Carrie

These questions are only for Christians who DO NOT believe the Bible is inerrant (free of error). I just want to know how you would answer for your God and his Bible.

I AM NOT GOING TO POST OR DEFEND MY POINT OF VIEW, but others are certainly welcome to do so. I may ask further questions.

QUESTIONS: If the Bible is NOT inerrant, then how do you know which parts to believe? Which parts did your God protect, and which parts did he not? Which things did he mean for the writers to say, and which parts did he not intend them to say? Which words are from God, and which words are not from God?
How can you know if you are supposed to obey everything Paul said? How can you know if Paul was speaking the very words of God?

Thanks for your input.

Vinnie

I addressed this in my article. My hemeneutical framework prioritizes the Cross. I look at everything through that lense. Mix in the Holy Spirit, reason, the pattern set by Jesus, common sense, prayer, humility and you have a good starting ground. Others would add in the words of Jesus in so far as they can be reconstructed. I accept this to a degree but I do not believe Jesus was omniscient ( I accept a kenotic view). He very well could have made mistakes--not to mention the obvious pitfalls of applying the words of a man who lived 2,000 years in a very different culture and place to our own. We don't have the same worldview, we probably don't look at spiritual realities the same etc.

To quote Raymond Brown: "As Raymond Brown noted (idid): "No matter how earnestly modern Christians may affirm that they hold nothing except what is found in scripture, they are so far from the worldview of the OT and NT authors they cannot look at spiritual realities the way those authors did . . . . “The NT books were written some 1,900 years ago in Greek. From the viewpoint of language, even the most competent English translation cannot render all the nuances of the original Greek. From the viewpoint of culture and context, the authors and their audiences had a worldview very different from of ours: different backgrounds, different knowledge, different suppositions about reality. We cannot hope to open an NT book and read it responsibly with the same ease as we read a book written in our own culture and worldview."



I also answered this question in my paper on qualitative inspiration:

Start with this heading and go down:
"What Did God want put in there?"

http://www.acfaith.com/qualitative.html

Vinnie

Mageth

...reason, ..., common sense...

Funny, I used those two and came to the conclusion that the whole darned thing ain't to be believed.

(sorry, couldn't resist)

Old Man

Interesting and valid question.

The Jews broke down the bible into three parts. The prophets, the law, and the rest (i.e. the "writings"). The prophets and the law were always the most highly regarded books. The writings were always a bit nebulous as to which books they contained and which they did not. The canon of Sirach (circa 200BC) identies the law books and the prophets as the same as we have today (apart from Daniel which is a later addition to the modern "prophets" - but was originally assigned to the "writings" by the Jews). Nearly all the books in the ancient Sirach canon are referenced in the NT, which lends credence to their validity.

The best way of establishing internal validity is through seeking internal cross references. There are various sorts:

- Literal: what parts of the OT did Jesus & the apostles specifically mention?
- Theological: What books "fit" together theologically?
- Historical: Which books can be verified from external sources?
- Prophetic: What prophecies in the OT were fulfilled in the NT?

There is a huge amount of theological and prophetical internal harmony between the OT and the NT, which cannot really be impressed upon anyone apart from personal study of the bible

Apart from Daniel and Esther which are both historically dubious, and hardly alluded to at all in the NT, there really isn't much that is controvertible historically or archaeologically, though certain anti-Jewish & pro-palestinian archaeologists have of late been trying to cast aspersions on various parts of the OT from the archaeological perspective (but then that has been a regular sport with sceptics for 150 years and more - but the controverters usually end up with egg on their face as more data becomes available).

The gospels recount pretty much the same facts, or in some case unique facts, about Christ. Apart from John, most items are contained in more than one gospel, though with slight variations of rendition, which actually lends credence to the truth of Christ, because it shows that several independent hands all had similar tales to tell about Christ, which negates any suggestion of conspiracy - which is what you get in Islam, where all Korans originate from a single "edited" source, produced and complied sometime after Mahomet's death.

The epistles and Revelation are probably the most "inerrant" parts of the bible. Apart from 2 Peter and Jude, which may be 2nd century merely from the fact that they do not appear in early canons (though not by any means certain), the epistles are not seriously controverted by anyone. The historicity of the apostles are in turn vouched for by numerous references in other non-biblical writings, from the latter half of the 1st & 2nd centuries.

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Old Man
Interesting and valid question.

There is a huge amount of theological and prophetical internal harmony between the OT and the NT, which cannot really be impressed upon anyone apart from personal study of the bible

No kidding, since the NT writers copied the OT, and the various NT stories are built up out of OT models.

Apart from Daniel and Esther which are both historically dubious, and hardly alluded to at all in the NT, there really isn't much that is controvertible historically or archaeologically, though certain anti-Jewish & pro-palestinian archaeologists have of late been trying to cast aspersions on various parts of the OT from the archaeological perspective (but then that has been a regular sport with sceptics for 150 years and more - but the controverters usually end up with egg on their face as more data becomes available).

This kind of smear is disgusting. None of the minimalists is anti-semitic. You should be ashamed of adopting such silly tactics. And none have wound up with egg on their faces.

because it shows that several independent hands all had similar tales to tell about Christ, which negates any suggestion of conspiracy

None of the Gospels are independent of each other. Did you somehow miss the last 150 years of serious scholarship?

canons (though not by any means certain), the epistles are not seriously controverted by anyone. The historicity of the apostles are in turn vouched for by numerous references in other non-biblical writings, from the latter half of the 1st & 2nd centuries.

ROFTL. Old Man, you need to check out some real scholarship. Like, you know that several letters in the canon attributed to Paul are later forgeries, right? That's basic scholarly knowledge.

Vorkosigan

Kosh

Vork has already addressed most of the blatantly ignorant statements you made, so I will just highlight this one.

I presume here that you are talking about Israel Finkelstein, author of "The Bible Unearthed". Would you care to substantiate, with evidence, the smear you just made on him, and show us how pro-palestenian and anti-Jewish Israel Finkelstein is?

I will take silence on your part to be an admission that you cannot.

Butters

Let me get this straight. To detirmine what in the bible is true, you look for passages that "prioritizes" the cross. Where did you get your knowledge of the cross, from the Bible, but you don't know what is true in the Bible, so how can you know that anything to do with the croos is true?

Old Man

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vorkosigan
[B]Yeah! I've checked out a lot of crap from atheists and quite frankly most of it isn't worth reading. When you produce some evidence, then it may be worth responding.

I read that book "The Unauthorized Version" by Robin Lane Fox. I never read such a load of biased baloney in my life. If that is typical of atheist scholarship, then I must assume most atheist critques of the bible remain in the kindgarten class of scholarship.

Vinnie

Apparently you've misssed something. I was answering the first question UNDER THE ASSUMPTION that the Bible is still God's word with errors.That is the framework I addressed the question from. I was not seeking to defend the Bible as God's words, just explaining how to use it as such. Please, go and read the initial post of this thread again.

Vinnie

Mageth

I read that book "The Unauthorized Version" by Robin Lane Fox. I never read such a load of biased baloney in my life. If that is typical of atheist scholarship, then I must assume most atheist critques of the bible remain in the kindgarten class of scholarship.


An interesting view. Haven't read the book, but I think I'll pick it up. BTW, here's another view of Lane Fox's book (from the New York Review of Books) that appears to significantly contradict your view: