Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 02-13-2004, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
The Chicago statement on inerrancy says that the Bible has to be interpreted in terms of the social conditions in which it was written.

Thanks for the link but I don't see how this changes anything because it doesn't really address the question of why an omniscience Entity would filter an allegedly inerrant message through the social conditions of the time. That seems to clearly introduce a very real possibility that the message would be incomprehensible or at least confusing to future generations in radically different social conditions.

Is it really too much to expect an omniscient Entity to produce a genuinely inerrant text that would appear inerrant regardless of the social conditions of the reader?

GakuseiDon · 02-13-2004, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh
Since the social conditions in which the Bible existed are supposed to have been determined by the Bible, isn't this circular reasoning?:boohoo:

Um, how can the social conditions in the Bible be determined by the Bible? It means that the Bible would have to have existed before it existed...

GakuseiDon · 02-13-2004, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ebonmuse
In that case what I'd like to know is, if Jesus really had meant in the one verse from Mark that divorce and remarriage were never permissible, how he could have worded it so that Holding and other modern-day apologists would have recognized that as his intent. I mean, if Jesus had said, "Don't divorce and then remarry. Ever. I mean it," would Holding and his ilk still have blithely read in that exception based on the fact it was supposedly implicit in the social context of the times? It seems to me that this position on inerrancy would actually make Jesus literally incapable of taking any moral stance that differed from the norms of NT times.

That's a good point. I think you are right, and it opens a can of worms regarding other such statements in the Bible. But then, this isn't restricted to the Bible, but to any literature. If you read Homer's Troy, wouldn't we try to understand the actions of the characters in the context of our knowledge of the social conditions of the day? Was divorce automatically granted in cases of adultery so much assumed in Jesus's day, that any debate on whether divorce could be granted for other reasons wouldn't need to mention adultery? How do we determine this?

GakuseiDon · 02-13-2004, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by UV2003
"be interpreted in terms of the social conditions in which it was written."

Hmm, what exactly can that mean for people today?

It makes the Bible's message on some topics less relevent for people today, that's for sure. Thankfully!

GakuseiDon · 02-13-2004, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaleq13
Thanks for the link but I don't see how this changes anything because it doesn't really address the question of why an omniscience Entity would filter an allegedly inerrant message through the social conditions of the time. That seems to clearly introduce a very real possibility that the message would be incomprehensible or at least confusing to future generations in radically different social conditions.

Is it really too much to expect an omniscient Entity to produce a genuinely inerrant text that would appear inerrant regardless of the social conditions of the reader?

Amaleq, your question is good, and would make an interesting theological discussion, but it is irrelevent towards Holding and Krueger's debate. For whatever reasons, inerrantists DO take the social conditions into account. Holding has supplied references that support his side. Krueger only supplies his opinions. It doesn't make Holding right, but it puts him ahead in the debate (IMO).

Amaleq13 · 02-13-2004, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
For whatever reasons, inerrantists DO take the social conditions into account.

I think the reason is obvious: they have to make this concession in order to preserve their beliefs. Unfortunately, the concession only appears to shift the doubts about inerrancy from the text to the concession.

Holding/Turkel wants to have his cake and eat it too. I don't consider that a legitimate debate tactic at all.

Ebonmuse · 02-13-2004, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
If you read Homer's Troy, wouldn't we try to understand the actions of the characters in the context of our knowledge of the social conditions of the day?

Yes, of course. But the difference is that no one (at least to my knowledge) is claiming that we should determine a morality for today based on the actions and beliefs of the characters in the Iliad or the Odyssey. I agree with Amaleq13 here: saying that the Bible has to be interpreted in the social context of its day, and also saying that it contains universal moral lessons applicable to all people everywhere at all times, is trying to have one's cake and eat it too. To maintain both these propositions simultaneously is essentially to assert that human morality for all time should be determined by the social norms of first-century Judaea.

Quote:

Was divorce automatically granted in cases of adultery so much assumed in Jesus's day, that any debate on whether divorce could be granted for other reasons wouldn't need to mention adultery? How do we determine this?

