CJD

Apikorus, regarding your last question: No, I do not read the language right-off the page, as it were, and certainly not in its modern form. I rely heavily on scholars and lexicons.

Regarding other "holy" books, it is just a matter of probability. I am no archaeologist, but, for example, it seems at first glance that much of the history of the Scriptures has been substantiated in ways that the other books have not been. When it comes to the ancients and their epics, they seem to fall under the weight of this burden even more so. In other words, it seems extremely plausible that the Scriptures are historically accurate--especially when compared to other ancient literary works. There are a few interesting tidbits in this regard in the following discussion (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=51374) , if you can get around the basic junk, and catch the very important point that ancient texts are not to be rigorously subjected to modern methods of historical research (since none of them were written to withstand such query), since at the outset they presuppose a naturalistic worldview.

The distinctions between "inerrant" an "infallible" are very important to this thread (as well as many others). I apologize in advance for the length:

In its best sense that is in line with Christian tradition, "inerrancy"means that the Scriptures are always right (do not err) in fulfilling their purpose: revealing God, God's vision, God's purposes, and God's good news to us (note that these are theological in nature). In other words, the teachings of Scripture are not to be disregarded or tossed away as if they were a mistake. They must be dealt with straightforwardly, in a way that affects Xians and how they act.

Some Christians (i.e., fundamentalists) teach that the Scripture is without error in every way on all sorts of matters: chronology, history, biology, sociology, psychology, physics, math, art, and so on. As I mentioned previously, in this view, theology and science are seen to be in harmony, as opposed to complimentary. It seems that even the authors could not have held erroneous scientific views in this scheme.

Because of this misunderstanding of the bible in modern days, many Xians rightly choose to reject the term "inerrancy." The point in doing this is to emphasize the notion that the bible was not written to be the kind of an authority in those matters that traditionally fundamentalists desire it to be. Its purpose is not this; rather, it was written by divinely-inspired human beings for the good of other human beings. The inerrant Spirit works through errant people (after all, there are no other kinds of people). This allows the Preacher, for example, to think that the earth is flat while not undermining the message of the Word.

In sum, the Scriptures are "without error in all that it affirms" (The Lausanne Covenant, Sect. 2, The Authority And Power Of the Bible). But again, since "inerrancy" has been hijacked by fundamentalists, it seems best to leave it out for a time.

"Infallibility" simply means that when the Scripture is speaking the Good News of Christ and describing the character, vision and purpose of God, through the Holy Spirit's work, it transcends the spiritual flaws of its writers, of the media of communication (declaring, writing, etc.), as well as those of the readers/hearers.

The bible's Gospel message of God's love and forgiveness is not 'fallen' or corrupted by sin. The Bible becomes the way we find out that the 'fallen' human race is being restored and made worthwhile again through Christ. This is not, I must emphasize, a fuzzy-headed liberalism that is willing to give up this most important message. "Open-mindedness" with regard to the gospel-message, in the end, counts for nothing. Why would I bother with the bible if I had such a low view of it? I have already chosen to start my inquiry by allowing the possibility of such a thing, and I see no shame in that. We all start somewhere, etc.

As for Bede's observation, it is important for one main reason, even though it does not pertain to you, or any other atheist who takes the time to really dig into biblical criticism:

* It is true. History shows at least this much. Internet pablum like the Skeptics Annotated Bible abound. Then, those who read the bible from their armchair presume to fault Xianity based on their own ignorance. That's infuriating, especially when one has put the time in to studying these things. The same, of course, goes for those fundamentalists who treat the bible the same way. They should often just keep their mouths shut, instead of fanning the flames of forums like this. If I am dealing with the likes of some of the posters in this thread, for example, I will endeavor to show them that they are reading with their eyes closed, and they have no right whatsoever to fault faith based on their ignorance. This is not subjectivism, this is pure, old-fashioned respect: keeping your mouth shut when you don't know what it is you speak of. It's relevant because so many aspiring atheists allow it to justify or warrant their disbelief. If I can undermine that, well, then, I think I have accomplished a little something for the day.

