Believe the Bible - or mock the Bible - which do you choose?

[Speedwell]

"In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways..."

Not much of an endorsement for your Bible doctrine.

 

[mark kennedy]

"In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways..."

Not much of an endorsement for your Bible doctrine.

That's were I get it. Moses, Isaiah, David were all prophets.

 

[Speedwell]

That's were I get it. Moses, Isaiah, David were all prophets.

So how do you get from "In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways..." to, the text of the bible is the literal, inerrant perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration? The author of Hebrews appears to believe that God communicated with us through the prophets, whose prophecies were then recorded. He says nothing at all about the text of those recordings.

 

[mark kennedy]

So how do you get from "In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways..." to, the text of the bible is the literal, inerrant perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration? The author of Hebrews appears to believe that God communicated with us through the prophets, whose prophecies were then recorded. He says nothing at all about the text of those recordings.

The written scrolls were produced at God's direction. Very often he would tell Moses to write something down. Moses was a prophet but he was also a Levite, he was from the tribe of Levi. Somehow you see a big difference writings and a prophet just proclaiming the word. Often there isn't, with Moses there is none. Now I don't know what that semantical word salad means to you but it does nothing for me.

 

[Speedwell]

The written scrolls were produced at God's direction. Very often he would tell Moses to write something down. Moses was a prophet but he was also a Levite, he was from the tribe of Levi. Somehow you see a big difference writings and a prophet just proclaiming the word. Often there isn't, with Moses there is none. Now I don't know what that semantical word salad means to you but it does nothing for me.

You claim to get your doctrine from that passage of Hebrews, so I find it odd that there is nothing in it about your Bible doctrine. Now if you wanted to bring in II Timothy about how the texts themselves were inspired, not just the utterances of the Prophets, you might have a better case--you would still be a distance from literal inerrancy, but much closer altogether. I just don't see how you can get your Bible doctrine from that passage in Hebrews without a bunch more assumptions...

 

[mark kennedy]

You claim to get your doctrine from that passage of Hebrews, so I find it odd that there is nothing in it about your Bible doctrine. Now if you wanted to bring in II Timothy about how the texts themselves were inspired, not just the utterances of the Prophets, you might have a better case--you would still be a distance from literal inerrancy, but much closer altogether. I just don't see how you can get your Bible doctrine from that passage in Hebrews without a bunch more assumptions...

It says in diverse ways, that certainly would include verbal as well as written. The Pentetauch was called the Law for a reason. There we're six cities of refuge that belonged to the Levites and their primary duty was to teach the Law. Are you really going to argue it's faulty to argue, from and for, the Canon of Scripture because no Hebrew or Christian tradition would accept such a thing.

 

[Speedwell]

It says in diverse ways, that certainly would include verbal as well as written. The Pentetauch was called the Law for a reason. The we're six cities of refuge that belonged to the Levites and their primary duty was to teach the Law. Are you really going to argue it's faulty to argue from and for the Canon of Scripture because no Hebrew or Christian tradition would accept such a thing.

Faulty? Where did I say such a thing? You've sneaked in another assumption. What is it?

 

[mark kennedy]

Faulty? Where did I say such a thing? You've sneaked in another assumption. What is it?

I'm just trying to figure out what your arguing here because it sounds like you have a problem with the written text.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm just trying to figure out what your arguing here because it sounds like you have a problem with the written text.

None at all. I don't even require that it be literal and inerrant for it to be "given by inspiration of God, and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

 

[mark kennedy]

None at all. I don't even require that it be literal and inerrant for it to be "given by inspiration of God, and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

Literal is always prefered in historical narratives. figurative language is marked by a 'like' or 'as' and a clear comparative analogy. The whole thing with error was that The text variation did not affect anything doctrinal or historical, thus, inerrant. People seem to think they have broad interpretive powers with Scripture and its not true. Historical text that is something figurative is an absurred exercise in personal preference over actual literary features

 

[Speedwell]

Literal is always preferred in historical narratives.

Finally we agree on something. Hooray!

figurative language is marked by a 'like' or 'as' and a clear comparative analogy.

Not always, but it is frequently discernible by other forms of context.

Consider the Garden story as an example--since that is what we are always arguing about anyway. I take it to be an etiology, a "Just-so" story, which is a form of historical narrative. There is no figurative language in it. The way you read an etiology, quote it, refer to it in preaching is literally--just like Jesus and Paul did.

 

[mark kennedy]

Finally we agree on something. Hooray! Not always, but it is frequently discernible by other forms of context.

Consider the Garden story as an example--since that is what we are always arguing about anyway. I take it to be an etiology, a "Just-so" story, which is a form of historical narrative. There is no figurative language in it. The way you read an etiology, quote it, refer to it in preaching is literally--just like Jesus and Paul did.

I thought about that for a while. Paul makes the statement in Corinthians, why would you baptise for the dead if Christ is not raised. He is not sanctioning the practice he is pushing the resurrection. In the end I decided there has to be a clear line of demarcation. As a new Christian I got into some lengthy theological discussions with my Pasture. He hands me a book by Nehiemer who refers to the garden as a myth. The book lost all appeal after that, liberal theology doesn't do anything for me. Frankly I consider it formalized unbelief.

 

[BobRyan]

Literal is always prefered in historical narratives. figurative language is marked by a 'like' or 'as' and a clear comparative analogy. The whole thing with error was that The text variation did not affect anything doctrinal or historical, thus, inerrant. People seem to think they have broad interpretive powers with Scripture and its not true. Historical text that is something figurative is an absurred exercise in personal preference over actual literary features

Good point. But Speedwell claims that he -- like James Barr (And every atheist on the planet) - agrees that the text is clearly describing a literal 7 day creation week and the text is dead wrong.

 

[BobRyan]

Finally we agree on something. Hooray! Not always, but it is frequently discernible by other forms of context.

Consider the Garden story as an example--since that is what we are always arguing about anyway. I take it to be an etiology, a "Just-so" story, which is a form of historical narrative. There is no figurative language in it. The way you read an etiology, quote it, refer to it in preaching is literally--just like Jesus and Paul did.

A good point that "literal creationist" - "literal bodily resurrection-ist" -- and "literal virgin-birthist" are all in the same "much to be denied box" for those slicing and dicing the Bible so it fits an atheist reader's expectation and whatever science can reproduce in the lab.

 

[Speedwell]

I thought about that for a while. Paul makes the statement in Corinthians, why would you baptise for the dead if Christ is not raised. He is not sanctioning the practice he is pushing the resurrection. In the end I decided there has to be a clear line of demarcation. As a new Christian I got into some lengthy theological discussions with my Pasture. He hands me a book by Nehiemer who refers to the garden as a myth. The book lost all appeal after that, liberal theology doesn't do anything for me. Frankly I consider it formalized unbelief.

You have no use for even a divinely inspired myth?

 

[Speedwell]

Good point. But Speedwell claims that he -- like James Barr (And every atheist on the planet) - agrees that the text is clearly describing a literal 7 day creation week and the text is dead wrong.

Different text. We were discussing the Garden story.

 

[BobRyan]

hint "Story"

 

[Speedwell]

hint "Story"

Yep. Whether it's accurate literal history or not it's still a story; a spoken or written account of connected events.

 

[mark kennedy]

You have no use for even a divinely inspired myth?

Frankly no, but there is a pretty strong reason for that. The creation, the garden and especially the fall are all inextricably linked to essential doctrine. Whats more I'm not comfortable with analogies that don't compare anything to anything and then never happened in a book clearly constructed as historical in nature. I actually like Grecian mythology, Disney, Harry Potter, even Star Wars had heavy influences from mythology. No one is passing this stuff off as historical, the Bible isn't some dime store novel that can be dismissed when the entertainment value has worn of, it's either rooted and grounded in redemptive history unfolding according to the plan of God or it's nothing.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Speedwell]

Frankly no, but there is a pretty strong reason for that. The creation, the garden and especially the fall are all inextricably linked to essential doctrine. Whats more I'm not comfortable with analogies that don't compare anything to anything and then never happened in a book clearly constructed as historical in nature. I actually like Grecian mythology, Disney, Harry Potter, even Star Wars had heavy influences from mythology. No one is passing this stuff off as historical, the Bible isn't some dime store novel that can be dismissed when the entertainment value has worn of, it's either rooted and grounded in redemptive history unfolding according to the plan of God or it's nothing.

Grace and peace,
Mark

An analogy? Where did you get that? Not even atheists (as Bob likes to call us--me and Dr. Barr, I'm in such good company) think the Garden story is an analogy.