Raf... you have a very good ability to boil things down to their basics, which is one of the reasons I have always valued your input, even if it doesn't necessarily agree with mine. It's a skill you've had to develop as a news writer, where your deadlines are daily (or minute-ly in this digital age!) instead of over extended periods as in academic writing.
My position is A and C, I believe the "Bible" is God-breathed even though it contains "factual" errors and contradictions. I put the words "Bible" and "factual" in quotes because I think the actual definitions of those things are not as straight forward as we often take them to be.
Position D, that the Bible does not contain factual errors or contradictions, is an error that fundamentalist/evangelical Protestantism (and the plagiarist, spiritual hitch-hiker Wierwille) fell into as a result of mistaking the Bible, rather than the Spirit, as God's primary means of communicating with people... and a God-awful error it is, too!
In post #13 on this thread, Raf, you wrote "If you are going to tie your faith in the inspiration of the Bible to a belief that this book is an accurate telling of events that took place in history, without error or contradiction, then you are going to be walking on a very fragile faith."
You are right! And that's why fundamentalist/evangelicals always seem so idiotically defensive. But my faith in the inspiration of the Bible doesn't rest on those things.
During the holiday season of 1973 I was going to go crazy if I wasn't able to change something, but there was nothing I could change. I had already lost control of my breathing, beginning to hyperventilate. I wasn't particularly religious at the time but I called on God to help me... as a last resort... expecting nothing... as I did so I remembered that somewhere Jesus had said if we asked anything in his name he would do it... and I finished my request "in the name of Jesus Christ." Immediately, my breathing returned to normal, I began to calm down, and SOMEBODY not material began teaching me how to change the things that were in my heart.
He taught me using the things around me, the things of the engine room of a nuclear-powered submarine, things involving the purposefully regulated flow of component elements to affect the transfer and transformation of energy. Poetic knowledge of poetic truth. It wasn't until six years later that the same Spirit led me to the Bible... not IN TWI... but THROUGH TWI. I didn't lose my faith in that Spirit when I took PFAL, though I have to admit I got distracted for a couple of decades... and I didn't lose my faith in that Spirit when I realized the errors of PFAL. They were Wierwille's errors, not the Spirit's. I learned how to translate the truths the Spirit had taught me from terms of the engine room to the terminology used in the Bible. Since then, I have also learned how to translate those truths into terms of the mental health professions.
In order to reconcile proposition A, that the Bible is God-breathed, with proposition C, that the Bible contains factual errors and contradictions, I have to radically change the way I understand what it means for something...ANYTHING... to be "God-breathed." I'm working to get there, but I have not yet arrived. I think I have the concept, but I'm working on articulating the words.
It's easy for me to see that the purposefully regulated flow of the component elements of each and every cell in my body can be regarded as God-breathed through the instructions encoded in the DNA. Yet God is capable of interrupting and redirecting those flows if He/She/It (the word "Spirit"is feminine in both Hebrew and Greek) wills. If that were not the case, I would have been dead three times over in the past nine years. The fact that I am alive can be regarded as being God-breathed.
I am exploring the concept of regarding my stream of consciousness as purposefully regulated flows of component elements, the flows of thought in the form of words. Those flows are partially regulated by the information encoded in the DNA of our nervous systems, and partially by the language systems we learn as infants, but there is a degree of quantum indeterminacy, and the flows of thought are not DETERMINED by our DNA and our language. We have a high degree of freedom to think as we choose, to purposefully regulate the flows of our thoughts. That is what responsibility is, and I think that's what the Bible means by "the image of God." Failure on the part of a person to properly regulate the flows of her/his thoughts results in improperly regulated behavior, which the Bible calls sin, and which we are more apt to regard as mental illness.
I think there is a degree to which God can "breath-into" the flows of our thoughts. I think that is what inspiration and revelation are... and I have received both... not like Wierwille taught in the advanced class... it was more like a heightened perception, like the Spirit pointing something out to me and saying "pay attention to this"... It was not what TWI taught,k but it was real.
I can picture the Spirit breathing-into the flow of thought of a person writing, but that's a far, FAR different thing from the plenary verbal inspiration of fundamentalist/evangelicals.
A big key lies in John 6:63 where Jesus said "The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." The feature that spirit and life share is that they both consist of purposefully regulated flows of component elements. Receiving the poetic truth expressed in John 6:63 depends on recognizing the words Jesus had spoken as purposefully regulated flows of thought in the form of words. It does not depend on whether those words are factual (propositionally accurate) or, taken as a whole, internally consistent.
Sure, it's possible the original gospel of Luke contained no reference to Quirinius. But where's our proof of that? Is it missing from any copies? Any evidence at all?
I have neither the time, the patience, nor the desire to attempt refuting any and every claim to error you (or anybody else) might see fit.
It did however, take me all of about 3 or 4 minutes to find the above link.
(Anymore, information available on the Internet appears to cut both ways...)
I concede that some apparent errors are not errors at all. That's not the point. The point is that many, many, many errors are actually honest-to-goodness errors. That you have to appeal to the invisible non-existent original text to address such errors... doesn't address those errors. It merely dodges the question.
That was no appeal to "non-existent original text," which quite honestly, I don't recall ever doing.
