Do you dare?

[Akita Suggagaki]

I have no need to view the word of God other than he presents it to be. . .history, prophecy, doctrine, warning, exhortation, prayer, praise. . .

And that is fine. Others realize that God used human instruments in a way that opens the door to wonderful and interesting analyses.

 

[Clare73]

And that is fine. Others realize that God used human instruments in a way that opens the door to wonderful and interesting analyses.

For me, the more we fiddle with it, the less Holy Spirit power it has (2 Tim 3:16).

 

[Ted-01]

For me, the more we fiddle with it, the less Holy Spirit power it has (2 Tim 3:16).

There are so many Scriptures that cover the topic of comparing man's wisdom, ways, thoughts, etc., to God's and the answer is always pretty much the same. Yet, people continue to add their speculations about Scripture and call it sound reasoning.

I tend to agree with, somewhat, with Festus... that much learning can drive people mad... not Paul, of course, but perhaps some on sites like these.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

For me, the more we fiddle with it, the less Holy Spirit power it has (2 Tim 3:16).

Key word there is for you.

 

[okay]

I tend to agree with, somewhat, with Festus... that much learning can drive people mad... not Paul, of course, but perhaps some on sites like these.

I can appreciate where you are coming from. If the way you read scripture is bringing you life then no need to mess with that.

On the other hand, for some of us this kind of thing actually brings life to the scriptures. And at least in my case, some stuff from biblical scholarship was needed to revive (and perhaps even save) my faith a handful of years ago. I'm glad that Christianity has a big tent with lots of different expressions, so there is room for the wide variety of God's children to be part of the body of Christ.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

For me, the more we fiddle with it, the less Holy Spirit power it has (2 Tim 3:16).

Just remember that some of us think the Holy Spirit, being God, has just as much power and authority with or without an "inerrant" Bible.

 

[Clare73]

Just remember that some of us think the Holy Spirit, being God, has just as much power and authority with or without an "inerrant" Bible.

Surely you don't think Scripture is the source of God's power and authority, but rather
the Holy Spirit is the source of Scripture's power and authority, right?

 

[Clare73]

Key word there is for you.

Indeed!

Not suggesting it for anyone else. . .each receives it his own way.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Surely you don't think Scripture is the source of God's power and authority, but rather
the Holy Spirit is the source of Scripture's power and authority, right?

Right! EXACTLY!

But, for those of us who apply critical scholarship to the Bible, along with archaeology, historiography, extra-biblical history and cultural studies as a part of our Hermeneutical handling of the Biblical collection of writings, the Bible doesn't have to be "perfect" in every single detail in order to represent and convey the prophetic message that God, through the Holy Spirit, has given His earthly authors within Christ's Church.

So, the Christian faith isn't Bible dependent; rather, the Bible is Church dependent and Christ's Church is God dependent.

Either way, the Bible has authority.

 

[Clare73]

Right! EXACTLY!
But, for those of us who apply critical scholarship to the Bible, along with archaeology, historiography, extra-biblical history and cultural studies as a part of our Hermeneutical handling of the Biblical collection of writings, the Bible doesn't have to be "perfect" in every single detail in order to represent and convey the prophetic message that God, through the Holy Spirit, has given His earthly authors within Christ's Church.
So, the Christian faith isn't Bible dependent;

Are you serious, guy?

All Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16).

If the Christian faith isn't God-breathed Bible dependent, then it is not the Christian faith.

rather, the Bible is Church dependent

The Bible is Holy Spirit dependent (2 Tim 3:16).

and Christ's Church is God dependent.

And the truth of God's church is God-breathed Bible dependent.

Either way, the Bible has authority.

The God-breathed Bible always has authority.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Are you serious, guy?

All Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16).

If the Christian faith isn't God-breathed Bible dependent, then it is not the Christian faith.

The Bible is Holy Spirit dependent (2 Tim 3:16).

And the truth of God's church is God-breathed Bible dependent.

The God-breathed Bible always has authority.

If you do not dare to challenge your own view, your own hermeneutic, why did you come to this OP? Just to argue?

 

[Clare73]

If you do not dare to challenge your own view, your own hermeneutic,

I have no need to challenge the plain word of God. . .

why did you come to this OP? Just to argue?

Why do you challenge your own hermeneutic, just to argue?

Are you saying that "All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16) is simply my personal view, and is to be argued?

I come to this OP because it is an open forum and I choose to respond to the posts.

Why do you object to responses to your challenges?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are you serious, guy?

Yes, I'm very serious.

All Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16).

Right. All Scripture from God, through His prophets, apostles and disciples, is God-breathed. I didn't say it wasn't.

However, you do have to jump the hurdle of what the critical scholars say about the authenticity of 2 Timothy...... it's not a slam-dunk. I wish it was.

