And so we come to an absolute impasse. You believe that the scriptures need to be factually true in every detail or they cannot be true, at all, whereas I see that the truth of a story, even, (perhaps especially), a story in scripture, is born out by its message, regardless how the deatils may be shaped by a writer to convey that message. There can be no discussion on these points, because our world views are so dissimilar as to preclude any serious exchange of information. I accept the inerrancy of scripture, but the inerrancy is in the truth of the message, not the factuality of the details in the stories.
When all of the historical records of multiple societies are in agreement and all the archeological information, taken from paintings and bas-relief memorials and inscriptions on steles and obelisks, are in agreement and scripture disagrees, I come to the conclusion that scripture has been shaped to make a theological point and you come to a conclusion that thousands of people in multiple nations across hundreds of years conspired to change the historical record (despite the fact that no conspiracy so large has ever succeeded).
Augustine of Hippo, in discussing the meaning behind the book of Genesis wrote,
I suspect that you disagree, but there is no point in wrangling over it for days to come.
So why should we believe** your opinion** (granted that it is the opinion of many inerrantists) that the Word of God spoken of by Jesus is equivalent to the standard finalized after the Reformation of the short-canon Tanakh (as opposed to the Septuagint) plus the books on which the Church standardized for the New Testament, as opposed to the idea of the Bible conveying the Word of God to us, along with a bunch of Jewish traditions, books of legend, history, prophecy, apocalypse, wisdom, letters from selected early Christian leaders, etc.?
My source, by the way, is the work of God working through good people who chose to follow His call. Like you and me, they did not get every detail correct but they got the basic idea of the importance of following Him.
Your God, on the other hand, can be reduced to 66 books, since nothing else He ever said before, along with, or after, can be trusted except those 66 books. I do not mean that as an insult, but as the idea that God is unknowable except through His Book. Anything else that purports to be His doing must be tested against it, after all. In my more polemic days, I used to refer to this as you inerrantists having a leatherbound God. Now, I simply wish that you would open your eyes to Him working through other means, including this very board, and through the most improbable people.
[QUOTE=Bible man You have placed your trust in something that admittedly cannot be trusted, yet armed with such faulty weaponry[/QUOTE]
In other words, you must have certitude. I rather like the idea of accepting His Grace through faith (something Paul recommended).
What personal writings? I have no major problems with the Ten Commandments, except that the people who are most inclined to elevate them to supreme status are acting contrary to the four-times repeated teaching of Jesus, and quite often fail to obey at least one of them.
First, even if accept for a moment that the Bible is inerrant we have to deal with man’s interpertation of that Bible, which is far from inerrant. Doesn’t inerpertation of the scriptures by men qualify as one more faulty source? There are many Christians that believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God and yet cannot agree with each other on the details of it’s interpertation. How do you explain this? How do I decide which interpertation to believe? Which man do I go to to explain the Word of God to me? Don’t I run the risk of getting a teacher whose interpertation is incorrect and endangering my immortal soul?
Good point. As a matter of text, not interpretation, Jesus identified three behaviors as “the Law and the Prophets” (which is apparently a trope for “all that Scripture says”). While I can respect the position of, say, Chaim that this does not raise these to a supreme status or reasonable facsimile, one who, like myself, is committed to following Jesus is, I think, required to do so.
In reply to Cosmosdan: The chapter was Matthew 13 verses 10 through 15.
I have found most people who are sincere in their own beliefs are seldom upset by any one disagreeing with them. I think a good discussion does help one to understand the other’s beliefs but does not necessarily change one’s mind. If a person believes the Bible or Jesus to be the word of God, for them it seems to be God’s word; those of us who do not believe God had any special person speak for (he, she, or it) or having anyone write or interpet what God wants that too is our perspective.
In my thinking, if there were a Supreme Being who loved all people and wanted them to know itself, then there would be no reason to have an intermediary, book, or teacher,This being could speak directly to each mind. In the Old Testement it happened alot. then came prophets,who spoke for this God. Then Jesus (who was supposed to be God itself). Now there are many ways,people, or writings, to see, translate, or accept.
What one believes is a right belief for that person. Most use it for their and their neighbors benifit, a small fraction use it to put down another or justify their own reason for their actions, good or bad.
This was how I got involved with the person I was discussing Jesus with.