Regards,

CJD

Hawkingfan

But I strongly disagree that the bible is "infallible", even in regards to theology. Even though the bible does not say in any of its scriptures contained within of what its exact "purpose" is, I find many theological inconsistencies regarding revealing God (his character), God's vision, God's purposes, and God's good news to us. Because of those theological inconsistencies, the bible would therefore NOT transcend the spiritual flaws of its writers. Apparently I am not the only one who cannot find this "infallible" explanation of the bible's own "purpose" as there are no two denominations who agree 100% on Christian theology that the bible supposedly explains. I think that is why there are so many different church denominations. The bible is very unclear on even the most important matters of Christianity, which is why those divisions have occurred (and even though each denomination may claim it has dealt with such-and-such a matter "straightforwardly").

Please consider the following theological inconsistencies (paraphrased and compiled by Donald Morgan at the Secular Web Modern Library):

REVEALING GOD (HIS CHARACTER, ETC.):

What qualities does the Spirit of God have?
GE 4:15, DT 32:4, IS 34:8 God is a vengeful god.
EX 15:3, IS 42:13, HE 12:29 God is a warrior. God is a consuming fire.
EX 20:5, 34:14, DT 4:24, 5:9, 6:15, 29:20, 32:21 God is a jealous god.
LE 26:7-8, NU 31:17-18, DT 20:16-17, JS 10:40, JG 14:19, EZ 9:5-7 The Spirit of God is (sometimes) murder and killing.
NU 25:3-4, DT 6:15, 9:7-8, 29:20, 32:21, PS 7:11, 78:49, JE 4:8, 17:4, 32:30-31, ZP 2:2 God is angry. His anger is sometimes fierce.
2SA 22:7-8 (KJV) "I called to the Lord; ... he heard my voice; ... The earth trembled and quaked, ... because he was angry. Smoke came from his nostrils. Consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it."
EZ 6:12, NA 1:2, 6 God is jealous and furious. He reserves wrath for, and takes revenge on, his enemies. "... who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? His fury is poured out like fire, and rocks are thrown down by him."
Those descriptions contradict the following:
2CO 13:11, 14, 1JN 4:8, 16 God is love.
GA 5:22-23 The fruit of the Spirit of God is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
--Didn't Paul forget to mention some?

Does god lie?
EX 34:6, DT 7:9-10, TS 1:2 God is faithful and truthful. He does not lie.
NU 14:30 God breaks his promise.
2TH 2:11-12 God deludes people, making them believe what is false, so as to be able to condemn them.
1KI 22:23, 2CH 18:22, 2TH 2:11 God himself causes a lying spirit.
PR 12:22 God abhors lying lips and delights in honesty.
MT 11:25, MK 4:11-12 Jesus thanks God for hiding some things from the wise while revealing them to "babes." He says that he uses parables so that the meaning of some of his teachings will remain hidden to at least some persons, and specifically so that they will not turn and be forgiven.
MK 4:22 Jesus says that all things should be made known.

PR 30:5 Every word of God proves true.
JE 8:8 The scribes falsify the word of God.
JE 20:7, EZ 14:9, 2TH 2:11-12 God himself deceives people.

Does god confuse people or not?
GE 11:9 At Babel, the Lord confused the language of the whole world.
1CO 14:33 Paul says that God is not the author of confusion.

Does god test/tempt, or does he not?
GE 22:1-12, DT 8:2 God tempts (tests) Abraham and Moses.
JG 2:22 God himself says that he does test (tempt).
1CO 10:13 Paul says that God controls the extent of our temptations.
JA 1:13 God tests (tempts) no one.
JA 1:2-3 Temptation is joy.
MT 6:13 Jesus' prayer implies that God might lead us into temptation.

