Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jim Mitchell · 10-31-2001, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Since nobody has a copy of the original manuscripts:

1. How do you know the contents of the originals?

2. How do you know which parts of the current versions are authentic, and which were modified?

Allow me to quote from Van Til�s An Introduction to Systematic Theology (p.153) as he addresses an important aspect of the first issue:

Quote:

It should be noted in this connection that what Scripture teaches about inspiration, in the nature of the case, applies to the autographa only. This at once brings up an exceedingly important practical problem. The autographa have been lost. The most that textual criticism has done is to approach the accuracy of the autographa. So then the question that is asked is whether it is of any practical significance to insist that the autographa were absolutely inspired. Is it not true that for all practical purposes we have to do without them? Is it not therefore just as well not to speak about the autographa, and only to say that the Bible is generally trustworthy? It is thus that many well-meaning orthodox men speak today.

We should distinguish carefully at this point. We may perhaps illustrate the difference between a doctrine of scriptural inspiration that holds to this notion of general trustworthiness and the doctrine of Scripture which holds to the infallible inspiration of the autographa, though it recognizes the fact that the autographa are not in our possession, by thinking of a river that sometimes overflows its banks. Suppose that we are seeking to cross such a river while the flood has gone so high as to cover the bridge. As far as the surface appearance is concerned, we cannot see whether there is a bridge. We have to drive in the water while we are driving on the bridge. Yet, if there were no bridge, we should certainly not be able to cross that river. We can drive with comparative ease in water that is only a few inches deep as long as we have a solid bottom under the water. What the idea of general trustworthiness without infallible inspiration does in effect is to say that it really makes no difference whether there is a solid bottom under us, inasmuch as we have to drive through water in any case. But we have seen that man needs absolutely authoritative interpretation. Hence, if the autographa were not infallibly inspired, it would mean that at some point human interpretation would stand above divine interpretation. It would mean that man were, after all, not certain that the facts and the interpretations given to the facts in Scripture are true.

As I have attempted to convey in this thread, the doctrine of inspiration is dependent upon God�s revelation in history and creation as well as and Scripture. He is in control of the preservation of Scriptures and the meaning of the words in the original langauges, His Holy Spirit wrote the Scriptures through men and their human personalities and is accordingly in control of right interpretation of Scriptures by modern men today, and so forth. To understand one doctrine you must understand the others; this is what Reformed theologians like Van Til mean by viewing Christian theism "as a unit" if we are to properly understand its parts. The whole system reasons with ultimate reference to the Triune God, who is revealed in all of creation and in His Word. The doctrines of Christianity are thus interdependent. We can only know the contents of Scriptures are true if we understand that the inspiration in the original autograpa has not been possibly lost due to the dealings of men. Preservation of the Word is rather the product of God�s providence; because He is in control, men have not and will not be able to destroy His Word. Certainly modern translations are imperfect even if extremely good due to sin; but the Scriptures themselves are nevertheless infallible. When we have understood them incorrectly, for whatever reason, that is a product of our own fallen nature � for the Holy Spirit cannot lead us astray. According the measure of grace given to us, we can, by His power, interpret the Word of God aright.

Jim Mitchell

Grand Nubian · 10-31-2001, 07:09 PM

THe problem with jason is this:
He knows he cannot use anything outside of the bible to prove the bible inerrant.
So if he ever journey outside of the bible he knows WE will kick his ass.

In order for context to be given to the bible you have to consider what?
The practices of the society in which the bible was authored.
Thus proving that man had influence on the authorship of the bible and every translation.

He will never satisfiy this context defense because it rests outside of the bible in the society of men.

Since god never wrote any of the translations EVER, the context exscape will always be there, as long as he stays INSIDE the bible. When he ventures outside of the bible into the world of man looking for context...what happens? Right, he gets he tail stomped on because he'd be admitting that society influence the authorship of the bible.

You ask "why doens't he understand my posts"? Because he is brainswashed.

Kosh · 10-31-2001, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim Mitchell:
<STRONG>Jim quotes from some book </STRONG>

Typical apologetic hogwash using an
innapropriate analogy. Or as Oolon would
say:

"Utter Cobbler"

Now address issue #2. How do you know the
bridge is even wide enough for your car?
You have no idea what it looked like before
the flood....

Lohan · 10-31-2001, 07:57 PM

Jim:

I notice many (if not all) of your posts are laden with phrases like "God, who has created everything" and "The Holy Spirit who reveals himself in all men" and things like that. Do you really have to put this in every post? I think we get your message, misguided as it is.

Van Til, Van Til. More apologetic crap. "You talk much, but say nothing."

Grand Nubian · 10-31-2001, 09:05 PM

THat's called the hidden assertion technique.

I have never read any other of his posts. I can garuntee that he makes essay like posts with so many assertions that it's not worth your time to respond to all of them. Later he can alwasy resort to the asserton that you never refuted.