I fully realize that both "God-breathed" and "inerrancy" are premises, and do not purport either of them as being "provable."
What I do think is provable is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.
However, I see the context of said proving as being to oneself, not to somebody else.
I have neither the time, the patience, nor the desire to attempt refuting any and every claim to error you (or anybody else) might see fit.
It did however, take me all of about 3 or 4 minutes to find the above link.
(Anymore, information available on the Internet appears to cut both ways...)
If you read that page carefully, you will see quite clearly, I think, that it makes my point quite nicely. In order to make Luke fit what we know from history, you have to change Luke or make up history. The conclusion of the article is "future unearthed evidence will vindicate Luke! You just watch! (To which I'll respond: Don't hold your breath).
That was no appeal to "non-existent original text," which quite honestly, I don't recall ever doing.
I fully realize that both "God-breathed" and "inerrancy" are premises, and do not purport either of them as being "provable."
What I do think is provable is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.
However, I see the context of said proving as being to oneself, not to somebody else.
I'm sorry, but when you say you see no problem with believing the original inspired texts are inerrant (which you said in post 160), then you are implying that errors and contradictions, if they are actual and not just apparent, MUST be absent from the original inspired texts. So, yeah, you kinda ARE appealing to them in the terms of this discussion.
But I agree with where you leave things off: "I see the context of said proving as being to oneself, not to somebody else." That statement is not substantively different from my saying that you can get there by faith but not by reason alone.
Yet God is capable of interrupting and redirecting those flows if He/She/It (the word "Spirit"is feminine in both Hebrew and Greek) wills.
Agreed. However, I don't view these as errors in the system, but rather, possibly as corrections or redirections stemming from errors (or even, potential errors) in the system.
(Odd talk, perhaps, but enough sense can be made out of it.)
I think there is a degree to which God can "breath-into" the flows of our thoughts. I think that is what inspiration and revelation are... and I have received both... not like Wierwille taught in the advanced class... it was more like a heightened perception, like the Spirit pointing something out to me and saying "pay attention to this"... It was not what TWI taught,k but it was real.
That's really not as far off from what was taught (at least as I perceived it) as you might think. Pretty darn close, actually. But, maybe it changed or was distorted at some point. I don't know when (or how) you might have heard it taught.
Given the speed at which I searched, found, and scanned it, it wouldn't surprise me if it fell short on substance. Doesn't mean there isn't more (as in better) substance out there, I simply didn't spend much time looking for it. Allowing for such possibilities leaves the door open.
...then you are implying that errors and contradictions, if they are actual and not just apparent, MUST be absent from the original inspired texts.
Yes, it allows for that possibility, but it certainly doesn't demand for it to be the only possible solution. As mentioned previously, I think they are (or would be) the exception to the norm or whatever resolution might eventually surface.
That statement is not substantively different from my saying that you can get there by faith but not by reason alone.
Given the speed at which I searched, found, and scanned it, it wouldn't surprise me if it fell short on substance. Doesn't mean there isn't more (as in better) substance out there, I simply didn't spend much time looking for it. Allowing for such possibilities leaves the door open.
Then why offer it? As evidence that it's not really an error? But the article doesn't refute my point. At best, it makes the argument that Luke was a careful historian, in the face of evidence he was not. If you begin with the conclusion that Luke was a careful historian, I suppose you have to "leave the door open," but it's begging the question. It's assuming your conclusion and projecting it onto the evidence, rather than drawing your conclusion from the evidence. Abandon inerrancy, and the solution is simple: Luke was just wrong about that detail. His reason for Joseph needing to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem is just wrong. That's it. No harm done. It was a mistake. What facts remain? Jesus was born in Bethlehem, just like Matthew says. Matthew gives no indication of a journey to Bethlehem. But he doesn't rule it out either. He just doesn't address it. Luke's historical error of why Joseph brought his pregnant wife to Bethlehem does not negate the premise that he did so.
Problem solved. Unless you just can't have an error in Luke or your Bible will fall to pieces. Then you have to wedge ahistorical information into the account. Quirinius was governor twice (no he wasn't. The records are complete in that regard). He held another office that Luke called "governor" (which would be a mistake, again making rather than refuting my point). We STILL would have the problem of a census that requires people to travel from where they live to a place where their great ancestors lived, for no discernible reason.
At some point you just have to concede that it didn't happen that way. You only have to leave the door open to defend inerrancy. But why? Why defend inerrancy when allowing for an error answers every question?
Yes, it allows for that possibility, but it certainly doesn't demand for it to be the only possible solution. As mentioned previously, I think they are (or would be) the exception to the norm or whatever resolution might eventually surface.
I submit that you would have to do more than "allow for that possibility." It absolutely demands for it to be the only possible solution. If there's an error, and it's really an error, not just apparent, then the only possible argument is that it wasn't in the original. If a resolution eventually surfaces, then it's just an apparent error. But in this particular case, I think it's highly improbable that you're going to find a resolution.
Anyway, I'm approaching nitpicking territory (if I haven't crossed into it already), so I'll stop here on this point.
Then why offer it? As evidence that it's not really an error? But the article doesn't refute my point.
