Originally posted by FreakyKBH'The Bible' doesn't declare anything. An author of one of the books of
The only problem with number three is that the Bible declares itself an objective reporter of historical events. It does not claim that it is beholden to any particular style of reporting, but it certainly positions itself time after time as a reliable source of information with respect to people, events and time.
That being said, if shown to be unreli ...[text shortened]... o be the word of God.
Thankfully, your proposition number three is based on a faulty premise.
the Bible declares something about what he interprets to be 'Scripture.'
This author makes no claims about the accuracy of any events.
It does not 'position itself' because 'itself' didn't exist until the fourth
century. And it is not reliable for information with respect to people,
events and time as I have pointed out with a trivial example (which you
ignored).
No doubt, no one could convince you of error in the Bible because
you come with the a priori assumption that there can be no error.
Consequently, you offer tortured interpretations of clearly written material
in an effort to maintain such a position.
Furthermore, that historical inaccuracy would render invalid the spiritual
worth of a text is totally question-begging.
I made no propositions. In a wise-ass question, Whodey asked me for
advice. I offered it, as I think it would broaden what I opine to be a
impoverished theological hermeneutic.
Nemesio
Originally posted by whodey
Your original assertion made it sound as though the Bible has no historical relevance so why give it spiritiual relevance?
Are you freaking nuts? Quote the material that you think made such an
assertion.
I've been a staunch defender of the spiritual worth of many if not most
passages in the Bible. I think the Book of Jonah, for example, is deeply
spiritual and rewarding, but I don't believe a historical word of it.
Back up your claim or admit you made an error.
After all, you are knitpicking in terms of the details of the Biblical accounts rather than assessing the validity of them having occured.
Absolutely not. I personally think it's a waste of time to discuss Biblical
minutae. What I do find worthwhile debating is the bogus claim that the
Bible is without historical error. This is patently false, as I note in the
other thread.
The difference is my faith is not weakened by the fact that the Bible
contains historical errors.
I suppose I could even reverse the question that you posed to me. Now that I have shown that the Bible has historical relevance, why not admitt that it may have spiritual relevance as well?
Find any post in the past five years I've been on this site (and I've
written a good many) that suggests that I think the Bible (on the whole)
is without spiritual relevance, or even one book of the Bible. If you
can, I'll start a thread with a public apology to all Christians and to you
in particular for such a thing.
If you can't, then it's a product of your deviant imagination.
I never said the Bible was without 'historical relevance,' either. The wildest,
craziest atheists wouldn't make that claim, and I'm not wild, crazy or
an atheist. You've proven nothing that isn't completely accepted in
the first place.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThis is where you imply that one should have less faith in the spiritual message due to the fact that the historical record in inaccurate. This is where we part ways. The Bible may have "flaws", however, only minute ones can be proven. For example, when was the stone rolled away? Who cares?
The advice I'd give is threefold: 1) Abandon the idea that some things cannot be perfectly known and/or
understood, especially abstract ones; 2) Abandon the idea that the Bible contains no errors; and
3) Abandon the idea that the Bible's inaccurate historical reporting means you should have less
faith in its spiritual message (or that simply because the Bible says it that it has any spiritual value
to begin with).
Nemesio[/b]
We do, in fact, agree in part that the Bible may not be inerrant. In fact, it says NO WHERE in the Bible that the Bible is inerrant. What is said in the Bible, however, is that it is the inspired word of God. The inerrant theology is simply an interpretation of the Bibles claim to be the inspired word of God.
Having said that, it is of my humble opinion that ALL stories in the Bible are based upon true events. The minor details of these events, however, may prove lacking to various degrees whether due to omitting various details or improperly describing details.
Originally posted by whodeyAbandon the idea that the Bible's inaccurate historical reporting means you should have less
This is where you imply that one should have less faith in the spiritual message due to the fact that the historical record in inaccurate. This is where we part ways. The Bible may have "flaws", however, only minute ones can be proven. For example, when was the stone rolled away? Who cares?
faith in its spiritual message (or that simply because the Bible says it that it has any spiritual value
to begin with).
You are so very confused. There are two parts to this statement:
1a) Abandon the idea that the Bible's inaccurate historical reporting means you should have less
faith in its spiritual message.
