That would probably need its own thread. Just covering a certain era would be a task in itself.
JZ
I’m afraid I’ve been nauseous from an anti-depressant for the past 48 hours, so this won’t be my best effort, but please bear with me.
Biblican inerrancy, I think, must be a fairly modern concept because, up until the Protestant Reformation in the 1400’s (?), it was considered heretical for the Bible to be printed in any language but Latin or for people who weren’t priests to even read it. Admittedly, this was in a time when most people were illiterate, but to be able to “rightly divide Scripture” (thanks for the phrase, Polycarp), one had to have the special training associated with the priesthood.
I’ll get back into the fray once my stomach settles down.
CJ
His4Ever wrote:
If by that you mean the God miraculously intervened while the Bible was being translated to ensure accuracy, can you specify which translators at what time in history you’re talking about?
Pretty well all Christiand believe, and I think have done since very early times, that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. There’s no doubt that the different texts which make up the Bible were written at different times and by different people. From time to time Christians differ as to which texts exactly make up the Bible. These differences either get resolved, and everyone is happy, or they don’t, and we have a schism. But pretty much everybody still agrees the the Bible is the divinely-inspired word of God, and that what it teaches us is true.
It doesn’t necessarily follow that every word printed in the Bible is factually accurate, and only a small minority of Christians today would hold to this view. I would guess that in past times more, and perhaps most, Christians were of this view.
But not all. Famously, in the Seventeenth Century Galileo found himself in dispute with the Church authorities over the question of (basically) whether the Bible was a reliable source of cosmological knowledge. Lots of people, including some who were very intelligent and very educated, believed that it was. But Galileo, a devout Catholic who did not doubt the divine inspiration of the Bible, believed that it was not, and he had Catholic and Protestant supporters all over Europe who shared that view.
I suspect that, the further we go back in history, the greater the proportion of Christians who regard the Bible as factually inerrant (and also, of course, the greater the proportion of Christians who know relatively little about what the Bible actually says). But, somewhat ironically, while many people in the past may have believed the Bible to be factually inerrant, I don’t think that complete factual inerrancy has ever been a core matter of fundamental doctrine for any mainstream Christian group until relatively modern times. I think of it as a Protestant phenomenon, because with the Protestant rejection of tradition and collegiality, and its emphasis on the bible as the sole source of truth and the right and duty of the individual to come to private judgment about matters of faith, it becomes very important to have a Bible which contains the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth at a level at which the “ordinary” Christian can easily find it. Hence “it means what it says”.
There are some internal contradictions within the Bible which cannot be explained by “translating” errors because they exist in the original Hebrew or greek. How many animals did Noah bring on the ark? Compare: Genesis 6:19,20 Genesis 6:19,20 NIV; - You are to bring into the ark two of - Bible Gateway
Genesis 7:2,3
Genesis 7:2,3 NIV; - Take with you seven pairs of every kind - Bible Gateway
How did Judas die? Compare Matthew 27:3-5
Acts 1:18
There are many, many more examples.
It might be worth adding that I’m not arguing one way or the other about the historicity of the events related in the Book of Ruth, simply noting that its production at the time internal evidence indicates it was placed in its present form, mitigates against the rule against foreign wives proclaimed in Ezra. Whether it is fiction, a retelling of a legend, or a verbatim account of what Naomi, Ruth, Boaz, and Elimelech’s next-of-kin did one summer in the land of Judah, does not matter to this question.
I don’t think this is necessarily true: If I remember correctly, didn’t the Romans actually kill Christians for believing in Jesus?
Satan’s time has always been running out; I don’t think he has picked up the pace. I think that, if anything, he’s changed his methods about how to get people to be “damned”.
But then again, I’m not sure how much stock I put in the belief in Satan in the first place. I’m just postulating from the standpoint that he exists…
I agree. I would further contend that “factual accuracy” doesn’t really matter. What matters is the “spiritual accuracy” integrity of the Faith.
