Vinnie

Fifteen Key Methodological Principles for Successful Exegesis

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/harmonize.html

Vinnie

Infiel

Excellent work Vinnie! One of my favourite yet.

Baidarka

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Vinnie

I personally like number 7 the best:

[7] Take into account ancient written conventions. If it was the norm then to make things up and lie in written works, false statements in the Bible are not really errors since this literary practice was the norm at the time.

I pat myself on that back for that one :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Amaleq13

Careful or you'll find yourself cited as a source in the next Turkel a.k.a. Holding essay.

Vinnie

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Sven

:notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:

Some points sounded familar (in particular No. 8) ... I wonder where did I see them before...

GakuseiDon

Well, let's have a look at this critically, to break up this love feast! I'm a liberal Christian, and no inerrantist, but probably know enough on the inerrantist position to comment. I know it was just a satire, but there needs to be a grain of truth in satire to be effective:

[1] Assume the Biblical Works are not Like other similar Ancient Works Which All contain Errors (e.g. Josephus). Also assume your Holy Book is true while other holy books are false and apply different standards to each.

Disagree. Inerrantists don't apply their standards to other holy books, AFAIK. They generally have no interest in doing so.

[2] Assume the verity of the Bible and Assume it is a Valid Practice to Interpret Scripture in Light of Other Scripture as if it was all Consistent.

Agree. There are two different ideas here, but both accurate though.

[3] When Moral Atrocities come up (10th plague, God murdering children and so on) tell the skeptic that he is in no position to judge God. Then require that the skeptic supply you with a Proven Objective Moral Standard.

Agree. True enough.

[4] To defend inerrancy, all you need to do is come up with a logically possible solution. It doesn't matter how improbable it may be. If it can be harmonized in any way imaginable, it is not a demonstrable error. Be creative as we are dealing with a "high context" society.

Agree. Yes, this is true as well.

[5] Assume the Bible is all one work and not rather a collection of individual books. Canonization has been proven and can be ignored in ALL discussions on the Bible.

Disagree. I don't think inerrantists quite believe this. A part of the position is that the individual authors' personalities were not impeded in their writings.

[6] God wrote the Bible and God can't make mistakes. So even if two passages look like a plain example of an error, try real hard for Jesus to harmonize them.

Disagree. Inerrantists would say that there are no "plain examples of an error" in the first place! But there is nothing wrong with harmonising per se, even if it is for Jesus. The problem is when it is overdone.

[7] Take into account ancient written conventions. If it was the norm then to make things up and lie in written works, false statements in the Bible are not really errors since this literary practice was the norm at the time.

Disagree. I'm not quite sure what the problem with this is. The Bible can't report lies or errors?

[8] Skeptics have the burden of proof. No errors have been demonstrated in 2,000 years. The Bible shows its divine origins by 'mediating the sacred' effectively and it purports to be a work of nonfiction. It must be granted the benefit of the doubt until shown otherwise. It is innocent until proven guilty.

A few ideas there. But problem who claim there are errors DO have the burden of proof. The Bible IS innocent until proven guilty. Disagree.

[9] An incomplete report is not false. It doesn't matter how many details one author leaves out. Even if it is very unlikely that this author would have left all the details in question out, it is still technically not an error.

Disagree. I think an incomplete report is not false. I can't think of an example off hand from the Bible that covers this point.

[10] General statements do not necessarily mean universal principles. You are fee to pick and choose, at will, what you want to interpret as binding versus what has been "fulfilled by Christ". You are free to choose what you feel only applied to a certain culture and is simply no longer applicable. You need not supply a methodology for such a procedure.

Agree.

[11] Do not trust skeptic, Biblical Scholar or liberal Christian interpretations. Only a person of spirit can understand the word written by the Spirit. Fallen man cannot understand the word of God. Biblical Criticism is God-hating secular communism and nothing more. Liberal Christians are spiraling to this dark side.

Yes, I've seen this, though not common. I agree.

[12] Ignore worldview differences and that the Bible was written thousands of years ago by authors with many different beliefs and different sets of background knowledge. Read the Bible as if you would read a modern book written in our own era. God would have made sure it is adaptable and readable to all cultural situations.

Disagree. That is usually the contradictionist's position, not the inerrantists. Inerrantists generally stress that the Bible has to be read from the perspective of the culture that wrote it.

[13] When science errors are posed, point out evolution is just a theory. Say that half a wing is no good. Point out that dinosaur and human footprints have been found together and that a young earth has now been proven by scientists.

I agree. Not sure that this really applies to inerrancy, though.

[14] Ignore textual errors and the fact that God let his word be altered and corrupted through time. Despite not having any autographs or very early (50-100 years) copies of any of the works and no way of knowing what many passages originally looked like, point out that we have thousands of copies of later copies of the Bible.

Disagree. Textual errors aren't really relevent. Contradictionalists usually complain that God shouldn't allow His word to be corrupted.

[15] Ignore all relevant philological studies into the culture and language in question. Lacking formal expertise, simply use a lexicon casually to reinterpret anything that seems to create an incongruity in scripture. God will certainly guide you.

As in [12], inerrantists are more likely to invoke cultural aspects, though only to the degree to explain away the error, and not much further. So, neither agree nor disagree.

So, I think 7 out of 15 make good points. The others aren't really applicable to inerrantists, and two probably are more against a contradictionist position.

Sven

If you press the few inerrantists who have studied other books with questions about these works, it gets pretty clear that they use different standards.

Vinnie called this "surface anomalies" in his devate with RobertLW. It's perhaps a better phrase than "plain examples of an error", because I think you would find many inerrantists who would agree that there are "surface anomalies".

Wrong. See the peanut gallery to the debate and the debate itself for some good argument that the default position should be "errant" (i.e. guilty).

Only when they want to make specific points. For other points, they change their standard and read it as a modern book (for example Genesis ).

GakuseiDon

I see what you mean. Perhaps I've misunderstood Vinnie's point here. I think you are right - perhaps the default position for a book should be that it is "errant". However, this is not the case for specific problems.

I'm not sure what you mean. How do inerrantists read Genesis as a modern book? Do you mean literally rather than allegorically (i.e. length of days)?