Hidden assertions are used by opponents that understand their based position cannot be support on it's own merit.

Muad'Dib · 10-31-2001, 09:40 PM

Jim,

I am trying to interpret and extrapolate from your post; please correct me if I have not done so adequately.

The original texts of the Bible in the original language are authoritative.
Although God is in charge of the preservation of scripture, no two manuscripts of the Old or New Testaments agree with each other;
But this is okay because the Holy Spirit guides our interpretation today so that any errors are corrected in the right interpretations (whichever those happen to be).

If I have not misrepresented you, I would then ask: how do you determine which interpretation is the right one? I think you would say that the Holy Spirit inspires it, but given that many people who come up with contradictory interpretations claim HS inspiration, how do you know which one is actually the Holy Spirit's?

[ October 31, 2001: Message edited by: Muad'Dib ]

Echo · 10-31-2001, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by svensky:
[I am really sick of getting insulted while trying to have a conversation. Particulary as everybody seems to think this is fine.

I don't think it is fine. That is why I haven't done it. Grand Nubian's insults are getting on my nerves as much they are yours.

Quote:

As for the comment about the BOM and the Koran, the quick composition doesn't disqualify them from internal consistency. The fatc that they are internally inconsistent, and the fact that they claim to have been handed down directly from and angel, or translated from huge golden tablets, and then we find inconsistency in them is what disqualifies them.

You and I would agree they are inconsistent. Mormons and Muslims would *not* agree they are inconsistent (not the fundamentalists, at least. I'm sure there are some more liberal members of each group who are not inerrantists). In fact, many Muslim apologetics websites make a big issue about the fact that the Qur'an has NO errors or inconsistencies or contradictions. If we happen to find one, it is because we are not interpreting it correctly. Mormon apologetics websites print long lists of "alleged" errors and inconsistencies in the BOM, along with the "correct" interpretation needed to iron out the problem. Essentially they use the exact same arguments to support the divine inspiration of their own books.

Quote:

As for biblical atrocities, do some research, understand the culture, dont just look at something, and claim atrocity becasue you dont like it.

This gets into the issue of situational ethics, which is a whole other topic. It would be fun to discuss, but probably deserves a thread of its own.

Quote:

the ancients knew the world was round. you can figure it out easily enough from looking at the horizon. A round earth was common knowledge.

I'm not so sure it was common knowledge. I'm no expert on history but it is my understanding that maps and drawings from the ANE indicate that a flat earth cosmogeny was not an uncommon view. That doesn't mean the authors of the bible thought the earth was flat. I don't think the bible really says much either way on this particular issue, so I'm not going to dwell on it.

Quote:

As for the bible teaching a flat earth, you cant cite poetry as proof that it does. As i said before, if i say "its raining cats and dogs" it does not mean felines and canines are falling from the sky.

Point taken, and I agree. Some parts of the bible seem obviously poetic or metaphorical, such as the lines about the "foundation" of the earth and so forth. Be forewarned though, sometimes this argument comes back to bite people in the backside. Jews, for example, accuse Christians of taking "obviously poetic" passages in the bible and interpreting them as messianic prophecies when they are not meant to be interpreted as such.

Quote:

As for needing to explain away all errors therefore this conversation is a moot point. Not so, I am interested in searching, I think it could just as easily be leveled that when looking for errors, with a need to find them to prove the bible errorneous, people find something that look like an error, and then accuse christians of trying to explain the error, when some of the explanations are quite legitimate.

Yes, sometimes the explanations are quite legitimate. On the other hand, I've also seen inerrantists come up with some pretty absurd and far-fetched explanations for some contradictions.

Quote:

This does seem to be just going in circles though so maybe i will just give up. I have some data to work with, which is what i was looking for.

Thank you to those who have been courteous and provided some converstion.

Unless you are too busy to participte, why not just stick around? Ignore the people who are rude to you and talk to the rest of us.

-DM- · 11-01-2001, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by svensky:
I am asking this question, becasue [sic] so often i'm told here is a contradiction, problem etc in the Bible, only to check and discover that the person who made the statement has taken a verse out of the context in which is was written and made an absolute claim about somthing [sic] that is obviously figartive [sic].

Keep in mind that whole sermons are often built on a verse or two taken out of context. Keep in mind, too, that the "out of context" claim is a standard fall-back position of die-hard Bible-believers; that claim can be made when anything less than the whole Bible is quoted. The fact is, however, that it is exactly when a verse is compared to other verses addressing the same topic, in other words, when the Bible as a whole is taken in context, that the inconsistencies become noticeable.

Quote:

I also ask this question becasue [sic] either the persons involved are deliberatly [sic] taking a verse out of context to make a point that isn't there, and therefore being deliberatly [sic] deceptive, or they have the reading comprehension and attention span of a hyperactive 10 year old.