Raf, I'm not even pretending to be a great historian. This happens to be an issue that I've never given any thought, time, or effort to, and the point was merely to say that I believed there were other possible explanations for the apparent discrepancy, which would probably show up somewhere on the Internet if one were to take the proper time and effort to search it. From what little bit that I've read today on it, I find it rather interesting that Luke specifically refers to the taxation (or census) being the first made by Cyrenius. It plainly was not the only one made, and it seems reasonable to think that Josephus's mentioning of it might not be referring to the first.
In any case, it is not a matter of great importance or concern to me. If it were, I would spend the hours it might take to study it more carefully.
If you begin with the conclusion that Luke was a careful historian, I suppose you have to "leave the door open," but it's begging the question. It's assuming your conclusion and projecting it onto the evidence, rather than drawing your conclusion from the evidence. Abandon inerrancy, and the solution is simple: Luke was just wrong about that detail. His reason for Joseph needing to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem is just wrong. That's it. No harm done.
I would contend that there is harm done, if it's not aligned with the truth of what actually happened.
Furthermore, when the door is, as you say, left open, I don't see that anything has to necessarily be projected on the evidence, nor that a conclusion has to be reached.
I think it can be viewed as being inconclusive, or in other words, simply "left open." No harm done.
Luke's historical error of why Joseph brought his pregnant wife to Bethlehem does not negate the premise that he did so.
If the reason for Joseph bringing his pregnant wife to Bethlehem doesn't negate the premise that he did so, then leave it unhinged.
Problem solved. (Unless you need an error in Luke for some other reason.)
Quirinius was governor twice (no he wasn't. The records are complete in that regard). He held another office that Luke called "governor" (which would be a mistake, again making rather than refuting my point). We STILL would have the problem of a census that requires people to travel from where they live to a place where their great ancestors lived, for no discernible reason.
Actually, I do recall reading the reason for it, as more evidence (on some papyrus, I seem to recall) showed up recently. But I haven't the drive to go look for it again. It's out there, somewhere on the Internet.
Why defend inerrancy when allowing for an error answers every question?
Because of all the pieces that get waylaid or discarded as a result. If instead they are merely "set aside" as being inconclusive, there has been too many times later in my life when they suddenly flow together and reveal a new glimpse of truth.
I submit that you would have to do more than "allow for that possibility." It absolutely demands for it to be the only possible solution.
If nothing else, I have had to learn to not be so demanding with myself, with God, or with others. And I submit that such patience can have (and has had) its own reward.
Anyway, I'm approaching nitpicking territory (if I haven't crossed into it already), so I'll stop here on this point.
Whether it was this issue, or another, it would have likely followed the same course.
If the reason for Joseph bringing his pregnant wife to Bethlehem doesn't negate the premise that he did so, then leave it unhinged.
Problem solved. (Unless you need an error in Luke for some other reason.)
I don't "need" an error in Luke. I recognize one. Luke is the one who erred in why Joseph went to Bethlehem. If you're content with the existence of that error, then we are in agreement. If you must insist he did not make an error, provide your proof. Wild speculation of the sort in every effort at an explanation I've encountered is not proof. It's not even evidence. It's baseless, wishful thinking that only has to be injected into the discussion to preserve a premise of inerrancy that the Bible doesn't even make about itself.
As for the article you posted, I'll have to take the time to read it carefully, but the problem remains that no matter when the census was, the governosrhip of Quirinius simply did not overlap with the time of Herod, so the problem is going to remain no matter what Josephus wrote. Again, it will take more than a brief glimpse at the article for me to address it.
BUT, kudos on finding it. In doing so, you implicitly acknowledge the need to address proposed errors to see if they are actual or apparent. "Don't take my word for it."
I would think that it referring to "scripture that had already been written" would be the explanation that survives a shave by Occam's razor. Logically a reference to future, as-yet-unwritten scripture would require a clearer signpost than our own supposition and wishing-that-it-be-so
Does that mean that you think 2Pet.3:16 implicitly categorizes Paul's epistles as scripture?
If not, why the exclusion, given they were already written by the time Peter wrote this?
Does that mean that you think 2Pet.3:16 implicitly categorizes Paul's epistles as scripture?
If not, why the exclusion, given they were already written by the time Peter wrote this?
Without delving too deeply into it, it seems that the author of II Peter is including Paul's epistles as "scripture".
even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures,
Without delving too deeply into it, it seems that the author of II Peter is including Paul's epistles as "scripture".
Then it seems the next logical question would be to ask whether they should be included when it is written that "all scripture" is given by inspiration of God. If the writer has elsewhere (Rom.15:4) distinguished things that were written "aforetime," should he not also have written "All scripture written aforetime" to Timothy if that is all that was meant?
At the least, it should include all of Paul's epistles, considering that this was the last of what was written by Paul.
You guys are assuming "scriptures" means something magical, as opposed to "stuff that's written down." When Peter (who, by the way, was certainly NOT the apostle Peter), uses the word "scripture," is he using it in our modern sense? Or is he equating Paul's letters with the Torah?
You guys are assuming "scriptures" means something magical, as opposed to "stuff that's written down."
Huhn? Why think it is magical or ethereal? I think of it as what was written down.
Unlike "the word of God," which I consider as being spiritual. In other words, the word of God (which is not tangible) can be spoken or written, both of which are tangible. In this context, scripture refers to the written portion, as opposed to that which might be spoken.