Is god just?
2CH 19:7, AC 10:34, RO 2:11 There is no injustice or partiality with the Lord.
RO 9:15-18 God has mercy on (and hardens the hearts of) whom he pleases.
AC 10:34, RO 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike.
RO 9:11-13 God hated Esau and loved Jacob even before their birth.

Does God judge or not? Does Jesus judge or not?
JN 3:17, 8:15, 12:47 Jesus does not judge.
JN 5:22, 5:27-30, 9:39, AC 10:42, 2CO 5:10 Jesus does judge.
JN 5:22 God does not judge.
RO 2:2-5, 3:19, 2TH 1:5, 1PE 1:17 God does judge.

Is god omnipotent or not?
GE 17:1, 35:11, 1CH 29:11-12, LK 1:37 God is omnipotent. Nothing is impossible with (or for) God.
JG 1:19 Although God was with Judah, together they could not defeat the plainsmen because the latter had iron chariots.

Is God omniscient, omnipresent?
GE 4:16 Cain went away (or out) from the presence of the Lord.
JE 23:23-24 A man cannot hide from God. God fills heaven and earth.
GE 18:20-21 God decides to "go down" to see what is going on.
PR 15:3, JE 16:17, 23:24-25, HE 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from his view.
EX 12:13 The Israelites have to mark their houses with blood in order for God to see which houses they occupy and "pass over" them.
PR 15:3, JE 16:17, 23:24-25, HE 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from God.

Can god be physically seen or not?
GE 12:7, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 32:30, EX 3:16, 6:2-3, 24:9-11, 33:11, NU 12:7-8, 14:14, JB 42:5, AM 7:7-8, 9:1 God is seen.
EX 33:20, JN 1:18, 1JN 4:12 God is not seen. No one can see God's face and live. No one has ever seen him.

Does god change his mind or doesn't he?
GE 6:6. EX 32:14, NU 14:20, 1SA 15:35, 2SA 24:16 God does change his mind.
NU 23:19-20, IS 15:29, JA 1:17 God does not change his mind.

Where does god dwell?
1KI 8:12, 2CH 6:1, PS 18:11 God dwells in thick darkness.
1TI 6:16 God dwells in unapproachable light.

Can someone have the holy spirit, or not?
LK 1:15 John the Baptist had the Holy Spirit from before his birth or the birth of Jesus.
LK 1:41 Elizabeth had it long before Jesus went away.
LK 1:67 So did Zechariah.
LK 2:25 So did Simeon.
LK 11:13 It is obtained by prayer (presumably at any time).
JN 7:39, JN 16:7, AC 1:3-5 The Holy Spirit cannot come into the world until after Jesus has departed.

PS 10:1 God cannot be found in time of need. He is "far off."
PS 145:18 God is near to all who call upon him in truth.

PS 30:5, JE 3:12, MI 7:18 God's anger does not last forever.
JE 17:4, MT 25:46 It does last forever.

GOD'S VISION, GOD'S PURPOSE

How does one become saved?
MT 10:22, 24:13, MK 13:13 He that endures to the end will be saved.
MK 16:16 He that believes and is baptized will be saved.
JN 3:5 Only he that is born of water and Spirit will be saved.
AC 16:31 He that believes on the Lord Jesus will be saved.
AC 2:21 He that calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.
RO 10:9 He who confesses with his mouth "Jesus is Lord" and believes in his heart that God raised him from the dead will be saved.
1JN 4:7 He who loves is born of God (and presumably will be saved.)
MT 7:21 Not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
RO 10:13 Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
AC 2:39 Those God calls to himself will be saved.

Are we justified by faith or works?
MT 7:21, LK 10:36-37, RO 2:6, 13, JA 2:24 We are justified by works, not by faith.
JN 3:16, RO 3:20-26, EP 2:8-9, GA 2:16 We are justified by faith, not by works.