Read this carefully. I'm clearly saying that one can disbelieve the historical accuracy of a passage
and still be enriched spiritually. This is for people like FreakyKBH who think that an error renders
'God's Word' impotent.
1b) Abandon the idea that simply because the Bible says it, that it has spiritual value.
This is for people who think Abraham was morally justified in desiring to sacrifice his son, or that
the slaughter of Midianite children was ordained by God. Not all passages in the Bible are spiritually
enriching (like who begat whom) and some are spiritually impoverished (like dashing the brains of
your enemy's children on the rocks).
Before you reply, read very carefully aloud what I wrote. Note that I never 'imply' anything of which
I am accused.
I accept your apology in advance.
Nemesio
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by whodeyI also wondered as to why 4 gospels until I came across verses that seem to say we are to "work and search" the scriptures for answers.
Excellent! We are making progress. So as we can both attest that translations such as the KJB do have "flaws" even though you may still consider them to be "inerrant". The question then becomes, to what degree do these flaws exist and to what degree is being inerrant factored into the mix.
I realize that this topic is rather uncomfortable for those of f ...[text shortened]... this is merely an interpretation of what it means to be the "inspired" word of God.
Prov 25:2
2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter.
(NKJ)
2 Tim 2:15
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
(KJV)
Prov 2:4-5
4 If you seek her as silver, and search for her as for hidden treasures;
5 Then you will understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.
(NKJ)
Originally posted by checkbaiterDo you think that when Timothy was written, the author was indicating that women as well as men ought to study the Word?
2 Tim 2:15
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
(KJV)
Originally posted by NemesioI see what you are saying now and I apologize. However, I would disagree that what you assume to have no spiritual meaning actually has no spiritual meaning. For example, the story of Abraham being told to sacrifice his son to me has significant spiritual meaning. Do you not see a correlation with God sacrificing his own Son? You see, Abraham exhibited faith in carrying out God's command to sacrifice his son and as we all know, God works through our faith. Could it be that God required Abraham to be willing to sacrifice his son so that God could work through Abrahams subsequent generations to bring about the Messiah? Our faith and our free will work in one accord. Also notice that God stopped Abraham from going through with the sacrifice. Therefore, give credit where credit is due. No one ever seems to. All that was needed, however, is one to be a willing vessel and Abraham was such a man.
Abandon the idea that the Bible's inaccurate historical reporting means you should have less
faith in its spiritual message (or that simply because the Bible says it that it has any spiritual value
to begin with).
You are so very confused. There are two parts to this statement:
1a) Abandon the idea that the Bible's inaccurate historical re imply' anything of which
I am accused.
I accept your apology in advance.
Nemesio
Also, who begat whom also has spiritual relevance. For example, the lineage of Christ is of the upmost importance. The Messiah was prophesied to have come from the tribe of Judah. If you notice the lineage in Matthew and Luke, however, do not match. This is because one lineage is of Joseph and the other of Mary. So why is this important? Well one lineage is from the tribe of Judah, which fulfilled one prophecy, and the other from the tribe of Levi? Why is him also being part "Levite" important? It is because Christ is said to be our high preist in terms of atoning for our sins and ONLY Levites were to be priests unto God in the OT.
Of coarse, what do I know. I mean, I'm crazy enough to think that Noah's ark is lost on some mountain top. 🙄
Originally posted by checkbaiterYes. It's just not the four gospels, however. Their are a wide range of authors throughout the Bible. For me, this give added legitimacy to the word of God. After all, there is strength in terms of the number of witnesses that experience something. What I am wary of, however, are works that have only one human author and who have no other men of God to agree or back them up in what they say. After all, if God be God then he works through a good number of people rather than only one.
I also wondered as to why 4 gospels until I came across verses that seem to say we are to "work and search" the scriptures for answers.
Prov 25:2
2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter.
(NKJ)
2 Tim 2:15
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, ri ...[text shortened]... sures;
5 Then you will understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.
(NKJ)
Originally posted by whodeySo the fact that far more people have witness visitations by the Virgin Mary and written about it than have witness Jesus risen from the dead and have written about it gives far more legitimacy to the accounts of visitations by the Virgin Mary?