These scriptures tell us which Teacher to seek out:
“I will send you the Holy Spirit and He will teach you all things.”(John14:26)
“Blessed are you Simon for flesh and blood (man) has not revealed this to you but My Father Who is in heaven” (Matt16:17)
“But as for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you so then you have no need that any man instruct you. But just as His anointing teaches you conerning everything and is true, and is no falsehood, so you must abide (in that anointing) never to depart”. (1John2:27)
Concerning the inspiration of scripture:
“First you must understand this, no scripture is a matter of any personal or private or special interpretation. For no scripture ever originated because some man willed it but as men spoke from God who were borne along by the Holy Spirit”
Although the Holy Spirit does employ men which He uses in the teaching process (Ephesians4:11-13), keeping in mind that He is actually our Teacher protects us from the errors that might creep into a particular man’s otherwise valid teaching ministry.
Your questions and concerns in this area are right on, ultimately we need to seek the Holy Spirit directly for the meaning of the Scriptures, He is the One Who wrote them!
I thank you for taking the time to look that up. What surprised me was when you said
That seems to imply that Jesus didn’t want some to be saved. In reading the KJV and the NIV I see that was not the thrust of that statement. Jesus merely recognized that many were not ready to hear the truth. He says as much about his own disciples later in the NT. What he’s saying here is that if the people were not so hard hearted then they mighht hear the plain truth and be saved but they aren’t ready. So the parables help to cultivate the seed in those who are seeking, without angering those who are not ready.
I agree with you here. The Holy Spirit is our guide. The ways in which people surrender to that spirit varies quite a bit.
That passage is speaking of prophecy and not scripture in general. It does not apply to the NT since that was not considered scripture at the time. Even using the word scripture there is nothing here about scripture being inerrant.
There is nothing in the Bible to support your particular view of the the nature of inspiration. I think there’s ample evidence to indicate that it is not true. Evidence that you obviously disagree with.
We choose what we hold on to and how much we surrender to the spirit. I enjoy this passage. The body of Christ is not contained in any building or doctrine. Like the kingdom of heaven, it is determined by what is within you. What spirit guides your choices.
I agree with the section I bolded but disagree with that last sentance. It is a belief held by some Christians that IMO doesn’t hold up to a real examination. Nothing in what we call scripture today, supports this doctrine. Nothing indicates that it was ever God’s plan that we have this one authoritative collection of writings. IMO clinging to this tradition and others that are presented as truth by much of Christianity only limits our communion with the HS and creates barriers between men. This is not in keeping with the teaching of Jesus.
Of course you are free to choose your own path as are all men. It’s that free will thing. When you present your interpretation {your opinion} of what the Bible means as if it’s the divine truth directly from God you can expect others to disagree.
May your journey be fruitful.
We have a problem with definition of terms. Prophecy is defined as any communication which is inspired by God, this includes (but is not limited to) teaching, exhortation, warning, and prediction. When these communications are written down and recorded they are then referred to as “Scripture”. And unless you belive that God can make mistakes or communicate falsehoods, then such writings are innerrant by definition. The Bible is a compilation of Writings inspired by God. (2Tim3:16)
The New Testament writings are equated with Scripture in 2Peter3:16 “There are some things in those epistles of Paul that are difficult to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist and misconstrue to their own utter destruction, just as they misinterpret and distort the rest of the Scriptures”. Peter thus testifies that Paul’s writings are authored by the Holy Spirit and are therefore Scriptures.
The Truth is unavoidably divisive. In Matthew10:34 Jesus says, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to part asunder a man from his father, and a daughter from her mother, and a wife from her mother-in-law; And a man’s foes will be they of his own household”. We have a choice to uphold the Truth and have peace with God and unbroken fellowship with the Holy Spirit or to have peace with men by meekly embracing every perverse doctrine and every false way they have chosen. Standing for the Truth is a part of “take up your cross and follow Me”
I’m not sure what IMO stands for, I assume it has to do with Inspiration or Innerancy of the Scriptures, I’ll comment after you clarify.
You are right that we have a problem with definitions, but that is the point of the discussion. In fact, as cosmosdan pointed out you changed the wording of the section you quoted from Peter and now you are using your interpretation of what it might “really” mean in order to justify your beliefs.
These are your beliefs but they are not proven to be the actual meaning of the words you have quoted. You can make an argument for that belief, but other arguments can be put forth that are as valid as yours (even if you choose to not believe that).
Your words:
The actual words of the passage:
If you have to change the words to convey your meaning, I would suggest that that indicates that you are imposing (your) meaning on the words.
If Jesus were God and wanted all men to be saved, why wouldn’t he soften their hearts and help them see the truth, I see no point in preaching to the choir, as it would seem he was doing, if translated like that. He told his followers to love their enemies, yet he didn’t seem to care if they were lost for all eternity. I also cannot understand why the Holy Spirit gives a different meaning to so many different people. The Spirit seems to go along with what ever one seems to believe. He also said, Not he who said, Lord, Lord would enter the kingdom of heaven but only he who did the will of His father, How are they to know the will with so many different people religions etc. teaching different things. It was like hardening the hearts of the Pharoh so they wouldn’t respond as God would like, then they could be punished.