If the Christian faith isn't God-breathed Bible dependent, then it is not the Christian faith.

That's you're definition of inspired, but as I've already laid out in a couple of other threads over a year ago, there are almost a dozen Christian definitions on what "inspired" means.

The Bible is Holy Spirit dependent (2 Tim 3:16).

In complex, it is. Sure.

And the truth of God's church is God-breathed Bible dependent.

Sure.

The God-breathed Bible always has authority.

And I didn't say it didn't. Read what I say more slowly, Clare, because you're apparently not quite understanding the semantics.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I have no need to challenge the plain word of God. . .

Why do you challenge your own hermeneutic, just to argue?

Are you saying that "All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16) is simply my personal view, and is to be argued?

I come to this OP because it is an open forum and I choose to respond to the posts.

Why do you object to responses to your challenges?

I don't object. I question.
You make assumptions. Fine, We all make assumption, sometimes without even realizing it.
What I challenge is the literalist hermeneutic applied to the entire Bible. That seems to be your view.

 

[Derf]

Would anyone here dare to see the Genesis Adam and Eve "fall" more as a post exilic warning to the surviving Jewish community to obey the religious elders and their teachings (God)? This would mean seeing it less as a literal historical eating forbidden fruit. I know that is impossible for some here. But scholars speculate an a post exilic data. What motives would the authors have and what points trying to make? There is a cause of our suffering? But also, "Listen to us"?

Why? What would drive one to consider such an idea? Isn't your suggestion/dare on the same order as "Did God really say...?", which is how Satan said, "Listen to me, not to God."

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Why? What would drive one to consider such an idea? Isn't your suggestion/dare on the same order as "Did God really say...?", which is how Satan said, "Listen to me, not to God."

No. It is simply recognizing and acknowledging the fact that human beings were instrumental in the process and there is a great deal more going on than God simply writing a verbatim history book.

I get it. Some here dare not even think that. Others here do not see it as a theological problem.
A different view does not change the message.

 

[David Lamb]

I get it. Some here dare not even think that. Others here do not see it as a theological problem.
A different view does not change the message.

It's not a case of daring. If I believe that the bible is God's inspired and inerrant word, why would I think or dare to imagine that what Genesis says happened, didn't really, but was some sort of lesson for people who lived after the Babylonian exile? You say that a different view does not change the message. Clearly it does in this case, because the two views (Genesis as history, Genesis as a lesson to post-exilic Israel) say different things. One says that God created everything out of nothing, that He gave one command to Adam and Eve, that they broke that command and were punished for it, the other says no, it's all an illustrated lesson for people who lived after the exile.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

If I believe that the bible is God's inspired and inerrant word

Just ask yourself, Why do you believe that a literal interpretation is needed in all cases? And why must you believe it to be "inerrant"?
There are many examples of errors. You don't need to answer here. We don't need to argue a point that has been argued for centuries.

I started this thread as a safe place for those who have a broader view.

 

[David Lamb]

Just ask yourself, Why do you believe that a literal interpretation is needed in all cases? And why must you believe it to be "inerrant"?
There are many examples of errors. You don't need to answer here. We don't need to argue a point that has been argued for centuries.

I started this thread as a safe place for those who have a broader view.

I didn't say "in all cases". The bible includes all sorts of picture-language. When Jesus said, "I am the door," He didn't mean He has hinges, a handle and a frame. When Solomon wrote "Go to the ant, you sluggard" he wasn't telling the reader to visit an ants' nest. However, that is quite different from a passage such as Genesis 1, where the creative activity of God is listed as happening on certain days. There's nothing to indicate that it's picture-language.

You say that there are many examples of errors in the bible. Really? Once we start saying that, we're left with a bible that is totally untrustworthy, for who is to say what is "error" and what isn't? We find in the New Testament Jesus quoting from most of the Old, and never with a single hint that it contained errors. I know that there are people who don't believe the inerrancy of God's Word, but I can only write on these forums as what I am, some who does believe it's inerrancy.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It is interesting that the exile was in Babylon, and Genesis is often compared to the (most likely older) Babylonian creation myth, the Enuma Elish. Apparently it looks like the same genre.

To me it makes sense that God speaks in language/genres that people can understand. And I doubt that human language can fully describe God directly since human minds cannot fully understand God. I think metaphors, poetry, parables, songs, analogies, myth, etc., are all limited but may be the best ways we have to try and understand some aspects of God - at least to some limited degree.

So do you think God inspired other creation myths? I think so. of course that seems to elevate other writings to the level of the Bible. Naturally some here would have a problem with that. I don't. While most mythology the same way I do the Bible, I also appreciate things like the Bhagavad Gita, writings of Buddha, etc. But , for me, the Gospels have a unique and unreplaceable importance. And yet there also, the tools of modern scholarship are extremely helpful.