Faith in the living, resurrected Word (while the scriptures are only 50% historically accurate).

redleghunter · Dec 23, 2019

JackRT said:
Scripture serves many purposes. Some is mythology of tribal origins and history. Some is just history. Some delineates religious law. Some is wisdom sayings. Some books are extended parables. Some is poetry. The gospels are interpretive narratives. The epistles are mail to congregations. It all winds up in an angry rant.

I asked Hermit. I think you have been clear over the years of your views.

danielmears · Dec 23, 2019

public hermit said:
This post is primarily for those who believe the scriptures (original documents) are an inerrant, perfect representation of historical events. Of course, anyone may comment. (This post may need to be moved, but I figured the topic would be controversial for some so I placed it here).

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that only 50% of the scriptures are (in some sense) historically accurate. Nonetheless, Jesus Christ is the resurrected Son of God whose death and resurrection are efficacious for salvation. Assuming this were true, how would this affect they way you think about the scriptures?

I get the impression from some, who argue for the inerrancy of the scriptures, that if something within the scriptures were not historically accurate, then we could not trust that Jesus Christ is Son of God, whose death and resurrection are efficacious for salvation. But, one does not necessarily follow from the other.

Logically speaking: there is a possible world where Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who is incarnated, dies and rises again, and yet there are no scriptures in the sense that we know them today. Someone might balk and say, "But, how would we know about it?" Well, any number of ways. A different set of writings, perhaps? The point being that the scriptures are not that which makes his death and resurrection efficacious for salvation. They are simply a means to knowing about Christ, as fallible as they might be.

Again, imagine a community of 1st generation Christians, a community that possesses no copy of the scriptures, they find a hermit, they proclaim the gospel in her hearing, and she comes to faith. What does she lack? She has faith in the resurrected Son of God, she has a community within which to worship and learn and grow, so what does she lack not having an opportunity to read the scriptures?

Would you give up the faith if you knew some of the scriptures were not historically accurate and yet you knew that Jesus is in fact the living, resurrected Son of God through whom salvation is given? I dare say you would have no good reason to do so. Thoughts? Comments?

The Word is filled with power and when understood will open up to the believer! From Genesis to Revelations, there is something to be learned which will provide knowledge and understanding. Christ came to reveal the power, was literally, the Word incarnate it says in John, the Word made flesh. How can this be one might ask? He was filled with power, as demonstrated, plus he also explains how this spiritual system operates. Why nit pick the scriptures when you can discover the power therein! Questioning, may be the first step but faith will reveal all! Glory to God! The wondrous power is here now! Let it quicken your very spirit within, as the deep calls unto the deep!

redleghunter · Dec 23, 2019

public hermit said:
To communicate the gospel of Jesus Christ and to be used as a guide to faith and practice. None of that, I am arguing, depends on the scriptures being 100% historically accurate. Do you disagree?

It depends. Meaning bears attacking children who spoke poorly of a chosen Prophet of God does tell us about the Holiness of God.

The Mosiac law allowed for parents to being their disrespectful sons to the elders to be judged and if judged to be disrespectful, then executed.

But maybe we should look at the context?

public hermit · Dec 23, 2019

zippy2006 said:
As I understand it you are making an argument from logical coherence. You are saying that a historical error or alteration in a remote part of the scripture need not create an internal contradiction or exclude a "Core gospel truth." It is also apparently the idea that there are superfluous parts of Scripture where errors are unimportant. Such arguments work from a coherence perspective, but they don't intersect with the Fundamentalist premise of infallible authorship. The Fundamentalist doesn't reject historical errors because he believes they would logically imply the falsity of the gospel, but rather because they would undermine the authority of the divine author and cast doubt on the reliability of the gospel

This an interesting analysis of the OP. What I was hoping the examples would do is shift the focus of reliability, for the fundamentalist. What I hear you saying is that's not going to happen because the target is off. Now that you have framed it that way, I am having a hard time disagreeing with you, haha. Oh well, it was worth a try. I will have to give this some more thought.

public hermit · Dec 23, 2019

redleghunter said:
It depends. Meaning bears attacking children who spoke poorly of a chosen Prophet of God does tell us about the Holiness of God.