Are we to answer a fool, or not answer a fool?
PR 26:4 Do not answer a fool. To do so makes you foolish too.
PR 26:5 Answer a fool. If you don't, he will think himself wise.

Theologically, this does not make sense:
MT 12:30 Jesus says that those who are not with him are against him.
MK 9:40 Jesus says that those who are not against him are for him.
(Note: This puts those who are indifferent or undecided in the "for him" category in the first instance and in the "against him" category in the second instance.)

Do we reap what we sow?
JE 12:13 Some sow wheat but reap thorns.
MI 6:15 Some sow but won't reap anything.
MT 25:26, LK 19:22 Some reap without sowing.
2CO 9:6, GA 6:7 A man reaps what he sows.

Is the law good or not?
EZ 20:25-26 The law was not good. The sacrifice of children was for the purpose of horrifying the people so that they would know that God is Lord.
RO 7:12, 1TI 1:8 The law is good.

I find this theologically questionable:
EX 4:11 God decides who will be dumb, deaf, blind, etc.
2CO 13:11, 14, 1JN 4:8, 16 God is a god of love.

Should children be punished for the sins of their parents or not?
EX 20:5, 34:7, NU 14:18, DT 5:9, IS 14:21-22 Children are to suffer for their parent's sins.
DT 24:16, EZ 18:19-20 Children are not to suffer for their parent's sins.

Are we to love our neighbors AS ourselves, or AHEAD of ourselves?
LE 19:18, MT 22:39 Love your neighbor [as much as] yourself.
1CO 10:24 Put your neighbor ahead of yourself.

Are we to rejoice when we have vengeance over our enemies or not?
PS 58:10-11 The righteous shall rejoice when he sees vengeance.
PR 24:16-18 Do not rejoice when your enemy falls or stumbles.

Are the lives of the wicked cut short, or do they grow old?
JB 2:3-6, 21:7-13, 2TI 3:12 The godly are persecuted and chastised but the wicked grow old, wealthy, and powerful, unchastised by God.
PS 55:23, 92:12-14, PR 10:2-3, 27-31, 12:2, 21 The lives of the wicked are cut short. The righteous flourish and obtain favor from the Lord.

Are we to argue with unbelievers or not?
TI 6:20, 2TI 2:14-16, 3:1-7 Do not argue with an unbeliever.
2JN 1:10-11 Anyone who even greets an unbeliever shares his wicked work.
1PE 3:15 Always be ready to answer any man concerning your faith.

Are we to boast and be proud, or not?
LK 18:9-14 Do not boast of your virtue.
RO 11:20, 1PE 5:5 Do not be proud.
RO 15:17, 2CO 1:12, HE 3:6, 2CO 2:14, 5:12, 11:17 Paul boasts of his faith and says that one should be proud of it.

Is wisdom good or bad?
PR 3:13, 4:7, 19:8, JA 1:5 Happy is the man who finds wisdom. Get wisdom.
LK 2:40, 52 Jesus was filled with wisdom and found favor with God.
1CO 1:19-25, 3:18-20 Wisdom is foolishness.

RO 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything that might cause your brother to stumble or be offended.
CN 2:16 Let no one pass judgement on you in matters of food and drink.

GA 6:2 Bear one another's burdens.
GA 6:5 Bear your own burden.

Are we to judge?
MT 7:1-2 Do not judge.
MT 7:15-20 Instructions for judging a false prophet.

MT 7:7-8, LK 11:9-10 Ask and it will be given. Seek and you will find.
LK 13:24 Many will try to enter the Kingdom but will be unable.

MT 10:28, LK 12:4 Jesus says not to fear men. (Fear God only.)
MT 12:15-16, JN 7:1-10, 8:59, 10:39, 11:53-54 Jesus hid, escaped, went secretly, etc.

MT 5:16 Good works should be seen.
MT 6:1-4 They should be kept secret.

