For creationists: How would you know?

[vossler]

So what is the alternative of personal interpretation? The Roman Catholic system? You constantly evade this issue, have some integrity and answer the question up front.

I don't recall you asking me this question before.

A contextual biblical interpretation.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Let me ask you something. Is God perfect? I think you'd answer yes. That means He's without error. If He is without error then if He were to provide us a book to live our lives from, that book would be without error also. If the book were found to be in error, even in a small part, then that calls into question the entire book. It would allow man, as he is today, to determine what parts of the book are correct and what parts are not. This really isn't that complicated and I don't know why you and others have such difficulty with that concept.

I'm sorry that you see this as circular reasoning. Let me see if I can straighten the circle out a bit. God is sovereign, loving and without error or fault. He doesn't lie, mislead or in anyway prove Himself to be incomplete. With that as my foundation, He then can and did transmit His instructions for man without error. If He didn't then He isn't sovereign and if He isn't sovereign then we can't trust Him.

These are arguments from the attributes of God, in particular the incommunicable attribute of perfection.

Look at how this differs from Warfield's argument at:
http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/bbwauthority.htm

It is because the apostles were Christ's representatives, that what they did and said and wrote as such, comes to us with divine authority. The authority of the Scriptures thus rests on the simple fact that God's authoritative agents in founding the Church gave them as authoritative to the Church which they founded. All the authority of the apostles stands behind the Scriptures, and all the authority of Christ behind the apostles. The Scriptures are simply the law-code which the law-givers of the Church gave it.

It is the authority and power of God speaking into the Apostles and in turn into the Scriptures through them that is the basis of inspiration.

In receiving these books from the apostles as law, therefore, the Church has always received them not only as books given by God's agents, but as books so given by God through those agents that every word of them is God's word.

What Scripture has is not perfection but the authority, power and presence of God, these are communicable attributes.

But God has caused his grace to abound to us in that he not only published redemption through Christ in the world, but gave this preachment authoritative expression through the apostles, and fixed it with infallible trustworthiness in his inspired word. Thus in every age God speaks directly to every Christian heart, and gives us abounding safety to our feet and divine security to our souls. And thus, instead of a mere record of a revelation given in the past, we have the ever-living word of God; instead of a mere tradition however guarded, we have what we have all learned to call in a unique sense "the Scriptures."

not only that, but the same Spirit that inspired the Apostles also shares a small piece of that inspiration with us as the voice of God which authenticates the Scriptures to us.

But nowhere in this chain of reasoning is the idea of perfection transferred. The deep and serious divisions within the Church, even in Apostolic days would give pause to such a claim.

anyhow, this has been a good discussion, i was completely unaware that people where justifying inerrancy in such a way. I was only aware of Warfield's and subsequent reformed thinkers, i did not know that the chain of reasoning had been turned on it's head. and for that knowledge i am grateful.

 

[theFijian]

A contextual biblical interpretation.

Whose contextual biblical interpretation??

 

[vossler]

Can you please answer the question?

The Bible is replete with Scripture that shows the sovereignty of God. Do you really wish for me to provide you all of them?

Even in the face of the contradictory evidence we've put forth here (poppy seeds, round earth, heliocentrism), you continue to insist that the Bible is inerrant. Not because you've meticulously explained away these evidences, and not because you've shown us that the Bible itself claims to be inerrant, but simply because you insist that any inspired product of God must be without factual error (even if that product has passed through the hands of men).

God claims to be inerrant, thereby anything He gives us to teach us is inerrant. Seeing how you think otherwise, you've now given yourself license to pick and choose that which is true and that which isn't.

Again, you haven't yet quoted any Scripture that supports your point. I'm not arguing with what the Scriptures say; I'm arguing with what you claim the Scriptures say.

As you are free to argue, I just happen to disagree and I believe Scripture supports my view and not yours. Scripture is usually is pretty clear on what it says.

Please refer to Assyrian's reply.

All I'll say to that is if you're always looking for ways to disprove something, there will always be someone out there ready to placate you. I'm not looking to disprove the Word of God.

 

[vossler]

Whose contextual biblical interpretation??

Yours, mine and any other Christians. But I think you already knew that.

 

[vossler]

But nowhere in this chain of reasoning is the idea of perfection transferred. The deep and serious divisions within the Church, even in Apostolic days would give pause to such a claim.

Just so we're clear, the idea is inerrancy, not perfection.