The Mosiac law allowed for parents to being their disrespectful sons to the elders to be judged and if judged to be disrespectful, then executed.

But maybe we should look at the context?

Let me shift gears for a minute. I am assuming you hold to the inerrancy of the scriptures. If not, I don't mind being corrected. If so, why? Is the description offered by @zippy2006 below an accurate description of why you hold to inerrancy?

zippy2006 said:
The Fundamentalist doesn't reject historical errors because he believes they would logically imply the falsity of the gospel, but rather because they would undermine the authority of the divine author and cast doubt on the reliability of the gospel.

redleghunter · Dec 23, 2019

public hermit said:
Let me shift gears for a minute. I am assuming you hold to the inerrancy of the scriptures. If not, I don't mind being corrected. If so, why? Is the description offered by @zippy2006 below an accurate description of why you hold to inerrancy?

No brother @zippy2006 may be speaking of some Fundamentalist churches which are not creedal and have no clue what inerrancy means.

The way you drafted the OP it seems you know something about inerrancy but not all of the doctrine.

This should be of help:

https://www.etsjets.org/files/documents/Chicago_Statement.pdf

public hermit · Dec 23, 2019

redleghunter said:
No brother @zippy2006 may be speaking of some Fundamentalist churches which are not creedal and have no clue what inerrancy means.

The way you drafted the OP it seems you know something about inerrancy but not all of the doctrine.

This should be of help:

https://www.etsjets.org/files/documents/Chicago_Statement.pdf

This is helpful. I am correct in understanding inerrancy to mean that the scriptures are 100% historically accurate. I am also inclined to say that @zippy2006 is correct. The idea is that every single utterance found within the scriptures must be true or it undercuts the divine authority.

"5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church."

The nuance that the OP may be missing is in the last statement (Article XIX):

"We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences both to the individual and to the Church." That is an interesting concession to make.

zippy2006 said:
As I understand it you are making an argument from logical coherence. You are saying that a historical error or alteration in a remote part of the scripture need not create an internal contradiction or exclude a "Core gospel truth." It is also apparently the idea that there are superfluous parts of Scripture where errors are unimportant. Such arguments work from a coherence perspective, but they don't intersect with the Fundamentalist premise of infallible authorship. The Fundamentalist doesn't reject historical errors because he believes they would logically imply the falsity of the gospel, but rather because they would undermine the authority of the divine author and cast doubt on the reliability of the gospel.

Having looked the statement that @redleghunter provided, I am inclined to think it is both a matter of logical coherence and a desire to secure/protect the idea of divine authorship. Whether my examples are of any use, I concede I'm not so sure.

Aussie Pete · Dec 23, 2019

public hermit said:
This post is primarily for those who believe the scriptures (original documents) are an inerrant, perfect representation of historical events. Of course, anyone may comment. (This post may need to be moved, but I figured the topic would be controversial for some so I placed it here).

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that only 50% of the scriptures are (in some sense) historically accurate. Nonetheless, Jesus Christ is the resurrected Son of God whose death and resurrection are efficacious for salvation. Assuming this were true, how would this affect they way you think about the scriptures?

I get the impression from some, who argue for the inerrancy of the scriptures, that if something within the scriptures were not historically accurate, then we could not trust that Jesus Christ is Son of God, whose death and resurrection are efficacious for salvation. But, one does not necessarily follow from the other.

Logically speaking: there is a possible world where Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who is incarnated, dies and rises again, and yet there are no scriptures in the sense that we know them today. Someone might balk and say, "But, how would we know about it?" Well, any number of ways. A different set of writings, perhaps? The point being that the scriptures are not that which makes his death and resurrection efficacious for salvation. They are simply a means to knowing about Christ, as fallible as they might be.

