Inerrant and Infallible

GraceSeeker · May 29, 2014

GraceSeeker · May 29, 2014

And there is also this, which I will quote parts from....

from James D. G. Dunn’s article on “Myth” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels

(Downers Grove: IVP, 1992) p.568),

To demythologize the ascension is not to deny that Jesus “went to heaven”; it is simply to find a way of expressing this in language which takes it out of the realm of current or future space research.

Ascension day is a perfect day to draw attention to the fact that literalism is not only problematic, but impossible. Even if someone insists on maintaining the literal truth of the claim in Acts that Jesus literally went up into heaven, they cannot maintain the worldview of the first century Christians which provided the context for the affirmation. They knew nothing of light-years, distant galaxies or interstellar space without oxygen. And it is not possible, through some act of either will or faith, to forget absolutely everything that has been learned since then and believe as they did. Even those who willingly choose to disbelieve modern science are making a choice that the first Christians did not have, and thus accept dogmatically what early Christians naively assumed because they knew no better.There are plenty who continue to claim they are Biblical literalists. But there are no actual Biblical literalists. Because even the precise words of the Bible, taken literally, mean something different today than they did almost 2,000 years ago.

BryanW92 · May 30, 2014

GraceSeeker said:
I am using the second understanding, most certainly NOT the first.

Even the second definition of myth uses the word "ostensibly".

"a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon"

Ostensible only has one definition:

: seeming or said to be true or real but very possibly not true or real

To say that Genesis is definitely a myth by any definition is to say that it is not true.

As I said before, I do not personally believe in the six-day creation. But, I have softened my stance on it to permit anyone who wants to believe in it to do so without argument. In fact, I applaud their faith. If someone asks me what I beleive, I tell them. If they say that they believe in a competing theory on this issue, I have studied and understand their position, so we can discuss it but I wouldn't tell them they're absolutely wrong.

To me, Genesis is a leap of faith. Believe it or don't...but it is wrong for a Christian to tell another Christian that their beliefs are wrong with regards to this portion of the bible.

GraceSeeker · May 30, 2014

BryanW92 said:
Ostensible only has one definition:

: seeming or said to be true or real but very possibly not true or real

To say that Genesis is definitely a myth by any definition is to say that it is not true.

No to say that Genesis is a myth is to say that it is ostensibly not historical. Which is to say that it is very possibly not true or real. "Very possibly" leaves open the alternate, which would be that while very possibly not true, it still remains somewhat possible that it is true.

BryanW92 · May 31, 2014

GraceSeeker said:
No to say that Genesis is a myth is to say that it is ostensibly not historical. Which is to say that it is very possibly not true or real. "Very possibly" leaves open the alternate, which would be that while very possibly not true, it still remains somewhat possible that it is true.

But, we are supposed to be People of Faith! As clergy, you are supposed to be a role model of faith.

It can be said, with a high degree of certainty based on evidence (or lack thereof), that most of the bible is "very possibly" not true. Is it just a fictional narrative to wrap around our purpose of social justice to help the folks swallow it easier? Like wrapping a pill for a dog in bacon?

RomansFiveEight · May 31, 2014

BryanW92 said:
I agree. When I was a teenager, I was a huge fan of Greek mythology. Their mythology parallels Genesis pretty well. We assume that their mythology is just a story, so it it quite possible that Genesis is just myth as well.

But, if a person chooses to believe that Genesis is fact because they want to believe in the power of God to do anything--including the implausible--what does it hurt?

Science says that the six-day creation did not happen and that the Flood did not happen. Science also says that a man cannot rise from the dead after being dead for three days. If I remove all the things that science says cannot happen from the bible, I'm left with the Jefferson Bible.

Frankly, if God is just a good idea and Jesus is only a healthy philosophy of life, then I'd rather be a Buddhist.

Just to throw a wrench in things; there are some scientifically valid explanations out there for how a man could appear dead to first century people and come back three days later. Although none of those things happen as a result of exsanguination from hanging on a cross.'

That aside though; I'm not a fan of the binary approach that everything in the bible must be myth or fact. To me -and God has not imparted me with any special knowledge- I can see some significant differences between the resurrection and the creation.