When Peter (who, by the way, was certainly NOT the apostle Peter),...
How can you be so certain of that, without accepting a premise that simply attributes more credibility to some other authority?
Both epistles declare the writer to be an apostle of Jesus Christ. Evidently you suppose that this is an error (i.e., a lie), or that there were other apostles of Jesus Christ named Peter, or Simon Peter. (I'm not sure which, or if you might have something else in mind.)
...uses the word "scripture," is he using it in our modern sense? Or is he equating Paul's letters with the Torah?
I see no logical reason not to think that he is equating it with the Torah (which was inspired.)
Perhaps I'm missing something that you're trying to say, as I took (correct me if I'm wrong) your "modern sense" phrase to mean, any and everything that is written by anybody, past, present, or future.
What I'm saying is, just because Peter uses the word "scripture" to describe the writings of Paul does not necessarily mean he is elevating it to the same level as "scripture" the way we use it today.
I'll give you an example. Back in 1989/1990, after the Geer split from TWI, Geer wrote a letter to the subscribers to his newsletter and weekly tapes in the United States. I refer to that letter as "The Epistle of Chris Geer to the Americans." But when I wrote about it on GSC (or was it Waydale? I don't recall), some folks here were amazed that Geer would have the GALL to write an EPISTLE! They thought it was arrogant as hell of him to do such a thing.
Of course, he never called it an epistle. That was MY word, not his. And it was accurate. An epistle is a letter. It doesn't have some kind of glorious meaning. It's a flipping letter. He was no more full of himself than I am writing this post.
When WE use the word "epsitle," we bestow on that word a gravitas, an authority, that is missing from the word itself. It just means letter. I wrote a letter. No controversy. I wrote an epistle. Who do I think I am?!?!
That's what I mean by Peter referring to Paul's letters as "scripture." I don't see where he's elevating it to some God-breathed status. He's just saying it was a written document. We need to be careful not inject OUR meanings onto the words that THEY used. We need to read it as THEY would have understood it.
As for Peter not being the author of Peter, I'll just rest on the consensus of modern scholarship. Whoever wrote that letter (epistle) was not an illiterate fisherman more familiar with the Septuagint than the Hebrew scriptures. I'll refrain from elaborating on the argument here.
Scholars are pretty much agreed that Paul originally wrote Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Thessalonians, Philippians and Philemon... Ephesians, the Pastorals (1&2 Timothy, Titus) and Colossians are considered Deutero-Pauline, possibly written by members of Paul's school, but not by Paul himself. Hebrews and the "Acts of Paul and Thecla" have been attributed to Paul, but few take those attributions seriously today. There is growing interest in the idea that Hebrews was written by Prisca. Some people like to think that 1st Timothy was written by Paul, but 2nd Timothy definitely wasn't. All three of the Pastorals have always been treated as a unit, which presents a difficulty for those who think Paul actually wrote 1st Timothy. There are some who mark significant resemblances between the theology and vocabulary of 2nd Timothy with those of Ignatius.
Ignatius is believed to have died sometime between 98 an 108 CE. He would probably be familiar with the gospel of John. But if he is the author if 2nd Timothy 3:16, then the "all scripture" he was referring to would have been the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, in the Greek Septuagint version (which was not a single volume). This is also what Paul referred to as the things that were written "aforetime" in Romans 15:4. The verse from Romans could just as accurately be translated " "And whatever was pre-written was written for us to learn from, that we through patience and comfort of that which was written might have hope."
It is extremely doubtful that ANYBODY writing that early in the Church thought of their writings on a par with the Tanakh, including Paul himself. There are places where Paul says he is writing something the Lord wants him to write, but I can't think of any place off the top of my head where he says we should regard everything he writes as from God, just because he, Paul, is writing it.
We make a very big mistake today when we think that the Bible is God's primary way of communicating with people. When we do that, we think God's primary way of communicating with us is through a medium that can readily be used by con men like Wierwille to take us captive and make merchandise of us.
But during the time before the books of the New Testament were written, when the Church was growing and becoming established, THERE WAS NO WAY FOR GOD TO COMMUNICATE WITH THIS CHRISTIAN OR THAT CHRISTIAN THROUGH WRITTEN WORDS. God's primary way of communicating with people was through the Lord Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit!
And that is STILL the primary way God does it. The Bible is a SECONDARY means of communication, and the intent of the New Testament is to put some controls on people who are not using Holy Spirit responsibly.
Do I think the Bible is God-breathed? Yes I do, but not in the same sense as the fundamentalist/evangelicals. I think the "Scripture" is a set of writings peculiarly adapted for the Lord Jesus Christ to teach people by means of the Holy Spirit. That does not require plenary verbal inspiration, it does not require inerrancy. The Bible does not dissolve into a tissue of lies because of a single error or contradiction. Paul himself tells us to beware of people like Wierwille, and to avoid them by all means.
When WE use the word "epsitle," we bestow on that word a gravitas, an authority, that is missing from the word itself. It just means letter. I wrote a letter. No controversy. I wrote an epistle. Who do I think I am?!?!
Okay, I better see what you intended to communicate.