Again, imagine a community of 1st generation Christians, a community that possesses no copy of the scriptures, they find a hermit, they proclaim the gospel in her hearing, and she comes to faith. What does she lack? She has faith in the resurrected Son of God, she has a community within which to worship and learn and grow, so what does she lack not having an opportunity to read the scriptures?

Would you give up the faith if you knew some of the scriptures were not historically accurate and yet you knew that Jesus is in fact the living, resurrected Son of God through whom salvation is given? I dare say you would have no good reason to do so. Thoughts? Comments?

It is true that Christ is the Saviour, not the Bible. Most of the New Testament was written to counteract heresies that were coming in. Lord Jesus is the Word of God. The gospel was preached at first.

We need the written word. If there was no devil to deceive and no hindrances from self induced confusion and misunderstanding, we would be fine without the Bible. It is plainly not the case. We should be able to get truth directly from God, in the Person of the Holy Spirit. Because the mind of man is corrupted, it has to be renewed. We need the Bible to ensure that our thinking in in line with God's.

I teach the Bible. I know how important it because I know how little knowledge most Christians have. I do not worship the Bible. It is necessary because people need an authority for their faith. It's hard enough with the Bible. People come up with all kinds of interpretations. If there were no Bible, people could get born again by trusting in the finished work of Christ, but then what?

I am convinced that God knows the future. He saw the problems that would arise. He gave us Christ to save us and the Bible to instruct us. The truth holds true still, that God's people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. I trust God to give us written truth that we can rely on. If so-called history contradicts God's word, that history is wrong.

public hermit · Dec 23, 2019

Aussie Pete said:
It is true that Christ is the Saviour, not the Bible. Most of the New Testament was written to counteract heresies that were coming in. Lord Jesus is the Word of God. The gospel was preached at first.

We need the written word. If there was no devil to deceive and no hindrances from self induced confusion and misunderstanding, we would be fine without the Bible. It is plainly not the case. We should be able to get truth directly from God, in the Person of the Holy Spirit. Because the mind of man is corrupted, it has to be renewed. We need the Bible to ensure that our thinking in in line with God's.

I teach the Bible. I know how important it because I know how little knowledge most Christians have. I do not worship the Bible. It is necessary because people need an authority for their faith. It's hard enough with the Bible. People come up with all kinds of interpretations. If there were no Bible, people could get born again by trusting in the finished work of Christ, but then what?

I am convinced that God knows the future. He saw the problems that would arise. He gave us Christ to save us and the Bible to instruct us. The truth holds true still, that God's people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. I trust God to give us written truth that we can rely on. If so-called history contradicts God's word, that history is wrong.

I really appreciate your thoughtful response. There is so much here that I agree with. I agree that we need the written word. If we had to rely on oral proclamation alone, surely the message would be corrupted beyond recognition by this point in time. We need it not only to know the gospel but also for guidance in faith and practice. I'm just not one of those who believes if some aspects of the scriptures are not historically accurate then the whole thing falls like a house of cards.

One thing I do wonder is if insisting on inerrancy bars some from accepting the faith. I was reading the Chicago Statement. It does not insist that inerrancy be accepted for salvation. But, my sense is that some who don't believe think they must accept some kind of inerrancy in order to be Christian. If they find some aspects historically suspect, then do they turn away from further investigation on that account? That seems counter-productive given the doctrine is not essential to salvation.

NBB · Dec 23, 2019

Some people have the fortune that Jesus after they were preached about him received from him enough to not doubt he is up there, so if you start a logical chain, Jesus is true, then the gospels are probably very true, because you met Jesus after being preached what the gospel says, and then in the gospels, Jesus, says that not one letter or comma of the law or old testament is going to be unfullfilled, so yes after you meet Jesus, is that crazy to believe what he said about the bible? keep in mind that he took the scriptures very serioulsy, also Paul too. Its not far fetched at that point to think that at all.

Aussie Pete · Dec 23, 2019

public hermit said:
I really appreciate your thoughtful response. There is so much here that I agree with. I agree that we need the written word. If we had to rely on oral proclamation alone, surely the message would be corrupted beyond recognition by this point in time. We need it not only to know the gospel but also for guidance in faith and practice. I'm just not one of those who believes if some aspects of the scriptures are not historically accurate then the whole thing falls like a house of cards.

One thing I do wonder is if insisting on inerrancy bars some from accepting the faith. I was reading the Chicago Statement. It does not insist that inerrancy be accepted for salvation. But, my sense is that some who don't believe think they must accept some kind of inerrancy in order to be Christian. If they find some aspects historically suspect, then do they turn away from further investigation on that account? That seems counter-productive given the doctrine is not essential to salvation.

People will use any excuse not to believe. I come from a completely different perspective. The Bible to me was a mystic book that I dare not read. I had deep rooted occult bondages and Satan really did not want me reading the Bible.

The man who led me to the Lord was an evangelical Methodist, before the days when that actually meant something. He casually mentioned that the Bible was God's word. I accepted what he said without question. Why? I had an inner witness in my spirit that it was the truth. I went from not able to read the Bible to almost an obsession.

Bible study alone does not save, and neither does it deliver us. The written word has to become the living word within us. John 6 is about that, not some kind of freaky cannibalism. Satan is desperate to undermine God's word. Jesus gave us a hint when He faced Satan in the wilderness. His response to the devil's temptations was "It is written." How many times did Jesus say of the OT, "Have you not read?" He made Nazareth known that He was going public by reading Isaiah 61.

Paul wrote to his protege, Timothy. He told the him the purpose of the scriptures and said that they make us wise to salvation (the second salvation of the soul). There was no New Testament. People can attempt to tear down the Bible. It does not work with me. I know it is God's word. For every argument against it, someone much smarter than me has an argument in favour. If God can't make sure that His word is factual and spiritual, then we all have really big problems. Who decides what is true and what is not? There are frequent references to the OT in the NT. That's why we need both. The OT makes no sense without the NT and the NT is informed often by the OT. God worked it pretty well, I reckon.

Saint Steven · Dec 23, 2019

public hermit said:
My problem is specific. It has to do with the insistence that the scriptures be 100% inerrant, historically speaking. There is a lot of room between 100% and 0% accurate. I chose 50% accurate for the sake of argument.

My argument is pretty simple. The truth concerning the good news of the resurrection of Jesus Christ does not depend on the scriptures, as a whole, being 100% historically accurate. Would you argue the gospel does depend on the scriptures being 100% accurate? If so, why?

Thanks for this great topic.
Here's an example we should consider.
These accounts of Jesus cursing the fig tree do not match.
Would this not be enough to prove that the NT is not 100% historically accurate?
One account says the tree withered immediately, the other account says they found it withered the next day.

Matthew 21:18-20 NIV
Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 19 Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered.
20 When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?” they asked.

Mark 11:12-14, 20-21 NIV
The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it. ...
20 In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. 21 Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!”

public hermit · Dec 23, 2019

Saint Steven said:
Thanks for this great topic.
Here's an example we should consider.
These accounts of Jesus cursing the fig tree do not match.
Would this not be enough to prove that the NT is not 100% historically accurate?
One account says the tree withered immediately, the other account says they found it withered the next day.

Matthew 21:18-20 NIV
Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 19 Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered.
20 When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?” they asked.

Mark 11:12-14, 20-21 NIV
The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it. ...
20 In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. 21 Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!”

This is a good example. I imagine the inerrantist will try to find a way to harminize the two. I think the synoptic gospels, in general, should pose a number of problems.

Saint Steven · Dec 23, 2019

public hermit said:
This is a good example. I imagine the inerrantist will try to find a way to harminize the two. I think the synoptic gospels, in general, should pose a number of problems.

Yes. I was thinking the same thing. (on both points)
I seem to remember the accounts of the order of events and timing for the day of Jesus' resurrection as being in conflict. This, of course strikes much closer to the point here. Does the efficacy of Christ as savior stand even if the historical accounts of the resurrection don't?

redleghunter · Dec 23, 2019

public hermit said:
The nuance that the OP may be missing is in the last statement (Article XIX):

"We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences both to the individual and to the Church." That is an interesting concession to make.

