Clouseau

It's not an opinion, it's logical argument.

More than slightly, one hopes.

Gundulf

I'm not sure why you are thinking that, except for scribal and copyist errors, the copies of the Bible that we have today would not faithfully represent the originals? Or the copies we have of the writings of any ancient documents for that matter?

I'd mentioned before that it seems a common enough theme that God simply isn't obliged to provide the gospel message to everyone - Jesus saying that he preaches in parables specifically so that only some would 'get it', for instance.

If God's hands were tied, and he were limited by 'geography', you may have a point - but God kind of did decide exactly where and when every person would live, no? It isn't as though God really wanted to gospel to get to someone he really wanted to see receive it, and is pulling his hair out because it isn't getting there in time. It is ultimately God, not geography, that determines who gets to hear the truth, granted geography being a tool/method he well might have used as part of that plan.

Johnny Skeptic

Actually, I'm not sure why you are thinking that, except for scribal and copyist errors, the copies of the Bible that we have today faithfully represent the originals? The Bible makes many claims that are questionable, such as the issues of the global flood, a talking donkey, Jonah and the great fish, the Ten Plagues, and the Exodus. It seems to me that all of the claims in the Bible that have to do with supernatural events are questionable and non-verifiable by any credible means. Even if Jesus rose from the dead, what does that prove other than that someone had the power to raise him from the dead? Power alone is certainly not a good reason to worship anyone.

Maybe we could make better progress if you would start a new thread at the General Religious Discussions Forum and stated what evidence convinced you to become a Christian.

But no one has claimed that all ancient texts are inerrant, or should be presumed to be inerrant.

If a doctor discovered a cure for a disease, should he feel obliged to provide it to everyone who has the disease if he is able to? Do you consider the availability of Gospel message to be more important than the availability of a cure for a disease?

But it is quite odd that God saw to it that in the first century, not one single person who lived far away from Palestine heard the Gospel message, at least as far as we know, and that God would go out of his way to make it appear to millions of people that the Gospel message has been spread entirely by secular means.

At any rate, written records are a very poor and inefficient way for a loving, moral God to convince people to believe that he exists, and to tell people how he wants them to live their lives. Written records present many problems, not the least of which are conflicting interpretations, questions about eyewitnesses, questions about authorship, questions about sources, and whether authors spoke for God or for themselves. Logically, there is no substitute for a tangible God who is frequently available to everyone in every generation. God's perennial tangible absence has not served to benefit him or anyone else, except possibly for the Devil.

James Brown

And it appears we are back to Calvinism--"if God didn't decide ahead of time to put your name on his list, you're damned. If you don't like this, get over it."

Mike PSS

One thing that struck me with all the replies is the intertwining of the NT and OT when the mention of innerency comes up.

I'm seperating these two works as distinct books, and only looking at only the OT in the discussion of innerency.

Now, it was mentioned that Jesus and others referenced the OT numerous times which is documented in the NT. Putting on my scientist/theologin hat I would think that there exists some accounting of these references to OT chapter/verse and that the context of these references from Jesus or the apostles would indicate the weight that they considered these verses.

In other words, a section of the OT mentioned in passing during some allegorical speech would not hold much weight, purely a common reference to reinforce the present point the person was making.

However, an OT verse that was directly quoted and mentioned as a basis of another point would hold a lot of weight for innerency because of the context of the speech.

Did Jesus or the apostles preach the "Genesis" gospel? Or did they just preach that God created the world and the story in Genesis was good enough. Even these apostles could have had their education blinded by their society so even they didn't realize the existence of the Epic of Gilgamesh or the stories of Homer. All they might have known was the books of the OT at the time. Which would mean that this book was heavily referenced because it was the only one around anyway. What choice existed?

Cege

The book of Luke gives a genealogy of Jesus that goes back to "the son of Adam, the son of God." (Luke 3:38) No metaphor, just a list of names of 'actual' people. That seems to be a literal interpretation given to the book/story of Genesis.

Romans 5 tells readers that Adam was the first human man, who lived in "the time of Adam". No metaphor implied.

1 Corinthians 15 explains that Adam was the first man. No metaphor indicated.

1 Tim 2 explains that Adam was created first, then Eve. Again, no metaphor indicated.

It appears to me that the NT writers accepted the OT stories as literal and not as metaphorical.

And on through today, Christianity teaches that both the OT and the NT are the inspired and literal truth of God. Converts believe that to be true because that's what they are told to be true, and to question otherwise is a matter of heresy...not that most converts are inclined to educate themselves to be able to question otherwise, anyway.