 

[Assyrian]

I'm sorry that you see this as circular reasoning. Let me see if I can straighten the circle out a bit. God is sovereign, loving and without error or fault. He doesn't lie, mislead or in anyway prove Himself to be incomplete. With that as my foundation, He then can and did transmit His instructions for man without error. If He didn't then He isn't sovereign and if He isn't sovereign then we can't trust Him.

God is sovereign yet you wish to limit how he can speak to us?

Scriptual truth is based upon the complete Word of God. All of it is useful for teaching, reproof and correction.

It is ironic, you firmly believe scripture is useful for teaching, reproof and correction, yet you have not been able to provide any scriptural basis to reprove and correct our misunderstanding of scripture.

where I have the problem is when we introduce man derived standards of measurement based not upon either God's Word or observable facts and then use those measurements to modify God's Word. There are plenty of interpretations of God's Word where I don't have such a strong objection to because they stay within the boundaries of God's Word.

What difference does it make whether the facts are 'observable' or not? Both observable and unobservable measurements can cause us to go back and reevaluate our understanding and interpretation of scripture. Both bring information from outside the boundaries of God word to modify our understanding of it. Note, they do not modify God's word, they help inform our interpretation of it.

4.404 billion years: age of the oldest zircon on earth
1.8mm 0.8mm: size of mustard and poppy seeds

One is directly observable, the other not. But both are scientific facts about the world God made and should fit in with the way we interpret his word.

 

[Deamiter]

With that as my foundation, He then can and did transmit His instructions for man without error. If He didn't then He isn't sovereign and if He isn't sovereign then we can't trust Him.

Of course, he transmitted his instructions without error by inspiring individuals. You then jump to the utterly baseless assumption that God reached in and forced these individuals to perfectly recount the inspiration they were given ALONG WITH removing any cultural or scientific errors those authors happened to believe at the time. THAT is where you diverge greatly from any Biblical or traditional understanding of the Bible.

ONCE (just once) you cited a verse: 2 Tim 3:16-17. You never explained how this would address the New Testement (as it was clearly written before the New Testement was compiled).

This statement would imply that the New Testament isn't Scripture. It would appear we obviously have a much bigger issue than what we thought if you don't see the New Testament as Scripture.

I see the New Testament as an inspired part of the Bible. But in this objection, you are straying from your earlier claim that you interpret the Bible with a contextual interpretation. The passage refers to existing scripture -- specifically the Septuigent, not at all to what Christians in the future would collect as an addition to what we now call the Old Testament.

Or do you suggest that this verse addresses anything a group of Christians labels as "scripture" (the Apocrypha for example)? In many years of theology classes and study (though I fully admit, I'm still quite young) I have never heard anybody claim that this letter is referring to itself and letters not yet written as scripture. If nothing else, it is CERTAINLY not upheld by a plain reading of the passage!

 

[Mallon]

Where's shernren? I want to join his exasperation party. I'm dizzy from going around in circles.

 

[vossler]

God is sovereign yet you wish to limit how he can speak to us?

I don't put limitations on God. If He wishes to speak to me through a burning bush, rock, or anything else I'm more than willing to listen.

It is ironic, you firmly believe scripture is useful for teaching, reproof and correction, yet you have not been able to provide any scriptural basis to reprove and correct our misunderstanding of scripture.

Give me one and I'll do my best.

What difference does it make whether the facts are 'observable' or not? Both observable and unobservable measurements can cause us to go back and reevaluate our understanding and interpretation of scripture. Both bring information from outside the boundaries of God word to modify our understanding of it. Note, they do not modify God's word, they help inform our interpretation of it.

It makes a difference to me. If someone told me that they made a person disappear and that there were witnesses to this fact, it would make a BIG difference as to whether I believed it if I actually saw it happen.

4.404 billion years: age of the oldest zircon on earth
1.8mm 0.8mm: size of mustard and poppy seeds

One is directly observable, the other not. But both are scientific facts about the world God made and should fit in with the way we interpret his word.

They both may be facts to you, only one qualifies as such to me. Conjecture should never qualify as fact.

 

[vossler]

Where's shernren? I want to join his exasperation party. I'm dizzy from going around in circles.

Let me make a suggestion that works well for me, meditate and trust on God's Word and you'll never be dizzy again.

 

[vossler]

Of course, he transmitted his instructions without error by inspiring individuals. You then jump to the utterly baseless assumption that God reached in and forced these individuals to perfectly recount the inspiration they were given ALONG WITH removing any cultural or scientific errors those authors happened to believe at the time. THAT is where you diverge greatly from any Biblical or traditional understanding of the Bible.