I think they clearly posited this in the statement because stumbling blocks will occur in the Christian walk.

public hermit · Dec 23, 2019

Saint Steven said:
Yes. I was thinking the same thing. (on both points)
I seem to remember the accounts of the order of events and timing for the day of Jesus' resurrection as being in conflict. This, of course strikes much closer to the point here. Does the efficacy of Christ as savior stand even if the historical accounts of the resurrection don't?

I'll go back to the fig tree example. The two accounts are probably rooted (no pun intended) in an actual historical happening, it's just that one of them got it wrong. Maybe you had an oral tradition that got mixed up along the way. Some scholars will claim Markan priority, but who knows? Someting similar could apply for the resurrection accounts.

At any rate, the earliest resurrection statements are going to be Paul's, not the gospels.

Saint Steven · Dec 23, 2019

public hermit said:
At any rate, the earliest resurrection statements are going to be Paul's, not the gospels.

But did the gospel writers have access to the letters Paul wrote? And wouldn't they be more concerned with their own eye-witness accounts? Although it seems the other two synoptic gospels were very much affected by Mark's account. As if they copied/rewrote it with their own corrections/additions.

public hermit · Dec 23, 2019

Saint Steven said:
But did the gospel writers have access to the letters Paul wrote? And wouldn't they be more concerned with their own eye-witness accounts? Although it seems the other two synoptic gospels were very much affected by Mark's account. As if they copied/rewrote it with their own corrections/additions.

These are good questions for which I don't have good answers. The scholarly conensus seems to be Markan priority, Luke and Matthew are working with Mark, Q, and their own material, L and M respectively (two source theory). Interestingly, this particular theory assumes none of the gospel writers were eye witnesses. I dont mind being corrected if that's wrong.

Saint Steven · Dec 23, 2019

public hermit said:
These are good questions for which I don't have good answers. The scholarly conensus seems to be Markan priority, Luke and Matthew are working with Mark, Q, and their own material, L and M respectively (two source theory). Interestingly, this particular theory assumes none of the gospel writers were eye witnesses. I dont mind being corrected if that's wrong.

The actual sources of the gospel accounts is very much on point for this topic. And it may be in conflict with what we have been told about their sources. And certainly in conflict with the way we talk about the accounts. We discuss Luke's account as if he wrote it. But is that true? Wouldn't that be a wrench in the historical accuracy right there? Misplaced/mistaken authorship. And since the OT was a written account of an oral tradition, why wouldn't the NT be on a similar track? That was the way it was done back then.

public hermit · Dec 23, 2019

Saint Steven said:
The actual sources of the gospel accounts is very much on point for this topic. And it may be in conflict with what we have been told about their sources. And certainly in conflict with the way we talk about the accounts. We discuss Luke's account as if he wrote it. But is that true? Wouldn't that be a wrench in the historical accuracy right there? Misplaced/mistaken authorship. And since the OT was a written account of an oral tradition, why wouldn't the NT be on a similar track? That was the way it was done back then.

You're right. We do talk as if Luke wrote it, when in fact none of the gospel writers are named within the gospels. They are all essentially anonymous, as far as internal evidence is concerned. I am all for the idea that they are compilations of oral traditions. I'm inclined to think they would have to be, in one way or another. I remember asking one of my NT profs if the similarities between the gospels could be accounted for based on similar oral traditions that have roots in historical happenings, instead of everybody using Mark or Matthew. He didn't want to hear any of that. NT profs are so sold out to the two-source theory that they have little patience for thinking outside that particular box.

Faith in the living, resurrected Word (while the scriptures are only 50% historically accurate).

Thank You Jesus!

Active Member

Thank You Jesus!

social troglodyte

social troglodyte

Thank You Jesus!

social troglodyte

Well-Known Member

social troglodyte

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

You can call me Steve

social troglodyte

You can call me Steve

Thank You Jesus!

social troglodyte

You can call me Steve

social troglodyte

You can call me Steve

social troglodyte

Similar threads