But what appears to elevate "scripture" to a higher level of gravitas than a mere "letter" that was sent to them is its inclusion of those that are unlearned (unlearned about what, exactly, if it's not the Torah, or other spiritually inspired writings?), wrestling them unto their own destruction. What wrangling with other "writings" carries with it such devastating consequences if not understood?
As for Peter not being the author of Peter, I'll just rest on the consensus of modern scholarship.
That's your choice, of course, but it plainly involves accepting the premise that said consensus is more authoritative that the actual words of the writer himself.
That's your choice, of course, but it plainly involves accepting the premise that said consensus is more authoritative that the actual words of the writer himself.
There's a number of books of the bible that are pseudonymous, there's many reasons, among them the style of writing differing from I Peter, the date it was written etc that lead most scholars to conclude that II Peter was not written by the Apostle Peter. Tacking the name of a famous person onto an epistle was pretty commonplace.
Considering how many people at the time pretended to be apostles when they were not, I think taking their word for it would be exceedingly problematic. Someone pretending to be Peter wrote a gospel, after all. It's so absurd that no one takes it seriously. But if I were to take the wroter's word for it, I would have to assume it was written by Peter because he said so.
There's a number of books of the bible that are pseudonymous, there's many reasons, among them the style of writing differing from I Peter, the date it was written etc that lead most scholars to conclude that II Peter was not written by the Apostle Peter. Tacking the name of a famous person onto an epistle was pretty commonplace.
Sincerely
Peter the Apostle
Sure, lot's of reasons to see it (which was canonized) as having errors, and maybe only one to think of it (meaning the original, of course) as inerrant. It's accepting a premise, no matter how it's viewed.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
76
60
27
35
Popular Days
Nov 25
19
Jan 31
16
Jan 21
14
Jan 25
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 76 posts
Steve Lortz 60 posts
waysider 27 posts
TLC 35 posts
Popular Days
Nov 25 2015
19 posts
Jan 31 2016
16 posts
Jan 21 2016
14 posts
Jan 25 2016
14 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
I buried Paul. Sincerely, The Walrus
Steve Lortz
There is a thing we've been taught to do at Anderson University (all the way from freshman introductory Bible courses to grad school exegetical papers) called the hermeneutic or the exegetical circle.
Steve Lortz
I don't understand why you have a hang-up about the authorship of Luke-Acts. There are parts of the NT whose authorship is very much open to question, especially Paul's pastoral epistles, and serious
Steve Lortz
Raf... you have a very good ability to boil things down to their basics, which is one of the reasons I have always valued your input, even if it doesn't necessarily agree with mine. It's a skill you've had to develop as a news writer, where your deadlines are daily (or minute-ly in this digital age!) instead of over extended periods as in academic writing.
My position is A and C, I believe the "Bible" is God-breathed even though it contains "factual" errors and contradictions. I put the words "Bible" and "factual" in quotes because I think the actual definitions of those things are not as straight forward as we often take them to be.
Position D, that the Bible does not contain factual errors or contradictions, is an error that fundamentalist/evangelical Protestantism (and the plagiarist, spiritual hitch-hiker Wierwille) fell into as a result of mistaking the Bible, rather than the Spirit, as God's primary means of communicating with people... and a God-awful error it is, too!
In post #13 on this thread, Raf, you wrote "If you are going to tie your faith in the inspiration of the Bible to a belief that this book is an accurate telling of events that took place in history, without error or contradiction, then you are going to be walking on a very fragile faith."
You are right! And that's why fundamentalist/evangelicals always seem so idiotically defensive. But my faith in the inspiration of the Bible doesn't rest on those things.
During the holiday season of 1973 I was going to go crazy if I wasn't able to change something, but there was nothing I could change. I had already lost control of my breathing, beginning to hyperventilate. I wasn't particularly religious at the time but I called on God to help me... as a last resort... expecting nothing... as I did so I remembered that somewhere Jesus had said if we asked anything in his name he would do it... and I finished my request "in the name of Jesus Christ." Immediately, my breathing returned to normal, I began to calm down, and SOMEBODY not material began teaching me how to change the things that were in my heart.
He taught me using the things around me, the things of the engine room of a nuclear-powered submarine, things involving the purposefully regulated flow of component elements to affect the transfer and transformation of energy. Poetic knowledge of poetic truth. It wasn't until six years later that the same Spirit led me to the Bible... not IN TWI... but THROUGH TWI. I didn't lose my faith in that Spirit when I took PFAL, though I have to admit I got distracted for a couple of decades... and I didn't lose my faith in that Spirit when I realized the errors of PFAL. They were Wierwille's errors, not the Spirit's. I learned how to translate the truths the Spirit had taught me from terms of the engine room to the terminology used in the Bible. Since then, I have also learned how to translate those truths into terms of the mental health professions.
In order to reconcile proposition A, that the Bible is God-breathed, with proposition C, that the Bible contains factual errors and contradictions, I have to radically change the way I understand what it means for something...ANYTHING... to be "God-breathed." I'm working to get there, but I have not yet arrived. I think I have the concept, but I'm working on articulating the words.
It's easy for me to see that the purposefully regulated flow of the component elements of each and every cell in my body can be regarded as God-breathed through the instructions encoded in the DNA. Yet God is capable of interrupting and redirecting those flows if He/She/It (the word "Spirit"is feminine in both Hebrew and Greek) wills. If that were not the case, I would have been dead three times over in the past nine years. The fact that I am alive can be regarded as being God-breathed.