GraceSeeker · Jun 1, 2014

BryanW92 said:
It can be said, with a high degree of certainty based on evidence (or lack thereof), that most of the bible is "very possibly" not true. Is it just a fictional narrative to wrap around our purpose of social justice to help the folks swallow it easier? Like wrapping a pill for a dog in bacon?

Read more carefully. *YOU* are the one saying that the Bible is NOT true. I'm not saying that at all.

Part of the problem is that you are using a definition that could not have been written prior to the 18th century. And the Bible was written long before that. When you try to read it through 21st century eyes, rather than that of its original audience, you'll always end up asking the wrong questions. When you ask the wrong questions, even if you get good answers to your questions, they probably won't satisfy and I think that's what is going on here.

The human authors and their original readers, neither of them would have asked if the Bible was true or false. Of course it was true, but not in the way you are defining it. It was true in the way that Godzilla is true. And that I suspect that you have a problem with that statement is where your problem is with my referring to Genesis as myth.

How about the Ascension, the topic of my sermon tomorrow, is it true? Yes, of course it is. But exactly how far did Jesus ascend? Where is his physical body today? (BTW, moving at the rate of the speed of light, Jesus' is less than 2% of the way across the Milky Way Galaxy.) If we answer these questions using post-enlightenment patterns of thoughts, we are going to have problems. It makes heaven some sort of physical realm, rather than a spiritual one. But when we spiritualize it, then some will assert that it isn't "real". I assert that things don't have to be physical to be real. And I assert that calling something a myth doesn't make it less real either. But if you're stuck processing things using post-enlightenment ways of "modern" thinking, then you're going to be stuck equating myth with fiction -- something I am not prepared to do, no matter what dictionary definition you happen to pull out next.

But, we are supposed to be People of Faith! As clergy, you are supposed to be a role model of faith.

As for faith...that doesn't have anything to do with propositional truths. It's about relationships in which we trust God with our lives. And I am happy to model that to the people of my congregation and to the world as well. But I won't be forced into a corner where I have to answer questions about the historical or scientific nature of the Genesis account of creation, when the author of that particular text wasn't trying to address that question for either his day or ours. And I suggest to you that those who do try to read the text that way, are doing a disservice to what the Bible is actually trying to convey about God, humanity, the cosmos and the nature of relationships between the three.

BryanW92 · Jun 1, 2014

GraceSeeker said:
Read more carefully. *YOU* are the one saying that the Bible is NOT true. I'm not saying that at all.

Part of the problem is that you are using a definition that could not have been written prior to the 18th century. And the Bible was written long before that. When you try to read it through 21st century eyes, rather than that of its original audience, you'll always end up asking the wrong questions. When you ask the wrong questions, even if you get good answers to your questions, they probably won't satisfy and I think that's what is going on here.

The human authors and their original readers, neither of them would have asked if the Bible was true or false. Of course it was true, but not in the way you are defining it. It was true in the way that Godzilla is true. And that I suspect that you have a problem with that statement is where your problem is with my referring to Genesis as myth.

Excellent points. It was all true for primitive people, but not quite so true for rational, technological people who understand science as we do.

And yes, I'm not saying that bible is a lie. I'm only questioning where it is fact and where it is "not fact" (avoiding the use of myth or fiction in this case) since you state that the creation account is not true as described in Genesis.

Should we say that we know that our bible is not entirely true, but it contains some good ideas? What does that say about us as a "faith community"? Would it better if we call ourselves a "philosophy community" since it is Jesus's philosophy that applies to us today.

Is faith in a God obsolete, as the New Age people tell us? Should we place our belief in our own greatness because that's a verifiable truth?

GraceSeeker · Jun 1, 2014

BryanW92 said:
I'm only questioning where it is fact and where it is "not fact" (avoiding the use of myth or fiction in this case) since you state that the creation account is not true as described in Genesis.

You mis-paraphrase me. I do NOT say that it is not true. I say that it is myth. I believe that myths do contain truths. Whether or not they are also contain historic or scientific facts is a completely different question, one which I sometimes doubt with regard to Genesis.

Should we say that we know that our bible is not entirely true, but it contains some good ideas? What does that say about us as a "faith community"? Would it better if we call ourselves a "philosophy community" since it is Jesus's philosophy that applies to us today.