Mike PSS

Literal, but with a disclaimer. From Here.
WOW!!! An unbroken male lineage from Jesus back through to Adam. Very impressive. Except for that bolded bit that kind of puts a full disclaimer on the whole thing.
I would disagree with your stance. The context is ambiguous.
Seems the "Romans 5" author used past reference to Adam and Moses as place holders in a story, not actual referential people. There is a mention of the "original sin" with Adam but again this is purely a reference to a past story. I would give a medium weight to this reference, although that is just me.


And the actual quotes from the bible are....
Again, not too much specific reference into the OT. Just passing mention that Adam exists. Not much weight to this reference.

So we have a reinforced Adam/Eve story from 1Tim2. But this is just parotting the story. And verse 15 seems not to add to the story but to clarify that the NT position (in Jesus's time) is different than the implied OT position of the Adam/Eve story.

I see SOME literal association, but more of the referential type of writing that seems to accept the established story as written. This really isn't a vote of innerrency as I read it.

The mention of a phrase in the OT is not the same as the mention of the innerency of the OT. Acceptance of the OT as an established story of the past seems the norm from the examples given.

So where does the innerrent writing come into play?
The examples show clearly that the authors of the NT referenced the OT but didn't always agree with either the direct or implied definitions of the OT. (The use of "But..." and "as was thought..." as a preface to the points presented).

This just reinforces my points that the NT authors, although using the OT as reference, would change or modify the OT to suit their needs at the time. Otherwise why use the modifiers indicated above?

Cege

Mike PSS, the disclaimer regarding Jesus' actual father doesn't make the intention for the lineage given for Joseph to be any less literal. The writer obviously believed that the list was of actual men back to Adam.

Boldening more of the actual quote from Romans, 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, we see that the author obviously believed that an actual Adam made an actual transgression that resulted in the 'reign of death' from Adam to Moses.

As far as I'm aware, the only claim for actual existence of Adam at the time 1 Cor was written was contained in OT books. "The first man Adam became a living being" indicates that the author belived there was an actual "first man" Adam as described in Genesis.

13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.
15 But she will be saved through motherhood, provided women persevere in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

The verses above from 1 Tim again refer to an actual 'Adam & Eve' creation as per Genesis. The author indicates his belief that the creation story given in the OT is literal. The qualifier "but" refers not to whether Adam & Eve were literal persons but to the means of salvation the writer applied to Eve alone, that being "motherhood".

The NT authors gave no explanation for their belief that the OT stories were true and literal other than that if was "scripture", and therefore they believed it was true. I think that indicates that they believed what they'd been told by others who already believed (because they'd been told by others who already believed, etc) without need of actual evidence. No more or less than contemporary times when people are inclined to "I believe it and that settles it".

I don't disagree, though, that NT writers sought out OT stories and verses to reinforce their already established belief. I just don't see that the qualifiers you refer to in the scriptures you list have anything to do with it.

Mike PSS

Point taken. But why the disclaimer in the first place then? If I had the facts then I would publish them as such.

O.K. The author is summarizing the fall/curse thing into a single statement. I can see that.

I would disagree with your take on this. The author is summarizing the tale but inserting his own result in line 15. The OT reference doesn't contain the information in line 15, this is the message that the author wishes to convey on his own. Therefore the transgression of Eve is NOT used as a literal story line otherwise the author would have continued with the story summary about the specific punishment of Eve by God in the Garden of Eden.

It's this type of OT reference in the NT that gets me thinking along this innerrance line. You could almost think of this reference as a quote-mine because the author is trying to insert his own conclusion (line 15) into a past situation whose conclusion is already written (Eve's punishment by God).

And our above simple exercise shows that the NT authors treat different OT stories in different ways.

Which is why I brought up the question in the first place.

Gundulf

I think you're mixing some issues here - regardless of whether these things actually happened - the talking donkey, Jonah, the flood, the plagues, etc. - this is a different question than that the copies of extant documents of Scripture today accurately reflect the original.

Whether or not they reflect what actually happened is different. I, personally, have no bias against the possibility of the supernatural, so I don't automatically rule things out like talking donkeys, Jonah, and the like.


Well, of course I do - and why many Christian missionaries sacrifice so much, including their lives at times, in sharing it. But this doesn't translate necessarily into the idea that God himself is obliged to give it to everyone. He has a plan for using the missionaries, etc., to get it out to those he has so planned.



Not quite sure what you mean by 'secular means' here - you mean by people? If that's your definition of 'secular', then I'd have to agree - he uses 'secular' means.


Again, true only if "cognitive assent" were the goal. I'll agree that this is part of it. But hell, God could make his face shine in the coulds once every 10 seconds. How exactly would this help people repent? How would this help people love him. There are plenty of people on this page that have pointed out to me repeatedly that, even if the God of the Bible were to prove his existence to them, they would absolutely not worship Him.