I am exploring the concept of regarding my stream of consciousness as purposefully regulated flows of component elements, the flows of thought in the form of words. Those flows are partially regulated by the information encoded in the DNA of our nervous systems, and partially by the language systems we learn as infants, but there is a degree of quantum indeterminacy, and the flows of thought are not DETERMINED by our DNA and our language. We have a high degree of freedom to think as we choose, to purposefully regulate the flows of our thoughts. That is what responsibility is, and I think that's what the Bible means by "the image of God." Failure on the part of a person to properly regulate the flows of her/his thoughts results in improperly regulated behavior, which the Bible calls sin, and which we are more apt to regard as mental illness.
I think there is a degree to which God can "breath-into" the flows of our thoughts. I think that is what inspiration and revelation are... and I have received both... not like Wierwille taught in the advanced class... it was more like a heightened perception, like the Spirit pointing something out to me and saying "pay attention to this"... It was not what TWI taught,k but it was real.
I can picture the Spirit breathing-into the flow of thought of a person writing, but that's a far, FAR different thing from the plenary verbal inspiration of fundamentalist/evangelicals.
A big key lies in John 6:63 where Jesus said "The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." The feature that spirit and life share is that they both consist of purposefully regulated flows of component elements. Receiving the poetic truth expressed in John 6:63 depends on recognizing the words Jesus had spoken as purposefully regulated flows of thought in the form of words. It does not depend on whether those words are factual (propositionally accurate) or, taken as a whole, internally consistent.
-----
What else did I want to say?
I guess I'll remember it later...
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/11/01/Once-More-Quiriniuss-Census.aspx#Article
I have neither the time, the patience, nor the desire to attempt refuting any and every claim to error you (or anybody else) might see fit.
It did however, take me all of about 3 or 4 minutes to find the above link.
(Anymore, information available on the Internet appears to cut both ways...)
That was no appeal to "non-existent original text," which quite honestly, I don't recall ever doing.
I fully realize that both "God-breathed" and "inerrancy" are premises, and do not purport either of them as being "provable."
What I do think is provable is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.
However, I see the context of said proving as being to oneself, not to somebody else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
If you read that page carefully, you will see quite clearly, I think, that it makes my point quite nicely. In order to make Luke fit what we know from history, you have to change Luke or make up history. The conclusion of the article is "future unearthed evidence will vindicate Luke! You just watch! (To which I'll respond: Don't hold your breath).
I'm sorry, but when you say you see no problem with believing the original inspired texts are inerrant (which you said in post 160), then you are implying that errors and contradictions, if they are actual and not just apparent, MUST be absent from the original inspired texts. So, yeah, you kinda ARE appealing to them in the terms of this discussion.
But I agree with where you leave things off: "I see the context of said proving as being to oneself, not to somebody else." That statement is not substantively different from my saying that you can get there by faith but not by reason alone.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Agreed. However, I don't view these as errors in the system, but rather, possibly as corrections or redirections stemming from errors (or even, potential errors) in the system.
(Odd talk, perhaps, but enough sense can be made out of it.)
That's really not as far off from what was taught (at least as I perceived it) as you might think. Pretty darn close, actually. But, maybe it changed or was distorted at some point. I don't know when (or how) you might have heard it taught.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Given the speed at which I searched, found, and scanned it, it wouldn't surprise me if it fell short on substance. Doesn't mean there isn't more (as in better) substance out there, I simply didn't spend much time looking for it. Allowing for such possibilities leaves the door open.
Yes, it allows for that possibility, but it certainly doesn't demand for it to be the only possible solution. As mentioned previously, I think they are (or would be) the exception to the norm or whatever resolution might eventually surface.
Perhaps it's intentional, Raf.
That no flesh should glory in His presence.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Then why offer it? As evidence that it's not really an error? But the article doesn't refute my point. At best, it makes the argument that Luke was a careful historian, in the face of evidence he was not. If you begin with the conclusion that Luke was a careful historian, I suppose you have to "leave the door open," but it's begging the question. It's assuming your conclusion and projecting it onto the evidence, rather than drawing your conclusion from the evidence. Abandon inerrancy, and the solution is simple: Luke was just wrong about that detail. His reason for Joseph needing to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem is just wrong. That's it. No harm done. It was a mistake. What facts remain? Jesus was born in Bethlehem, just like Matthew says. Matthew gives no indication of a journey to Bethlehem. But he doesn't rule it out either. He just doesn't address it. Luke's historical error of why Joseph brought his pregnant wife to Bethlehem does not negate the premise that he did so.
Problem solved. Unless you just can't have an error in Luke or your Bible will fall to pieces. Then you have to wedge ahistorical information into the account. Quirinius was governor twice (no he wasn't. The records are complete in that regard). He held another office that Luke called "governor" (which would be a mistake, again making rather than refuting my point). We STILL would have the problem of a census that requires people to travel from where they live to a place where their great ancestors lived, for no discernible reason.
At some point you just have to concede that it didn't happen that way. You only have to leave the door open to defend inerrancy. But why? Why defend inerrancy when allowing for an error answers every question?