These are questions that I don't find myself asking. If they are helpful for you, then by all means go ahead and wrestle with them. But for me they are not particularly helpful.

Is faith in a God obsolete, as the New Age people tell us? Should we place our belief in our own greatness because that's a verifiable truth?

I do not believe that faith in God is obsolete. I find God still eminently trustworthy. I do find it curious that you would believe in something just because it is a verifiable truth. I believe truths, but I do not believe in them. I believe in people and in God.

Joykins · Jun 2, 2014

GraceSeeker said:
You mis-paraphrase me. I do NOT say that it is not true. I say that it is myth. I believe that myths do contain truths. Whether or not they are also contain historic or scientific facts is a completely different question, one which I sometimes doubt with regard to Genesis..

It's instructive to read Augustine on the literal interpretation of Genesis, lest you think what GraceSeeker describes is some kind of modern innovation.

charliehcf · Jun 4, 2014

I sure appreciate GraceSeeker. I have attempted to articulate his points several times myself, but I always become frustrated, knowing I cannot reach the audience I'm trying to reach. And GraceSeeker articulates that phenomenon as well, talking about how someone who has a visceral reaction to the word "myth" is going to have a very hard time ever understanding that myth is a good and appropriate word to apply to the Bible.

Truth and fact are different things. Fundamentalists and atheists conflate truth with fact. And there lies the root disconnect between mainline Christians and fundamentalists.

Another obstacle is the nature of God. Fundamentalism tends to talk about God as if He were grand, strong, powerful - tends to talk about God as if He were the greatest thing in the universe. Mainline Christianity sees God as sacred - outside the universe. We believe God must be outside the universe because He created the universe. Yes, He can and does interact with his creation, but He must be essentially outside His creation.

And so God can reveal Himself to us only in terms of His interaction within the Universe. It is impossible for God to reveal anything about His true self to us, because we don't have the minds, concepts, much less the words to imagine anything outside our universe.

Furthermore, human language is, must always be, ambiguous. Language cannot communicate anything unambiguously. If it could, we would have no need for a judicial system. Our laws would be written without any ambiguity. We would have no need for arbiters, because contracts would be completely unambiguous. There would be no need for baseball umpires, because there would be no ambiguity in the rules.

God knows this. So it is absurd to believe that God intended his written revelation to be unambiguous. When you consider the translations and the canonization that our 21st century Bible has been through, it is absurd to approach the Bible literally.

The Bible is true, absolutely. But I'm willing to let go, to let God be sacred, when the Bible doesn't seem factual to me, confined as I am inside, not outside, of God's creation.

That's the definition of myth. Myth is the way we Humans communicate truth when the facts are not the point. Fiction is different, the purpose of fiction is not to convey truth. The purpose of myth is to convey truth.

So what? God, desiring to reveal himself in a book, knowing that human language is never unambiguous, is going to write that book as a textbook? No, God is faced with revealing an out-of-universe being to in-universe beings. He's going to use the richest range of modalities afforded by human language. And so you find facts in the Bible, yes. And you find parables, poems, comedy, drama, tragedy, epic battles, metaphor... each of these modalities convey no more nor less truth than the other. When God gives us truth in the form of some facts, we celebrate. When he gives us truth in poem, we celebrate just the same. When Rhoda is so overjoyed to hear Peter at the door that she runs away forgetting to let Peter in, there is truth in that comedy, just as there is truth in the facts and the poems of the Bible.

We can't nail the Bible down to a textbook. To do so is to is to attempt to nail God down between the covers of the book.

RomansFiveEight · Jun 4, 2014

charliehcf said:
We can't nail the Bible down to a textbook. To do so is to is to attempt to nail God down between the covers of the book.

This is exactly it. Fundamentalists interpret the bible too, they just claim not to. They say "There it is, clear as day" refusing to look beyond an english translation of a recording of oral tradition that we don't even have the originals for.

But when they interpret, they interpret it as writ law that confines God to specific actions and puts God in a box so that God can serve them. It's ironic that they accuse us of being the ones who serve ourselves and not God; but that's hardly the case. While we're ALL guilty of using God and using scripture to our own ends; fundamentalists are especially keen at arguing that their interpretation is not an interpretation; it's the 'obvious' will of God. And that anyone who doesn't subscribe to their interpretation (which they don't call an interpretation, they just say "It's what the Bible says) is not a "real" Christian.

My God won't fit in that box, I'm sorry!

GraceSeeker · Jun 4, 2014

N.T. Wright:
I dont think Ive ever said 'I am not an inerrantist.' But the controversies which gave rise to that label were strongly conditioned by a shrunken post-enlightenment rationalism, and I would hate to perpetuate that. Its possible that 'inerrancy' is, so to speak, the right answer to the wrong question."

"I dont call myself an 'inerrantist' (a) because that word means what it means within a modernist rationalism, which I reject and (b) because it seems to me to have failed in delivering a full-blooded reading and living of what the Bible actually says. It may have had a limited usefulness as a label against certain types of 'modernist' denial, but it buys into at least half of the rationalist worldview which was the real problem all along."

(source: N.T. Wright on the Bible and why he won't call himself an inerrantist | On Faith & Culture)

iambren · Jun 4, 2014

I like how my seminary worded it:

Statement of Faith

The sixty-six canonical books of the Bible as originally written were inspired of God, hence free from error. They constitute the only infallible guide in faith and practice.

ORIGINALLY written which allows for some text criticism and clarification to the reader.

raschau · Jun 9, 2014

The texts that we have now are, assuredly, pretty close to how the originals were written. Appealing to the autographs is a cop-out, because everyone who does so knows perfectly well that the originals are irretrievably lost to history.

circuitrider · Jun 10, 2014

iambren said:
I like how my seminary worded it:

Statement of Faith

The sixty-six canonical books of the Bible as originally written were inspired of God, hence free from error. They constitute the only infallible guide in faith and practice.

ORIGINALLY written which allows for some text criticism and clarification to the reader.

There are some problems with that.

1. We do not have the original manuscripts.
2. Only God is perfect, not something in creation.

I like the United Methodist view that scripture is the primary source of our doctrine. The others are tradition, reason, and experience.

From the Articles of Religion

Article V - Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation

The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testaments of whose authority was never any doubt in the church. The names of the canonical books are:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, The First Book of Samuel, The Second Book of Samuel, The First Book of Kings, The Second Book of Kings, The First Book of Chronicles, The Second Book of Chronicles, The Book of Ezra, The Book of Nehemiah, The Book of Esther, The Book of Job, The Psalms, The Proverbs, Ecclesiastes or the Preacher, Cantica or Songs of Solomon, Four Prophets the Greater, Twelve Prophets the Less.

All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account canonical.

GraceSeeker · Jun 10, 2014

And it is helpful to understand what is meant by calling something "canonical." The canon is that which is sufficient as a law for faith and practice. That is, the canon provides us that which is both necessary and sufficient to develop and guide our faith. The question of its inerrancy, its infallibility, even its inspiration no longer needs to be asked, let alone determined, when know that it is sufficient as it presently is to help us grow in and practice how we live out the faith that we have.

GraceSeeker · Aug 5, 2014

I came across this commentary on the Bible today. I found it helpful. It is a short read and I think that many who struggle with how to understand scripture might find it helpful as well...

Commentary: Bible not a book but a library - The United Methodist Church

BryanW92 · Aug 5, 2014

GraceSeeker said:
I came across this commentary on the Bible today. I found it helpful. It is a short read and I think that many who struggle with how to understand scripture might find it helpful as well...

Commentary: Bible not a book but a library - The United Methodist Church

He's right. Every time I've ever tried to read the bible, I'm done by Leviticus. But, reading each book separately enabled me to cover the whole bible eventually and some books are worth reading ten or twenty times for one read of others.

Inerrant and Infallible

Senior Member

Senior Member

Hey look, it's a squirrel!

Senior Member

Hey look, it's a squirrel!

A Recovering Fundamentalist

Senior Member

Hey look, it's a squirrel!

Senior Member

free Crazy Liz!

Newbie

A Recovering Fundamentalist

Senior Member

Newbie

raschau

Guest

United Methodist

Senior Member

Senior Member

Hey look, it's a squirrel!

Similar threads