Yeah. God is one thing, but as I always say, there’s no way I’m going to have “faith” in Satan. I demand proof.
I would guess that it was not even an issue until late in the eighteenth century and only became a stumbling block in the nineteenth.
Our whole notion of historiography as an accurate rendering of the facts of history is fairly recent. Prior to the eighteenth century, historical accounts were seen as Literature that explained truths. There was no wrangling over whether an event took place in a particular way. After an event had been described in one or two (or several) conflicting versions, later writers would incorporate all the conflicting versions into their accounts, usually dismissing those versions that made a different moral point than they intended while doing little to reconcile the conflicts within the multiple versions of each story.
Leaving aside the poetry and the prayers, nearly all of Scripture is History in one form or another. As such, it was subject to the rules in effect while it was written. It was only after the eighteenth century movement to take History out of Literature and place it on a nearly scientific footing that people began to worry about whether the historical passages of the Bible had to be treated as journal-like facts.
The concerns expressed at that time coincided with the discoveries of several different ancient manuscripts that differed slightly from the textus receptus, the movement to find the “historical Jesus,” and scientific inquiries such as those of Darwin that challenged long-held assumptions about the nature of humanity. In this crucible of the changed understanding of History, fired by the new challenges to belief, a new notion regarding what the “true” nature of Scripture arose. One specific reaction was the substitution of literalness for inerrancy.
His4ever has expressed the beliefs of those people pretty well. It is (IMNSHO) unfortunate that they have chosen to ignore the “history of History” as it were, but if one applies a 19th-21st century view of History to the history of the Bible, the only logical choices are rejection or an acceptance of the Bible as the literal truth.
Does “spiritual accuracy” have any empirical meaning? Or does it mean whatever one’s heart desires?
JZ
Mangetout asked:
Yes, but I don’t think it’s usually a conscious decision. As we’ve already seen in this thread (and all over the world), faith means different things to different people. Some people take it on faith that God exists. Others take it on faith that the Bible is literally true. I hate to sound insulting (though it’s going to come out that way), but I tend to view those who take the literal view as more, well, simple-minded. It’s a lot easier to just believe that everything in the Bible is literally true than to try to pick and choose. If you believe it all, you don’t have to worry about the slippery slope. You don’t have to worry that if, just maybe, the world wasn’t created in 6 literal days some 6-10,000 years ago, then perhaps there really wasn’t an Adam, or an Eve, or a snake… or a God.
Well, Britney Spears. Isn’t THAT proof enough?
I suppose the argument goes that if God can raise people from the dead then he can insure his message gets spread acurately (in text, if not in sermons). It’s also very self fulfilling - you believe the Bible is true, so when it says in itself that it’s completely true then that backs you up.
Mangetout - you say that “But doesn’t that just amount to 'I want it to be true”? " Isn’t the opposite true? Maybe you just don’t want to accept some of it’s more seemingly bigoted viewpoints?
I venture to offer that NO ONE takes every word of the Bible (however defined) to be absolutely literal and infallible. There are clearly some sections that are recognized as poetry, rather than history. A few quick examples would be “the mountains danced like rams” or “the four corners of the earth.” So some of the Bible is clearly poetic, and NOT literal.
The question is where one draws the line, that’s all.
I believe that the Old Testament is a set of historical documents from four different literary traditions. Large parts of it were edited and added on later. The whole purpose is to show how God was an acting force in Israel’s history (or something like that.) I believe the New Testament is another collection of documents, with the Gospels and Acts being after the fact by several decades (in other words, oral tradition and living memory for a while, though not nearly on the same timescale as parts of the OT) and the Epistles as the start of eventually greater doctrine and ideas.