I see. I can accept that. Tell me who decides what communication is inspired by God.
Your conclusion here is not the only possible or logical one. In fact based on the evidence I find it illogical. Where do the scriptures say that inspiration leads to inerrant writing? In my view based on the evidence and personal experience, inspiration in this context, means being influenced by the Holy Spirit. That doesn’t mean there are no other influences. The message is also influenced by the person it comes through. Their culture, their opinions and preferences. I think this is obvious when reading about women being advised to keep silent in the church or to make sure their head is covered. The analogy I use is pouring the purest water{HS} through an impure filter{man}. What comes out may be great but it will contain some of the impurities of the filter.
The scripture you reference doesn’t indicate your statement at all. It says {paraphrased}all scripture is inspired and therefore is useful. It makes no reference what constitutes “all” scripture. Read this in conjunction with your own paraphrase
To me that means that Scripture is useful when you allow the Holy Spirit to reveal it’s meaning to you.
Very interesting. It certainly seems to be refering to Pauls writing as Scripture.It is not speaking about all the NT. The author refers to Paul’s writing as scripture but not his own. Should we conclude that his is not? It also seems to indicate that there are scriptures by Paul that have been lost. Perhaps our collection of scripture is incomplete.
Surrendering to the Holy Spirit and it’s guidence is different for different people. It doesn’t happen in an instant but continues throughout our lives. “The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth.” Follow the truth as you percieve it but understand that there is still much to learn. We must be willing to refine our understanding and perceptions as we are led.
I think the point being made here is that simply declaring your interpretation to be the truth doesn’t make it so. Believing in Christ and the Holy Spirit doesn’t make you immune from misconceptions or being swayed by tradition. THere are many Christians who believe in in Jesus and the Holy Spirit as much as you do but still disagree with your particular interpretation of the scriptures and the nature of inspiration. Does that mean the Holy Spirit is imperfect? Hardly. It just means mankind is imperfect and has yet to come to a full understanding of God.
He did help us to see the truth, by being the living example. The heart softening we have to do ourselves by choosing to surrender. You know how people are very reluctant to give up certain ideas and surrender to the truth. People live in denial about themselves and the people close to them, or even their country. It’s the same basic principle in the spiritual journey.
I don’t understand what you mean when you say “he didn’t seem to care if they were lost for all eternity” please explain. I think he cared but understood that they had to choose for themselves. I think the Holy Spirit teaches only the truth. People recieve it in their own way and with their unique limitations. They the will of the father by going to the source. Each person has equal access to the truth through the Holy Spirit. Being a part of a a particular religion may be a part of where your choices and experiences lead you but it is only a little scenery along the journey, not the destination.
The passage about God hardening Pharoh’s heart is one of several contradictions in the Bible. It is simply wrong.
There is an interesting difference between the two occasions (perhaps there are more) on which Jesus is ascribed as using the “law and the prophets” formulation. In the first (Matthew 7: 12) - “Everything you want people to do to you, do these things to them; for this is the law and the prophets” - the precept/command is referred to/summarised as actually being the l and p. In the second( Matthew 22: 36-40) - “Love God and love your neighbour as yourself” - the commands (indeed greatest commandment, plus pretty close runner-up) are what the l and p hang/depend on.
One can’t be sure, but I wonder whether the different wording reflects the earthy, exceptionally concrete and commensurately difficult nature of the former command. “You like people recognising you, do the same, matey!” “You don’t like people patronising you, none of that monkey business yourself, then!”
If “love” is taken to mean choosing the best for another (rather than having a feeling), then the three commands are not a million miles apart, anyway.
Actually, “the Law and the Prophets” is a formulaic reference to the scriptures used in religious services dating back to at least 117 B.C.E (when Ben Sira’s grandson refers to his translations of the same) and probably for many years prior to that. The Law and the Prophets give the first letters for the Hebrew scripture, (from the Torah, Law, and the Nevi’im, Prophets). Later, the “other writings” were included, first as “the Psalms,” then as the “Psalms and books” or “Psalms and other writings” and, finally, as Kethuvim, “Writings.” Since the “Law and the Prophets” was established for use in liturgical services fairly early, it makes sense that Jesus would use ths phrase when referring to what was clearly accepted as scripture in his day.
Around the time of the completion of the Masoretic text between 900 and 1000 C.E., various writers began referring to the “Tanakh,” (Torah Nevi’im Kethuvim), but prior to that time, the phrases “Law and the Prophets” or “the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings” were more common.