MT 5:22 Anyone who calls another a fool is liable to Hell.
MT 7:26 Jesus says that anyone who hears his words and does not do them is a fool. (Note: The translation now prevalent, "like a foolish man," in MT 7:26 is a dishonest attempt to alleviate the obvious inconsistency here in that the oldest Greek manuscripts use the same Greek word translated "fool" in MT 5:22 and "like a foolish man" in MT 7:26.)
MT 23:17-19 Jesus twice calls the Pharisees blind fools.
MT 25:2, 3, 8 Jesus likens the maidens who took no oil to fools. (Note: Again, this is the same Greek word translated "fool" in MT 5:22 and MT 23:17-19.)
1CO 1:23, 3:18, 4:10 Paul uses fool with regard to Christians becoming fools for Christ. (Note: Again, this is the same Greek word translated "fool" in MT 5:22 and MT 23:17-19.)

MISC.

Who was the first or who was the only one to ascend to heaven?
2KI 2:11 Elijah went up to heaven.
JN 3:13 Only the Son of Man (Jesus) has ever ascended to heaven.

Who was the first to be raised from the dead?
2KI 4:32-37 A dead child is raised (well before the time of Jesus).
MT 9:18-25, JN 11:38-44 Two dead persons are raised (by Jesus himself).
AC 26:23 Jesus was the first to rise from the dead.

RO 2:13 Doers of the law will be justified.
RO 3:20, GA 3:11 They will not be justified.

JN 5:31 Jesus says that if he bears witness to himself, his testimony is not true.
JN 8:14 Jesus says that even if he bears witness to himself, his testimony is true.

MK 3:29 Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin.
AC 13:39, CN 2:13, 1JN 1:9 All sins are forgivable.

PS 78:69, EC 1:4, 3:14 The earth was established forever.
PS 102:25-26, MT 24:35, MK 13:31, LK 21:33, HE 1:10-11, 2PE 3:10 The earth will someday perish.

PR 14:15-18 The simple believe everything and acquire folly; the prudent look where they are going and are crowned with knowledge.
MT 18:3, LK 18:17 You must believe as little children do.
1CO 1:20, 27 God has made the wisdom of the world foolish so as to shame the wise.
PR 16:4 God made the wicked for the "day of evil."
MT 11:25, MK 4:11-12 God and Jesus hide some things from some people.
JN 6:65 No one can come to Jesus unless it is granted by God.
RO 8:28-30 Some are predestined to be called to God, believe in Jesus, and be justified.
RO 9:15-18 God has mercy on, and hardens the hearts of, whom he pleases.
2TH 2:11-12 God deceives the wicked so as to be able to condemn them.
1TI 2:3-4, 2PE 3:9 [Yet] God wants all to be saved.

MT 11:7-15, 17:12-13 Jesus says that John the Baptist was a prophet, and more.
JN 1:21 John himself says that he is not a prophet, nor is he Elijah.

JN 5:24 Believers do not come into judgement.
MT 12:36, 2CO 5:10, HE 9:27, 1PE 1:17, JU 1:14-15, RE 20:12-13 All persons (including believers) come into judgement.

GE 7:1 Noah was righteous.
JB 1:1,8, JB 2:3 Job was righteous.
LK 1:6 Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous.
JA 5:16 Some men are righteous, (which makes their prayers effective).
1JN 3:6-9 Christians become righteous (or else they are not really Christians).
RO 3:10, 3:23, 1JN 1:8-10 No one was or is righteous.