Well, I would certainly agree that we could determine what was assumed in Jesus' day by referring to contemporary texts. The problem for those who would maintain inerrant belief in the Bible - and this I don't claim to have a solution to - is how to tell whether Jesus meant the same thing as the people of the time would have assumed he meant. If one believes that his moral advice was meant to be universal, it's not unlikely that he didn't.

GakuseiDon · 02-13-2004, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaleq13
I think the reason is obvious: they have to make this concession in order to preserve their beliefs. Unfortunately, the concession only appears to shift the doubts about inerrancy from the text to the concession.

Holding/Turkel wants to have his cake and eat it too. I don't consider that a legitimate debate tactic at all.

Fair enough. So, you are saying that inerrantists shouldn't look at the social conditions of the day when examining the Bible?

GakuseiDon · 02-14-2004, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ebonmuse
Yes, of course. But the difference is that no one (at least to my knowledge) is claiming that we should determine a morality for today based on the actions and beliefs of the characters in the Iliad or the Odyssey.

So, because the Bible is used to determine a morality for today, we shouldn't look at the social conditions that the Bible was written in when reading it?

Quote:

I agree with Amaleq13 here: saying that the Bible has to be interpreted in the social context of its day, and also saying that it contains universal moral lessons applicable to all people everywhere at all times, is trying to have one's cake and eat it too. To maintain both these propositions simultaneously is essentially to assert that human morality for all time should be determined by the social norms of first-century Judaea.

Ebon, that sounds like a strawman. I don't think inerrantists believe that "everything in the Bible is applicable to all people everywhere at all times". Holding addresses this here: http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_JER722.html

Quote:

There are certain "timeless truths" in the text that are intended for all mankind, but it would hardly be possible to express the application of those timeless truths in a way that is understandable to all persons, at all times, in all ways. To use one of our favorite examples, if the Bible teaches the timeless truth that one should love one's neighbor, then one of course one aspect of that is that one loves a neighbor by looking out for their well-being. The Bible has a rule in the OT about building rims around the edge of your roof. Why? Skeptics more uneducated than Skeptic X and Ebon, like Skeptic X's good friend Dennis McKinsey, say this is a stupid rule and ask why we don't do it today; the answer is that in the time of the Bible (and in many cultures still today) people used the roof as we use a front porch, and having guards up was a way of showing love for your neighbor (and family) by being sure he would be safe and not fall from your roof. In America we almost never use our roof this way; but we live out the principle with other safety measures, like railings on balconies. So then, Skeptic X (and now Ebon), why can't we say that by pointing out this cultural variance, we are "reducing the biblical text to a communication that was intended only for the people of a particular period of time" or culture, that is, people who used their roof as we use a front porch? Despite the difference in scale, the principle is exactly the same. Skeptic X and Ebon are blaming the text for their own ignorance and laziness.

Quote:

Well, I would certainly agree that we could determine what was assumed in Jesus' day by referring to contemporary texts. The problem for those who would maintain inerrant belief in the Bible - and this I don't claim to have a solution to - is how to tell whether Jesus meant the same thing as the people of the time would have assumed he meant. If one believes that his moral advice was meant to be universal, it's not unlikely that he didn't.

And the only way to determine this is by looking at the social conditions in which the Bible was written. To quote Holding again, from the same article:

Quote:

Ebon then asks, "� why isn't Mr. Holding demanding that all those uneducated lay believers who are getting the Bible all wrong stop believing in it until they've been trained to know what it really means?" Read more of my site, Ebon - that is exactly what I am doing, and you haven't seen it yet because you haven't looked far enough and don't have a broader view of what's out there.

judge · 02-14-2004, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaleq13

Is it really too much to expect an omniscient Entity to produce a genuinely inerrant text that would appear inerrant regardless of the social conditions of the reader?

It would seem that God had no interest in doing this.
Personally I think the quest for this is a function of the protestant churches breaking away from Rome.
It is/was necessary to assert one has an inerrant authority if one is/was to reject Romes authority in favour of "sola sciptura".

Another thought with the way we humans are would it even be possible to produce anything that was regared universally as inerrant?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.