The Fundamentals. Part 1: Inerrancy of the Bible.

[lucrezaborgia]

(11-05-2011 06:48 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  Yeah, I never said anything like that. You asked me to back up my claim and I did. What I'm claiming isn't really in dispute by those who understand textual criticism.

You backed up your claim with shoddy evidence that I could drive a Hummer through...

[Ricardo]

(11-05-2011 10:37 AM)pastors wife Wrote:  “Without the Bible, all I have is…”

There we go again. I’m not saying throw out the bible. All I’m saying don’t make claims about it that you cannot support, and which are peripheral to the good news of Jesus.

(11-05-2011 10:37 AM)pastors wife Wrote:  “I would a million times prefer to trust the Bible than church traditions,”

Me too.

But they are inseparable. There are five major canons. Each one revered by a separate Christian tradition. If one tradition claims inerrancy for their canon, then the canons from the other Christian traditions must have errors. Which bible is the one you are going to declare as inerrant? Based on what? (Other than your own church tradition?)

Of course we will use our imperfect bibles. Of course we will use our imperfect church traditions. It is thanks to that imperfect church tradition that we have the story of Jesus and the sinner woman, which was introduced several centuries AD into Luke in some manuscripts and then into John 8. Do we really want that story out of the bible simply because it is not in the oldest manuscripts? Not me. It is my favorite story! As long as we ‘fess up to the fact it is an addition.

Recently the experts finally bit the bullet, and decided to take out the ending of the Lord’s prayer which the Protestant bible had, but no other canon did. So how do we explain this? The bible we used to have was inerrant, but now that we have taken this phrase out, this new bible is the one that is inerrant. What is wrong with this picture? Wouldn’t it be better to just say that we have some books we believe were written by early believers, some of whom we believe knew the original apostles, that we continue researching and correcting it as the Lord guides us, and that even in this condition is used by God to guide us.

Do you or your husband ever share your testimony with someone else without mentioning the bible? Sometimes the situation calls for just a simple “This is what the Lord has done for me.” If God happens to act through you, and that person turns their life over to God, does it count? What is on your checklist for items they must have/believe before we consider them Christian? Are you going to make the five fundamentals your litmus test?

Let me clarify: I’m not saying don’t use the bible.

What I’m saying is be aware that we have a bible precisely because of that church tradition, imperfect as it is. Realize what you are saying: The church screwed up with this whole “Pope” thing, they screwed up with the overemphasis on liturgy, the holy water thing, incense, canonizing saints, but when it comes to selecting the books to be canonized then let’s declare that and only that as the one inerrant decision they made.

It is truly humbling to find out that all I can do is share my EXPERIENCE, my thoughts, what is in my heart and that GOD is the one that will stir the heart of the other person. (Not my great intellect and not an “inerrant” book.)

If the only reason you know “Jesus loves me” is because “the bible tells me so,” we are in deep trouble.

[Ricardo]

(11-05-2011 11:47 AM)Donb123 Wrote:  take up some NT Wright and put down Spong

the NT is the best documented piece of historical work that we have and is more reliable than any other book of antiquity.

so what again is your frame of reference for the Christian faith?

I love NT Wright! Spong is simply a loud mouth repeating the thoughts from real theologians. HOWEVER, Spong was the one who got me to open the bible again. (“Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism.”)

Yes, the NT is the best documented piece of historical work. What does that have to do with inerrancy?

I appeal to both bible and traditions but more important for me, I appeal to my own experience. I experience a love that surpasses all understanding. Can I explain it? No. Could it be drug-induced? Well I don’t think so. I have not tried Pastors Wife’s peyote, but close enough. I have also tried Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca and have visited just about any organization I have heard of that claims to have a direct line to God. NOTHING compares to the Christianity that encourages us to LET GO and LET GOD be the one to connect with us.

I keep joking about the Quaker meeting I used to visit with the sign “Want to listen to God? SHUT UP.” Sometimes I feel like saying: Want to learn about God? STOP READING. We have made finding THE words of God into quite an industry, when God is available simply for the asking.

There is a place for the Bible. There is a place for traditions also. But not to replace God.

[lucrezaborgia]

(11-05-2011 11:20 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  Your Hummer doesn't have an engine and has four flat tires.

That's pretty funny tho.. you not bothering to know the subject and I give you one snippet to establish what I was saying and now you're an expert. I'm just relying on the overwhelming evidence that's out there.

I never said I'm an expert. I do have way more knowledge of non-western literature than western, that is true. Yet everything you cited as proof of the NT being the world's most reliable and documented does not take into account non-western literature.