Apikorus

CJD, I find your posts increasingly curious. As an avid reader of ancient near east history and the Hebrew Bible, I am puzzled by your statement that "much of the history of the Scriptures has been substantiated in ways that the other books have not been." Indeed, most ANE archaeologists, egyptologists, and bible scholars would seriously question the historicity of much biblical material. The patriarchal tales, which 50 years ago were generally viewed within a second millennium BCE context (Ephraim Speiser's Anchor Bible Commentary to Genesis, now quite dated, is emblematic of this viewpoint) have since the work of Thompson and van Seters been reassessed and deemed to be of dubious historicity. The exodus narrative suffers from a conspicuous lack in archaeological confirmation, e.g. Qadesh Barnea is a blank in the Late Bronze age. The conquest model presented in Joshua, itself incompatible with that in Judges 1, is also irreconcilable with the material record from Jericho and Ai, as studies by Kenyon and Callaway and others have concluded. Etc.

A particularly devastating assessment by a leading archaeologist is found in the book by Finkelstein and Silberman, The Bible Unearthed. Personally, I find the analyses by William Dever in What did the Biblical Writers Know and When did They Know it? to be more compelling. While Dever chides Finkelstein and skewers minimalists like Davies and Lemche, he is equally dismissive of the maximalists - see his earlier volume, Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research.

At any rate, there are of course numerous problems with history as presented in the Hebrew Bible. (The New Testament is another cup of tea, of course. I'm much less interested in the NT for various reasons. Suffice it to say that I hold for an historical Jesus whose deeds and words are so severely refracted in the gospel hagiographies that we can say little about him with any confidence.) I do assiduously affirm that much of the Deuteronomistic History, particularly the books of Kings, contains a firm historical core. Indeed, extrabiblical sources e.g. from Assyria generally corroborate the biblical account of several battles, and on the names of at least a dozen kings of Israel and Judah. I accept, as does Finkelstein, that there was an historical King David - I have no problems accepting the Tel Dan stele as authentic - although certainly his image has been magnified by the biblical authors. (A particularly sensitive and compelling analysis may be found in the recent book by Baruch Halpern, David's Secret Demons.) There's also a good deal of historical material in what we Jews call the nevi'im acharonim, i.e. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the 12 minor prophets.

This historical thread which runs through many of the books of the Hebrew Bible is remarkable, but hardly astounding. It is remarkable in the sense that the Deuteronomistic Historian and his sources may well be "the first historians" in some sense (see the book of the same title by Halpern). But know well that even in cases where the biblical account overlaps with those from other sources that the details almost invariably differ. Compare e.g. the accounts of the siege of Jerusalem in 2 Kings 19 and in the Sennacherib prism inscription. A sensitive historian, assessing these overlapping but often conflicting sources, can sensibly reconstruct historical events, but only by discounting some obvious polemic in both these sources.

Incidentally, you do agree that the Bible contains scribal errors, right? I won't bother to cite any here, but there are hundreds of examples.

Thank you for your clarification of "infallibility" and "inerrancy", although I must say that I think your explanation raises more questions than it answers. For starters, it seems that one could make a similar claim of infallibility on behalf of any text (e.g. the Qur'an), and assert that it contains a perfect message, imperfectly delivered, but that its essential truths transcend the flaws of its author(s) and readers. Why should I suspect this is true of the Bible and not of the Qur'an or the Mahabharata?

CJD

Apikorus, you are being far too kind, as the reason my posts are "increasingly curious" is most likely because the direction of this thread is taking me beyond my realm of knowledge. I, unlike yourself, am not as avid in my reading of ANE history. My main concern is understanding the text's own perspective on historical matters. In the literary world, this is called "new criticism" (why the "new" I do not know). Strictly speaking, though, I do explore ANE history when the two intersect, but comparing certain events to, for example, the Sennacherib prism inscription, is currently beyond my realm of expertise. I must point out, however, that if I remain true to my previously stated methodology, then even historical narratives are primarily theological-historical narratives. This obviously does not excuse the text from erroneous descriptions of events, but it does help us keep an eye on the main point of the text, which is not detailed history but "YHWH, he is Lord, YHWH, he is Lord." If accounts are invariably different in ancient texts, no matter, for I am looking for sociological perspectives, intentions, etc., not pedantic precision.