I submit that you would have to do more than "allow for that possibility." It absolutely demands for it to be the only possible solution. If there's an error, and it's really an error, not just apparent, then the only possible argument is that it wasn't in the original. If a resolution eventually surfaces, then it's just an apparent error. But in this particular case, I think it's highly improbable that you're going to find a resolution.
Anyway, I'm approaching nitpicking territory (if I haven't crossed into it already), so I'll stop here on this point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Raf, I'm not even pretending to be a great historian. This happens to be an issue that I've never given any thought, time, or effort to, and the point was merely to say that I believed there were other possible explanations for the apparent discrepancy, which would probably show up somewhere on the Internet if one were to take the proper time and effort to search it. From what little bit that I've read today on it, I find it rather interesting that Luke specifically refers to the taxation (or census) being the first made by Cyrenius. It plainly was not the only one made, and it seems reasonable to think that Josephus's mentioning of it might not be referring to the first.
Or, maybe this is more acceptable to you:
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/54/54-1/JETS_54-1_65-87_Rhoads.pdf
In any case, it is not a matter of great importance or concern to me. If it were, I would spend the hours it might take to study it more carefully.
I would contend that there is harm done, if it's not aligned with the truth of what actually happened.
Furthermore, when the door is, as you say, left open, I don't see that anything has to necessarily be projected on the evidence, nor that a conclusion has to be reached.
I think it can be viewed as being inconclusive, or in other words, simply "left open." No harm done.
If the reason for Joseph bringing his pregnant wife to Bethlehem doesn't negate the premise that he did so, then leave it unhinged.
Problem solved. (Unless you need an error in Luke for some other reason.)
Actually, I do recall reading the reason for it, as more evidence (on some papyrus, I seem to recall) showed up recently. But I haven't the drive to go look for it again. It's out there, somewhere on the Internet.
Because of all the pieces that get waylaid or discarded as a result. If instead they are merely "set aside" as being inconclusive, there has been too many times later in my life when they suddenly flow together and reveal a new glimpse of truth.
If nothing else, I have had to learn to not be so demanding with myself, with God, or with others. And I submit that such patience can have (and has had) its own reward.
Whether it was this issue, or another, it would have likely followed the same course.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Way to twist the premise into a pretzel:
I don't "need" an error in Luke. I recognize one. Luke is the one who erred in why Joseph went to Bethlehem. If you're content with the existence of that error, then we are in agreement. If you must insist he did not make an error, provide your proof. Wild speculation of the sort in every effort at an explanation I've encountered is not proof. It's not even evidence. It's baseless, wishful thinking that only has to be injected into the discussion to preserve a premise of inerrancy that the Bible doesn't even make about itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
As for the article you posted, I'll have to take the time to read it carefully, but the problem remains that no matter when the census was, the governosrhip of Quirinius simply did not overlap with the time of Herod, so the problem is going to remain no matter what Josephus wrote. Again, it will take more than a brief glimpse at the article for me to address it.
BUT, kudos on finding it. In doing so, you implicitly acknowledge the need to address proposed errors to see if they are actual or apparent. "Don't take my word for it."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Does that mean that you think 2Pet.3:16 implicitly categorizes Paul's epistles as scripture?
If not, why the exclusion, given they were already written by the time Peter wrote this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Then it seems the next logical question would be to ask whether they should be included when it is written that "all scripture" is given by inspiration of God. If the writer has elsewhere (Rom.15:4) distinguished things that were written "aforetime," should he not also have written "All scripture written aforetime" to Timothy if that is all that was meant?
At the least, it should include all of Paul's epistles, considering that this was the last of what was written by Paul.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You guys are assuming "scriptures" means something magical, as opposed to "stuff that's written down." When Peter (who, by the way, was certainly NOT the apostle Peter), uses the word "scripture," is he using it in our modern sense? Or is he equating Paul's letters with the Torah?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Huhn? Why think it is magical or ethereal? I think of it as what was written down.
Unlike "the word of God," which I consider as being spiritual. In other words, the word of God (which is not tangible) can be spoken or written, both of which are tangible. In this context, scripture refers to the written portion, as opposed to that which might be spoken.
How can you be so certain of that, without accepting a premise that simply attributes more credibility to some other authority?
Both epistles declare the writer to be an apostle of Jesus Christ. Evidently you suppose that this is an error (i.e., a lie), or that there were other apostles of Jesus Christ named Peter, or Simon Peter. (I'm not sure which, or if you might have something else in mind.)
I see no logical reason not to think that he is equating it with the Torah (which was inspired.)
Perhaps I'm missing something that you're trying to say, as I took (correct me if I'm wrong) your "modern sense" phrase to mean, any and everything that is written by anybody, past, present, or future.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
What I'm saying is, just because Peter uses the word "scripture" to describe the writings of Paul does not necessarily mean he is elevating it to the same level as "scripture" the way we use it today.
I'll give you an example. Back in 1989/1990, after the Geer split from TWI, Geer wrote a letter to the subscribers to his newsletter and weekly tapes in the United States. I refer to that letter as "The Epistle of Chris Geer to the Americans." But when I wrote about it on GSC (or was it Waydale? I don't recall), some folks here were amazed that Geer would have the GALL to write an EPISTLE! They thought it was arrogant as hell of him to do such a thing.
Of course, he never called it an epistle. That was MY word, not his. And it was accurate. An epistle is a letter. It doesn't have some kind of glorious meaning. It's a flipping letter. He was no more full of himself than I am writing this post.
When WE use the word "epsitle," we bestow on that word a gravitas, an authority, that is missing from the word itself. It just means letter. I wrote a letter. No controversy. I wrote an epistle. Who do I think I am?!?!
That's what I mean by Peter referring to Paul's letters as "scripture." I don't see where he's elevating it to some God-breathed status. He's just saying it was a written document. We need to be careful not inject OUR meanings onto the words that THEY used. We need to read it as THEY would have understood it.
As for Peter not being the author of Peter, I'll just rest on the consensus of modern scholarship. Whoever wrote that letter (epistle) was not an illiterate fisherman more familiar with the Septuagint than the Hebrew scriptures. I'll refrain from elaborating on the argument here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Scholars are pretty much agreed that Paul originally wrote Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Thessalonians, Philippians and Philemon... Ephesians, the Pastorals (1&2 Timothy, Titus) and Colossians are considered Deutero-Pauline, possibly written by members of Paul's school, but not by Paul himself. Hebrews and the "Acts of Paul and Thecla" have been attributed to Paul, but few take those attributions seriously today. There is growing interest in the idea that Hebrews was written by Prisca. Some people like to think that 1st Timothy was written by Paul, but 2nd Timothy definitely wasn't. All three of the Pastorals have always been treated as a unit, which presents a difficulty for those who think Paul actually wrote 1st Timothy. There are some who mark significant resemblances between the theology and vocabulary of 2nd Timothy with those of Ignatius.
Ignatius is believed to have died sometime between 98 an 108 CE. He would probably be familiar with the gospel of John. But if he is the author if 2nd Timothy 3:16, then the "all scripture" he was referring to would have been the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, in the Greek Septuagint version (which was not a single volume). This is also what Paul referred to as the things that were written "aforetime" in Romans 15:4. The verse from Romans could just as accurately be translated " "And whatever was pre-written was written for us to learn from, that we through patience and comfort of that which was written might have hope."
It is extremely doubtful that ANYBODY writing that early in the Church thought of their writings on a par with the Tanakh, including Paul himself. There are places where Paul says he is writing something the Lord wants him to write, but I can't think of any place off the top of my head where he says we should regard everything he writes as from God, just because he, Paul, is writing it.
We make a very big mistake today when we think that the Bible is God's primary way of communicating with people. When we do that, we think God's primary way of communicating with us is through a medium that can readily be used by con men like Wierwille to take us captive and make merchandise of us.
But during the time before the books of the New Testament were written, when the Church was growing and becoming established, THERE WAS NO WAY FOR GOD TO COMMUNICATE WITH THIS CHRISTIAN OR THAT CHRISTIAN THROUGH WRITTEN WORDS. God's primary way of communicating with people was through the Lord Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit!
And that is STILL the primary way God does it. The Bible is a SECONDARY means of communication, and the intent of the New Testament is to put some controls on people who are not using Holy Spirit responsibly.
Do I think the Bible is God-breathed? Yes I do, but not in the same sense as the fundamentalist/evangelicals. I think the "Scripture" is a set of writings peculiarly adapted for the Lord Jesus Christ to teach people by means of the Holy Spirit. That does not require plenary verbal inspiration, it does not require inerrancy. The Bible does not dissolve into a tissue of lies because of a single error or contradiction. Paul himself tells us to beware of people like Wierwille, and to avoid them by all means.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Okay, I better see what you intended to communicate.
But what appears to elevate "scripture" to a higher level of gravitas than a mere "letter" that was sent to them is its inclusion of those that are unlearned (unlearned about what, exactly, if it's not the Torah, or other spiritually inspired writings?), wrestling them unto their own destruction. What wrangling with other "writings" carries with it such devastating consequences if not understood?
That's your choice, of course, but it plainly involves accepting the premise that said consensus is more authoritative that the actual words of the writer himself.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
double post... sorry
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Has how God communicates with people changed from any time in the past?
How many camps do you suppose this might be split into?
Appears there may be a number of ways to thread the needle, but what might you choose as the best or "correct" answer?
If it's thought to contain errors, there would seem to be some inherent difficulty with any of the first four.
(Which begs the question, is any one way thought to be better or more reliable than any other way?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
There's a number of books of the bible that are pseudonymous, there's many reasons, among them the style of writing differing from I Peter, the date it was written etc that lead most scholars to conclude that II Peter was not written by the Apostle Peter. Tacking the name of a famous person onto an epistle was pretty commonplace.
Sincerely
Peter the Apostle
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Considering how many people at the time pretended to be apostles when they were not, I think taking their word for it would be exceedingly problematic. Someone pretending to be Peter wrote a gospel, after all. It's so absurd that no one takes it seriously. But if I were to take the wroter's word for it, I would have to assume it was written by Peter because he said so.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
maybe we coulda found a place for 'em in the way tree...
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Sure, lot's of reasons to see it (which was canonized) as having errors, and maybe only one to think of it (meaning the original, of course) as inerrant. It's accepting a premise, no matter how it's viewed.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.