[boymom]

Technically, the Bible is non-Western literature.

[lucrezaborgia]

(11-06-2011 05:13 PM)boymom Wrote:  Technically, the Bible is non-Western literature.

NT is definitely western.

[Dude]

I always considered inerrancy to be linked to preservation. I mean, why would God give us a perfect book and then not keep it intact for future generations. Put another way, what kind of God gives His followers a flawless book that is the guide for their lives, then snatches the originals back (by letting them be destroyed), and tells everyone to just guess from that point on. I used this logic as a bulwark of my belief that the TR was the preserved word of God.

About a year ago, I began to understand how the TR was put together. One day, while driving, I had a dawning realization that preservation hadn't occurred. And then I came to the realization that inerrancy wasn't true either. The alternative was that God was mean and petty (in that if inerrancy was true and preservation wasn't, that was a truly mean thing to do to us).

I was a little lost after this, then began researching Anglicanism and found their doctrine on the Bible. "Divine Inspiration - Not Divine Dictation." It allows for the Bible to be inspired even if it wasn't preserved, because it was about the doctrines and underlying belief systems, not every last individual word. Literalism requires preservation for it to be a coherant doctrine. By dropping Biblical literalism, the Bible became a richer, more valuable book for me to commune with God through.

[Elijah Craig]

If you read The Fundamentals-- the book that gave birth to the phrase Fundamentalist-- you will see that the authors had no problem with lower text criticism. It was higher criticism they took issue with. "Inerrancy" doesn't mean what people think it means.

[Ricardo]

Mathis wrote: “God promises to preserve His word.”
Myotch wrote: “Magisterium does not mean "tradition", but rather the teaching authority of the Church.”
Donb123 Wrote: “And I believe that the Bible and Tradition both affirm that God uses means, two of these means would be the Bible and the Church. Apparently you believe in some gnostic/mystical version of enlightenment. Of course the obvious problem to the rest of us who remain orthodox is that we see where this self-authenticating version of religion has taken you.”
Elijah wrote: “'Inerrancy' doesn't mean what people think it means.”

@Mathis: Mormons use this to defend their books. So too the Jehovah’s Witnesses. We could also thank God for preserving the Gnostic Gospels, which "misguided church leaders" tried to burn off the face of the earth in the fourth and fifth centuries... If you look at the context of those verses, the New Testament is NEVER meant to be what God protects. In fact most likely these verses refer to the Torah.

@Myotech: Magisterium: Thanks. I agree. I stand corrected.

@Donb123: I agree with what you believe about the bible and tradition.

Gnosticism: Strictly speaking, the Gospel of John as well as Revelation ARE Gnostic literature.

I get very nervous when we try to box ourselves into neat enclaves of thought. I have a cousin who has been casting out demons out of individuals at a rate of forty or fifty per week, for the last thirty years. She has videotaped each one of her sessions. This does not fit into any of my nice little boxes, yet there it is. I have seen things that have no logical explanation. Rationalism and intellectualism have their limits. The God we worship is way beyond those limits.

If you ask ten people what Gnosticism or what Mysticism are, you are going to get more than twenty opinions. Even worse with “enlightenment.” (This little light of mine, I’m going to make it shine.)

I have perfectly rational explanations for some things within my religious experience. For other things I HAVE TO go outside of rationality. Call it what you want.

@Elijah: Inerrancy: Agreed, it does not mean what people think it means. HOWEVER, we come from IFB churches that over and over have been telling us that there are no historical errors, no scientific errors, no error whatsoever in this here book I hold in my hand.

[lucrezaborgia]

(11-07-2011 11:57 AM)Donb123 Wrote:  

(11-07-2011 09:43 AM)Ricardo Wrote:  I get very nervous when we try to box ourselves into neat enclaves of thought. I have a cousin who has been casting out demons out of
.....
@Elijah: Inerrancy: Agreed, it does not mean what people think it means. HOWEVER, we come from IFB churches that over and over have been telling us that there are no historical errors, no scientific errors, no error whatsoever in this here book I hold in my hand.

It's just about impossible to interact with your discussions because of things like this. On the one hand you are quick to point out to others that what they believe is "true for them" and that things mean different things to people and all we can do is try and love God and so on. Then you do what you try to correct people for all the time and tell Elijah that you have now are talking about something that isn't relative after all.

I don't really see that in Ricardo's writing. What I think I see is that he is saying that spiritual experiences cannot be fully explained by rational logic so why put that standard on the bible?

When I think of inerrancy I think "no error whatsoever" and my experience with some people has led me to believe that is their belief too.