God usually doesn't force Himself on unwilling participants. God being the sovereign God that is His does assist His children to transmit and convey His message as He wishes.

I see the New Testament as an inspired part of the Bible. But in this objection, you are straying from your earlier claim that you interpret the Bible with a contextual interpretation. The passage refers to existing scripture -- specifically the Septuigent, not at all to what Christians in the future would collect as an addition to what we now call the Old Testament.

I'm glad to hear you say the New Testament as inspired, you sure made it sound like it wasn't Scripture. So are you now saying that 2 Timothy 3:16 applies to the New Testament or not?

Since God foreknew what was to become the Bible, I don't have a problem with Him using Paul to beforehand identify Scripture with those attributes. Are you saying that you do?

Or do you suggest that this verse addresses anything a group of Christians labels as "scripture" (the Apocrypha for example)? In many years of theology classes and study (though I fully admit, I'm still quite young) I have never heard anybody claim that this letter is referring to itself and letters not yet written as scripture. If nothing else, it is CERTAINLY not upheld by a plain reading of the passage!

Not just anything a group of Christians labels as scripture, just that which He allows to be labeled as Scripture.

 

[Mallon]

Let me make a suggestion that works well for me, meditate and trust on God's Word and you'll never be dizzy again.

With all due respect, God's Word doesn't make me dizzy. You do!

 

[vossler]

With all due respect, God's Word doesn't make me dizzy. You do!

At least I'm having some effect.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Not just anything a group of Christians labels as scripture, just that which He allows to be labeled as Scripture.

then the problem becomes the number of canons in current use. RC and Orthodox have one, together they are 2/3 of the total Christians in the world. Protestants have another, and then there are a number of smaller ones from the Coptic(important because it appears to be the oldest), Ethiopic (Abyssinian) Church(important because it is the largest in use canon), Syriac Church (important because of the Diatesseron and it is from the Peshitta)

the bottom line is why would God have given at least 5 different canons and have each adherent group claiming theirs alone is the right one?

 

[vossler]

then the problem becomes the number of canons in current use. RC and Orthodox have one, together they are 2/3 of the total Christians in the world. Protestants have another, and then there are a number of smaller ones from the Coptic(important because it appears to be the oldest), Ethiopic (Abyssinian) Church(important because it is the largest in use canon), Syriac Church (important because of the Diatesseron and it is from the Peshitta)

the bottom line is why would God have given at least 5 different canons and have each adherent group claiming theirs alone is the right one?

I don't know, what's your understanding?

For me it's never been much of an issue, the Bible of 66 books has been in print for over 500 years is the canon that God ordained, all others are not.

 

[theFijian]

Yours, mine and any other Christians. But I think you already knew that.

Wow so you agree that each Christian is allowed their own personal interpretation. Glad you finally agree.

 

[vossler]

Wow so you agree that each Christian is allowed their own personal interpretation. Glad you finally agree.

Yeah, I think that my Bible says I can have multiple wives. Isn't it great how we can each have our own interpretation; what's so neat about it is that they always seem to match my desires.

 

[busterdog]

Yeah, I think that my Bible says I can have multiple wives. Isn't it great how we can each have our own interpretation; what's so neat about it is that they always seem to match my desires.

It would certainly appear that even that issue is not a salvation issue.

But, that does not make it wrong to question how much people really want to hear the Word speak on this issue. Scripture would seem to require that any Christian be open to the possibility of a literal view of every piece of scripture. If science tells you what scripture can mean before you even get started, I don't think that interpretive letter is what the Lord wants. But, it wouldn't make a person not a Christian.

 

[shernren]

Where's shernren? I want to join his exasperation party. I'm dizzy from going around in circles.

I was in bed, yo, I live on the other side of the world.

Can't something be factual inerrant and not complete? If I went to purchase a car and the spec sheet said that this car has 300 hp and 275 lb ft of torque, but it didn't tell me how many cylinders or valves per cylinder it had that wouldn't cause the hp and torque figures to be incorrect, would they?

But the idea that "science interpreting Scripture is inferior" would only occur if one maintains that Scripture is complete: that Scripture supplies its own interpretation and therefore for that interpretation to be "modified by science" would be wrong.

Since God is without mistake and perfect, it [the Bible not being factually inerrant] would open the door to Him being imperfect.

Why would it? After all, the Bible is not God ... is it?