precommitments to theological necessities, rather than from the objective study of the issues involved. That is the danger in explorative theology.
Rev. Joshua
<img src=/cjv.jpg>
...Joshua is not going to respond to specific argumentation, he is only going to offer up more broadsides. </font>[/QUOTE]I responded quite clearly. The plain reading of the text is that it offers two scenarios for rape: in a town and outside a town.
Joshua
Rev. Joshua
<img src=/cjv.jpg>
Larry, that makes no sense at all. The establishment of a canon and the perpetuation of that canon requires divine action? If so, why didn't God make the canon more clear? According to a monograph I'm reading right now the conventional wisdom now is that the canon of the Hebrew Bible remained in dispute among rabbis until around the fifth century.
The Vedas have been preserved quite well (and for longer) without divine intervention. Surely the same could be true for our Scriptures.
Joshua
C.S. Murphy
New Member
That depends on who is right at the time... </font>[/QUOTE]While Josh may be right at certain times and on certain issues, your conclusion that Paul is sometimes in error simply proves that you are wrong not Paul. Paul never claimed to be perfect but the words which God inspired him to write are perfect. It is strange that you would claim Paul is in error at times and not Joshua because Paul was writing scripture and it seems many times that Joshua is attempting to rewrite it.
Murph
Larry, that makes no sense at all. The establishment of a canon and the perpetuation of that canon requires divine action? If so, why didn't God make the canon more clear? According to a monograph I'm reading right now the conventional wisdom now is that the canon of the Hebrew Bible remained in dispute among rabbis until around the fifth century.
The Vedas have been preserved quite well (and for longer) without divine intervention. Surely the same could be true for our Scriptures.
Joshua </font>[/QUOTE]rev joshua
does it ever worry you that about 95% of the Christians find your doctrine in serious error?
shouldnt you at least examine yourself to see if you are believing on the same Jesus as the 95% do?
Rev. Joshua
<img src=/cjv.jpg>
Massdak,
The posters on this board are the ones generally in disagreement with mainstream Christian scholarship - so, no, I'm not concerned. In addition, we all agree on the necessity of salvation through Jesus; so we are in agreement on the essentials.
Joshua
The posters on this board are the ones generally in disagreement with mainstream Christian scholarship - so, no, I'm not concerned. In addition, we all agree on the necessity of salvation through Jesus; so we are in agreement on the essentials.
Joshua
\The canon is pretty clear. There is not a lot of dispute and there never really has been among orthodox Christianity. There has been some but very little, all things considered. As for "requiring divine action," I don't believe that is what I said. I believe I said that there is little explanation for it otherwise. I don't remember my exact wording. However, I would not particularly quibble with "required."
Neither is there much evidence that the OT canon was in dispute among mainstream Jewish culture. This was well established. As I have said before, the problem with much of theology today is that people are continually try to come up with new and better and thus people end us saying some really stupid things. It does a disservice to the theological community at large because people don't bother to say it it their conjecture. They treat it like they just discovered penicillin again.
It is you who is in disagreement with mainstream Christian scholarship. Most of the stuff you cite is decidedly not Christian in its perspective, at least if Scripture means anything. The problem with the term Christian is that it has come to mean whatever any says it does. That is sad in a day when truth is under great attack. Christian scholarship is by definition Christian, which disqualified a large amount of the citations you reference in your posts here.
John Wells
New Member
I won't bother repeating them because this thread is full of quotes from the Bible itself completely disagreeing with that statement. What you have with your description then is a document that is accurate (by your definition) and yet lies about its very source!
When you're completely refuted, which you have been several times in this and some very recent threads, why do you not respond? Instead, you launch a completely different angle or subject. It's absolutely futile debating with anyone who takes such a view of God's Word. But don't get your hopes up, you'll probably keep hearing from me anyway when you "flush" the truth! David A Bayliss
New Member
You rebutted but did not respond. I showed you quite clearly that the text is -not- showing what you claim. You have no basis for saying they both describe rape, that is simply not what they are doing.
Your statement about not have your Genesis material available blows the gaffe completely. Your commentaries say it is rape therefore it is rape.
If you actually read the bible instead you would know that is not what is being discussed.
I can answer your other two points too, but until you are able to read three consecutive verses and understand what they mean (as opposed to what your commentators tell you they mean) it would not be productive.
What (other than your commentators) makes you think this is discussing when in plainly says this is a non-rape case?
DAB
Joshua </font>[/QUOTE]
Your statement about not have your Genesis material available blows the gaffe completely. Your commentaries say it is rape therefore it is rape.
If you actually read the bible instead you would know that is not what is being discussed.
I can answer your other two points too, but until you are able to read three consecutive verses and understand what they mean (as opposed to what your commentators tell you they mean) it would not be productive.
What (other than your commentators) makes you think this is discussing when in plainly says this is a non-rape case?
DAB
...Joshua is not going to respond to specific argumentation, he is only going to offer up more broadsides. </font>[/QUOTE]I responded quite clearly. The plain reading of the text is that it offers two scenarios for rape: in a town and outside a town.
Joshua </font>[/QUOTE]
David A Bayliss
New Member
Actually I agree with Joshua on this one. Mainstream Christian scholarship is on his side. The world church that is forming will be on his side too.
The bible predicts the falling away. This is it.
DAB
The bible predicts the falling away. This is it.
DAB
It is you who is in disagreement with mainstream Christian scholarship. Most of the stuff you cite is decidedly not Christian in its perspective, at least if Scripture means anything. The problem with the term Christian is that it has come to mean whatever any says it does. That is sad in a day when truth is under great attack. Christian scholarship is by definition Christian, which disqualified a large amount of the citations you reference in your posts here. </font>[/QUOTE]
Rev. Joshua
<img src=/cjv.jpg>
David, yes commentaries are necessary and valuable in discussing documents from ancient cultures written in ancient languages. My plain reading of the text differs from your plain reading - so the opinions of the commentators are a useful resource. (I should have said Torah/Pentateuch resources btw - they're all stacked up on my desk for lesson prep right now.)
I'd love to hear what you have to say about the other "inerrant" points I cite.
Joshua
I'd love to hear what you have to say about the other "inerrant" points I cite.
Joshua
OOPS! Forgot to paste....
Rom 1:19-26
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
KJV
Rick Sr.
Rom 1:19-26
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
KJV
Rick Sr.