Thanks for the reference materials, I will look into them eagerly (especially Dever). I do, along with you, affirm the basic reliability of the Deuteronomic history, after all, that is when I think the Tanak was largely edited into its current form. Note that such editors, I believe, fall under my earlier description of "divinely-inspired" in the sense that they were kept from theological errors. Scribal errors, of course, abound. But it's not good preaching material, because the scribal errors do not undermine the basic message (exile-repentance-restoration), which is, of course, "preachable."

As far as the supremacy of the Scriptures is concerned, I can only reiterate Calvin: " . . . this power which is peculiar to Scripture is clear from the fact that of human writings, however artfully polished, there is none capable of affecting us at all comparably. Read Demosthenes or Cicero; read Plato, Aristotle and others of that tribe. They will, I admit, allure you, delight you, move you, enrapture you in wonderful measure. But betake yourself from them to this sacred reading. Then, in spite of yourself, so deeply will it affect you, so penetrate your heart, so fix itself in your very marrow, that, compared with its deep impression, such vigor as the orators and philosophers have will nearly vanish." Note that Calvin's first published work was a commentary on Seneca.

The other "holy" books problem is real, for sure. I will not dismiss it casually. But I do think it is a simple epistemological issue: the Scripture's credibility will not be established until we are persuaded beyond doubt that YHWH is its author. Now, I think its basic reliability can be easily shown; but that its author is divine? How can two individuals who disagree on such a foundational epistemological issue as this discuss such things as biblical infallibility? Do not get me wrong, I think we can, but it would require give-and-take as far as our presuppositions are concerned.

Let me put another way. It's an issue of ultimate authority. And everyone looks to something in this regard. As such, everyone is guilty of the very same circularity alluded to in the other "holy" books problem you mentioned. At the very least, the skeptic has to admit that he or she must be skeptical of his or her own skepticism, which at least opens the door to the plausibility that the bible is inspired in a way the others are not. At the risk of oversimplification, if asked "why should I suspect this is true of the Bible and not of the Qur'an or the Mahabharata?", I would respond 1) it is basically reliable 2) it posits its origin is divine (so we are forced to engage this claim) 3) its beauty clearly supercedes others (this latter point may be too subjective, I admit); but it all hinges on my presupposition that 4) it has been divinely inspired by YHWH himself. I fear that no matter what we say to the contrary, we reason with each other according to the truth as we perceive it. It is inescapable.

Jayhawker Soule

Would you clarify what is meant by "basic reliability"? What, for example, is the basic reliability of the Creation account, the global Flood, and the Patriarch narratives? Also, as pesach comes to a close, what is the basic reliability of the Moses/Exodus/Conquest legend?

Apikorus

CJD, Calvin's words are powerful but in the end they merely represent his personal opinion. (Calvin also died in 1564, the year Shakespeare was born. I wonder what Calvin would have made of King Lear?) As you may know, Muslims are given to making similarly glorious assessments of the Qur'an. Many devout Muslims insist that the Qur'an is perfect in every way, that noone has remotely equalled its beautiful poetry, that even its flowing Arabic script renders it aesthetically superior to any book written before or since, etc. And it goes without saying that they view the Qur'an as of divine origin - it was communicated from Allah to Mohammed, similar to the Jewish tradition of YHWH dictating the Torah to Moses. I imagine you could find some Hindus with similar feelings toward the Mahabharata.

You stated that the Bible arrogates its own divine authorship. Could you show me where, e.g. the Book of Ezra makes this claim? Why is Ezra in the Bible but Enoch is not? Why is 2 Peter part of the New Testament but the Gospel of Thomas is not?

Finally, I don't think it is even sensible to assert that the Bible is "basically reliable". As CA asks, what does that mean, anyway?

lpetrich

As to the Koran, one of its suras (chapters) contains this challenge:

And if you are in doubt
as to which We have revealed to Our servant,
then produce a sura like it,
and call on your helper, besides Allah,
if you are truthful.
(2:23)

from the "Sura Like It" site.