Their are a wide range of authors throughout the Bible. For me, this give added legitimacy to the word of God. After all, there is strength in terms of the number of witnesses that experience something.
And what about all those who have witness UFOs and written about it?
Originally posted by twhiteheadGood point, however, Jesus was a real person.
So the fact that far more people have witness visitations by the Virgin Mary and written about it than have witness Jesus risen from the dead and have written about it gives far more legitimacy to the accounts of visitations by the Virgin Mary?
And what about all those who have witness UFOs and written about it?
I think the examples you provided are "proof" that something happened. I think you will agree that more credance is given to 5 witness or even more to 12 witnesses etc. than just one. Whether these occurances are "real" in terms of how they are perceived is another matter entirely, however. Either that or the stories are a complete fabrication which some are. Then again, would you give your life for a fabrication or for something you were not certain of?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI would think the answer to this question would be self evident. You have met women right? I mean, you've spent time with them, enough to know what a bunch of squirrels they are? You don't want that kind of craziness loose in the inner sanctum.
Interesting. Why, then, do you suppose that the Catholic church and many other denominations that have followed do not allow women to pursue the highest levels of divinity education?
Originally posted by whodey
For example, the story of Abraham being told to sacrifice his son to me has significant spiritual meaning. Do you not see a correlation with God sacrificing his own Son?
I understand the Christians have made a correlation out of this story to emphasize the importance
of the actions they attribute to Jesus. After all, the idea of sacrifice was an absolutely central notion
to a 1st-century Jew. It's not an inelegant comparison, to be sure.
That having been said, I don't think the elegance of the comparison is undermined by the fact that
I don't believe that the Abraham story ever even happened. Nor do I think that the elegance is
undermined by the fact that I think the idea that God would ever command something so despicable
as to murder your own child as a test.
Taking the perspective of a 8th-century Jew, I see the beauty of the Abraham story. Taking the
perspective of a 1st-century Christian, I can see the beauty in the comparison of the former to the
latter.
And I can celebrate in the beauty, and be mystified by the spirituality entailed and disbelieve every
historical word.
Why do you find this impossible to do or difficult to understand?
Also, who begat whom also has spiritual relevance.
Do you seriously meditate and find spiritual enrichment from Genesis 11:10-32?
For example, the lineage of Christ is of the upmost importance. The Messiah was prophesied to have come from the tribe of Judah. If you notice the lineage in Matthew and Luke, however, do not match. This is because one lineage is of Joseph and the other of Mary.
There is no reason to believe that either is Mary's lineage.
St Matthew 1:16
...Iakob de egennesen ton Ioseph ton andra Marias...
...Jacob fathered Joseph, the husband of Mary...
St Luke 3:23
[Iesous]...en uios, os enomixeto Ieseph ton Hli...
[Jesus]...being son as it was being thought of Joseph [son]* of Heli...
*Son the missing 'son' in the literal text is replaced by 'ton' which refers to the noun in the previous
clause. Daughter could not be intended with the pronoun. A more literal but less elegant translation
would be: 'Jesus, being the son (as it was thought) of Joseph, who was the same of Heli, who was
the same of Matthat...' and so on.
There's no possible way either lineage can be attributed to Mary without some major error in the
text. It's another contradiction.
You have problems with the idea of contradiction. I don't. You have to stick your head in the sand
when confronted with the actual Greek. I can celebrate the beauty of these two passages -- the
priesthood and prophecy without any problem and, again, I don't believe that either Sts Matthew or
Luke knew the names of any of the great-grandparents, much less anything further back, but invented
them for midrashic reflection.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioSo you think the authors of Matthew and Luke did not know the names of any of the great'grandparents but simply made them up for the heck of it? In fact, they had no reason for including such knowingly inaccurate information other than getting their kicks? Interesting.
You have problems with the idea of contradiction. I don't. You have to stick your head in the sand
when confronted with the actual Greek. I can celebrate the beauty of these two passages -- the
priesthood and prophecy without any problem and, again, I don't believe that either Sts Matthew or
Luke knew the names of any of the great-grandparents, much less anything further back, but invented
them for midrashic reflection.
Nemesio[/b]