I find that sort of thing more true of biblical apologists than I do of biblical critics.

--Don--

[ November 01, 2001: Message edited by: Donald Morgan ]

-DM- · 11-01-2001, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by svensky:
By way of example. Are Christians supposed to Judge. Go and read Matthew 7:1. Now actaully [sic] read the whole of Matthew 7. Yet still I see in several lists of contradictions, and am told, that christians are not to judge people, and this verse cited as evidence. But just reading around the verse what is meant is obvious. So ... what conclusion is to be drawn from this ?

Taken in context with other verses on the subject of the judging others, these verses quite often form the basis of Sunday school classes and Bible studies which teach specifically that Christians should not judge others. I think that you probably know that and I therefore wonder why it is that you try so hard to convince others that such is not the case and/or that your interpretation is better than those with whom you disagree.

Quote:

The same applies to references to psalms. It is quite obviously a collection of songs. In fact the top of each psalm says as much. Is it fair to interpert [sic] songs as accurate reflections of reality ?

Considering that the biblical authors were allegedly inspired by "God" and considering that this "God" is allegedly perfect and omnipotent, it is reasonable to assume that "He" could have, should have, and would have done a better job of eliminating apparent absurdities and inconsistencies, as well as making it more obvious what is and is not to be taken literally, had "He" anything to do with the inspiration of a book. Were the Bible really inspired by such a "God," "He" would have no need for people like you (whom "He" cannot seem even to inspire to spell correctly) to explain his alleged inspiration.

--Don--

-DM- · 11-01-2001, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by svensky:
I am really sick of getting insulted while trying to have a conversation. Particulary [sic] as everybody seems to think this is fine.

It seems to be OK for you to insult by talking about someone (presumably me) intending to deceive or having the intellect of a ten year-old, yet you chastise others for being insulting. Interesting. "Judge not lest ye be judged."

Quote:

As for biblical atrocities, do some research, understand the culture, dont [sic] just look at something, and claim atrocity becasue [sic] you dont [sic] like it.

I did exactly that. By the alleged standards of the very "God" which allegedly inspired the Bible, the Bible relates a number of atrocities.

Quote:

the ancients knew the world was round.

Really. Then it is strange that the Church maintained for so many years that it was flat.

Quote:

you can figure it out easily enough from looking at the horizon. A round earth was common knowledge.

"The Church says that the earth is flat, but I know that it is
round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more
faith in a shadow than in the Church."
- Ferdinand Magellan (1480-1521)
Portuguese & Spanish explorer

--Don--

10-31-2001, 09:40 PM	#26
Muad'Dib Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 845	Jim, I am trying to interpret and extrapolate from your post; please correct me if I have not done so adequately. The original texts of the Bible in the original language are authoritative. Although God is in charge of the preservation of scripture, no two manuscripts of the Old or New Testaments agree with each other; But this is okay because the Holy Spirit guides our interpretation today so that any errors are corrected in the right interpretations (whichever those happen to be). If I have not misrepresented you, I would then ask: how do you determine which interpretation is the right one? I think you would say that the Holy Spirit inspires it, but given that many people who come up with contradictory interpretations claim HS inspiration, how do you know which one is actually the Holy Spirit's? [ October 31, 2001: Message edited by: Muad'Dib ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-31-2001, 07:09 PM	#22
Grand Nubian Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: mich Posts: 33	THe problem with jason is this: He knows he cannot use anything outside of the bible to prove the bible inerrant. So if he ever journey outside of the bible he knows WE will kick his ass. In order for context to be given to the bible you have to consider what? The practices of the society in which the bible was authored. Thus proving that man had influence on the authorship of the bible and every translation. He will never satisfiy this context defense because it rests outside of the bible in the society of men. Since god never wrote any of the translations EVER, the context exscape will always be there, as long as he stays INSIDE the bible. When he ventures outside of the bible into the world of man looking for context...what happens? Right, he gets he tail stomped on because he'd be admitting that society influence the authorship of the bible. You ask "why doens't he understand my posts"? Because he is brainswashed.

10-31-2001, 07:57 PM	#24
Lohan Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Somewhere far beyond Posts: 57	Jim: I notice many (if not all) of your posts are laden with phrases like "God, who has created everything" and "The Holy Spirit who reveals himself in all men" and things like that. Do you really have to put this in every post? I think we get your message, misguided as it is. Van Til, Van Til. More apologetic crap. "You talk much, but say nothing."

10-31-2001, 09:05 PM	#25
Grand Nubian Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: mich Posts: 33	THat's called the hidden assertion technique. I have never read any other of his posts. I can garuntee that he makes essay like posts with so many assertions that it's not worth your time to respond to all of them. Later he can alwasy resort to the asserton that you never refuted. Hidden assertions are used by opponents that understand their based position cannot be support on it's own merit.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.