CJD

Thanks, Ipetrich, for that citation. It helps to see another "holy" book's perspective of itself.

Basically, what I meant by "basic reliability" was not different than what was already described by Apikorus: "I do assiduously affirm that much of the Deuteronomistic History, particularly the books of Kings, contains a firm historical core. Indeed, extrabiblical sources e.g. from Assyria generally corroborate the biblical account of several battles, and on the names of at least a dozen kings of Israel and Judah. I accept, as does Finkelstein, that there was an historical King David - I have no problems accepting the Tel Dan stele as authentic - although certainly his image has been magnified by the biblical authors. . . . There's also a good deal of historical material in what we Jews call the nevi'im acharonim . . . .

This historical thread which runs through many of the books of the Hebrew Bible is remarkable, but hardly astounding. It is remarkable in the sense that the Deuteronomistic Historian and his sources may well be "the first historians" in some sense . . . ."

I believe NT history (what little there is) should also be included in term "basic reliability." Those events that are not provable either way must, by their very nature, be left out of this discussion. And the Exodus, well, if I come to the conclusion one day that it was only a literary device to promulgate restoration typology, I think my faith will survive.

As to the Tanak's self-attestation of divine inspiration, every time the words, "Thus sayeth the Lord," are uttered, a claim is made. The list of citations regarding the Divine voice, the Word of God, etc., in the Tanak is exhaustive.

The NT writers' view of the Tanak is most succintly described in Saint Paul's letter to Timothy: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:14–17). The "sacred writings" Saint Paul refers to here are undoubtedly none other than the Torah, Neveim, and Kituvim. There are also numerous sayings of Jesus regarding the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as many other NT passages that bolster this claim (cf. Matt. 5:17–19; Jn. 5:45, 10:33–36; Rom. 15:4; 2 Pet. 1:21; Jas. 4:5, 11). Much ink has been spilled over this already.

In the end, in order to undermine the veracity of the Scriptures, one must understand the claim the Scriptures are making, and then test that claim against the evidence. For example, imprecision is not univocal with error. I can round-up the pages of book when asked how many pages there are in a particular book. Would you respond, "Liar. You have lied to me."? If the claim is being made that the figure must be exact, well, then, we have grounds to accuse such-and-such of error. If there is no claim to absolute precision, move on. An "error" arises when one fails to make good on one's claim, whether implicit or explicit. In science, the claims are severe (exact)—down to the decimal point. In ordinary, everyday language, however, the claims are far less demanding. People do not expect pedantic precision when speaking to their neighbor. Indeed, there are times when such precision can hinder clarity. When I say that the Scriptures are infallible, I am in essence, saying that the Scriptures make good on every single one of its claims. And it hardly ever claims absolute precision. In fact, much phenomena in its stories would not even be compatible with such a claim (e.g., totally inconsistent with modern historiographical conventions; pre-scientific phenomenalistic descriptions; and the list goes on.). Now, do such imprecise writings refute the notion that the Scriptures are reliable. If, and only if, the Scriptures claim to avoid such practices, while failing to make good on that claim. But as I contend, it does not make that claim. It follows the perfectly normal methods of its own day. I can go on with this for a while, but you see where I am going.

Finally, the rational-empircal answer to the question why some books made it into the canon and others did not is twofold: 1) Tradition 2) theological consistency. The deductive answer is simply that the Holy Spirit superintended the compilation.

Regards,

Jayhawker Soule

If by "Scripture" you really meant "Deuteronomistic History", and by "basic reliability" you really meant "firm historical core", I would tend to agree with you, but I doubt that either of us gains much by such an agreement. This simply claims that the Bible contains traces of the real world, an underwhelming assertion equally true of the Wizard of Oz.

CJD

Good, now explain how we have come to such radically different conclusions (avoiding ad hominem, of course).