I also like to point out to the Fundies that there are indeed four different sources in the Old Testament. Generally, I can’t penetrate their stubborness, but it can be quite fun. Same with asking about why they drop the prologue to the Ten Commandments. Even better, pointing out that the Hebrews had no concept of a soul similar to the Greek system, so saying don’t follow this (a long list of things from the 7th century BC writing of Deuteronomy) and you go to Hell is an alien, out-of-context view for people trying to use it literally to persaude me. I pointed out once that there’s only something like three references to what we would call Satan in the OT, and that two of them were in Job (which, among other things, is a reaction against the Deuteronomistic tradition) and was ignored. I had fun once pointing out that Genesis 1 is several centuries later than Genesis 2. Apparently facts and contradictions don’t work so well with them.
True, the Bible is indeed self-referential, but I don’t see how that’s a problem. Jesus, most of the time, was pointing to the prophets, who came from different times and worked in different areas. Isaiah was positive when it came to Jerusalem’s future, while Micah prophesied that Jerusalem would be destroyed (by the way, Micah was right.) Generally, it seems to me, when Jesus was quoting the prophets, he was also talking to the Pharasees and Sadducees, whose bread and butter was prophets, priestly tradition, and so on. Or maybe you mean the sign of Immanuel in Isaiah 7. I’m pretty sure (as I agree with some scholars on this one), that Isaiah was looking in the short term, with the removal of Assyria during the time of Ahaz, and not eight centuries down the line. Prophecy addressed the political and social problems of the day, not predicting the future in a Greek oracle way.
I agree with Enowe and MrO. As I’ve argued before, the Decalogue is full of things that you should do in a civilized community. However, especially without a reason like “I, Yahweh, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of slavery,” there is no reason to follow the first two or three commandments (depending on who’s counting system you’re using.) The Bible is, as much as it is anything else, a historical document and must be treated as such.
By the way, as a (somewhat lapsed) Christian, I argue that the great commandments from the New Testament overwhelm any responsibility to follow minutae from the Old Testament. Also, remember in some of the Epistles, where it is being discussed about whether or not one must become Jewish before becoming a Christian. I believe the answer was no, so why try to follow an obsolete line of Jewish orthodoxy?
I was asked once (well, several times), “Are you saved?” I said, “I don’t know, and I’m willing to live with that uncertainty.” It seems to me that it’s the fundies that can’t live with uncertainty. Is there really a God, which morphed himself into the Holy Trinity, and is there a heaven, a hell, a purgatory (depending on which denomination you’re using, of course), and so on? I don’t know and I’m no hurry to find out. I don’t see science and religion to be completely incompatible. Science explains how the world works, why, and where it came from. Religion does similar things (although Israel’s monotheism did a lot less of trying to explain everything physical by God than polytheism does.) I can learn how genetic drift occurs, how evolution happens, how to split an atom, why things fall down, what a black hole is, and all sorts of other things that don’t depend on religion for a reason. Religion gives us what science lacks, the basis of a moral code to use when applying the science.
MrThompson said:
Yup. Back when I was in college and regularly heckled Mad Max the preacher (some of you around here are familiar with him), I actually once got him to say this. I asked how he knew the Bible was all true and he said it was because it said so in the Bible. I pointed out this obvious logical fallacy (by writing up my own quick page saying “this is all true” or something like that). I never caught him saying that aloud again.
Did he still believe it? Probably. It wasn’t like I was going to change his mind…
But what if one of the main tenets of that particular religious sect is that it’s followers must inflict it on others?
Fair question and I may have to answer to that case…I’ll think on it a bit more and post back later, if I may. For now though I’ll say that the beginning of my transition from literalism to [whatever my current position is now called] was the collapse of my creationist views (the knowledge and patience of members here at the SDMB representing a significant contribution to that), so (unless creationism qualifies as ‘bigoted’) my initial motive for abandoning literalism was not political correctness at least.
Is it possible to cause someone to believe something against their will? (doesn’t answer your question I suppose, as something being a logical impossibility doesn’t always keep people from trying).