Scripture: Authoritative? future poll

[laptoppop]

I'm about to start a new poll, but I want some help refining the choices. I want to represent the various positions without rancour. Here's what I have so far:

Scripture is authoritative and accurate in all matters in the original writings -- God communicating to us through men

Scripture is authoritative and accurate in all matters in the king james version (included for kjv only folks)

scripture is authoritative and accurate for all spiritual matters in the original writings -- God communicating to us through men, but not necessarily scientifically accurate

scripture is a source for us to learn about spiritual things, but is not authoritative and accurate -- men sharing insights they have about God

other: please explain
(I hesitate to put this in here -- by definition, all TEs will choose this one! <grin>

edit: note: this will also be a thread to hash out "errors" in the Bible as part of the discussion

Thanks

 

[relspace]

other: please explain
(I hesitate to put this in here -- by definition, all TEs will choose this one! <grin>

Actually the one below is pretty good. I would go for it.

scripture is authoritative and accurate for all spiritual matters in the original writings -- God communicating to us through men, but not necessarily scientifically accurate

 

[Assyrian]

Make it an 'allow multiple choice' or you will split votes for authoritative in the original writings and authoritative in the king james version.

How about:
Scripture is authoritative and accurate in all that God was actually communicating.

So, Jesus was not communicating a literal crime report in The Good Samaritan, he was communicating what it meant to be a neighbour. The sun standing still for Joshua was not intended to teach geocentrism, not was it intended to show how God worked that day. It was intended to tell of God's mighty power and the victory he gave the Israelites.

 

[Pats]

Scripture is authoritative and accurate in all matters in the original writings -- God communicating to us through men

To the best of my knowledge, I really like this one alot. Except *grin* I would add that since man is technically "fallible" and the Scripture came to us from God but through man, there is the possibility of falability in scripture.

But that's just my humble opinion.

 

[chaoschristian]

I'm about to start a new poll, but I want some help refining the choices. I want to represent the various positions without rancour. Here's what I have so far:

Scripture is authoritative and accurate in all matters in the original writings -- God communicating to us through men

Scripture is authoritative and accurate in all matters in the king james version (included for kjv only folks)

scripture is authoritative and accurate for all spiritual matters in the original writings -- God communicating to us through men, but not necessarily scientifically accurate

scripture is a source for us to learn about spiritual things, but is not authoritative and accurate -- men sharing insights they have about God

other: please explain
(I hesitate to put this in here -- by definition, all TEs will choose this one! <grin>

edit: note: this will also be a thread to hash out "errors" in the Bible as part of the discussion

Thanks

that you stopped to think about how to define the terms, laptoppop, puts you one more step closer to TEism.

trouble is these three words: inerrant, infallable, authoritative.

Originally, I was taught that the difference between scriptural inerrancy and scriptural infallibility is that the inerrancy pov holds that scripture is withou any error of any kind on any subject, as opposed to infallability which holds that God's divine truth speaks clearly out of scripture regardless of any errors in the content or the medium. But in my time on CF I've seen the live blurred quite a bit, and the two terms are interchangable as far as I am concerned.

Authoritative is also troublesome, because just as you have used it in this poll there is an element of inerrancy/infallability imbedded in the term, whereas I would hold to authoritative but not necessarily either inerrant or infallable.

Looks like another trip to Othersville for me on this one.

I look forward to the discussion though.

 

[Pats]

that you stopped to think about how to define the terms, laptoppop, puts you one more step closer to TEism.

*grin*

trouble is these three words: inerrant, infallable, authoritative.

It's all about definitions with you

I look forward to the discussion though.

Speaking of that, CC, I miss debating with you

 

[gluadys]

Originally, I was taught that the difference between scriptural inerrancy and scriptural infallibility is that the inerrancy pov holds that scripture is withou any error of any kind on any subject, as opposed to infallability which holds that God's divine truth speaks clearly out of scripture regardless of any errors in the content or the medium. But in my time on CF I've seen the live blurred quite a bit, and the two terms are interchangable as far as I am concerned.

I was further taught that "infallible" was originally restricted by the first Reformers to matters of faith and morals.

Historically, it is also important to remember that the infallibility of scripture was lifted up as an alternative to the RC claim for the infallibility of the Church. By attributing infallibility to scripture itself, the Reformers sought to free scripture from the authoritative "infallible" interpretation of scripture by the magisterium of the Church.

Authoritative is also troublesome, because just as you have used it in this poll there is an element of inerrancy/infallability imbedded in the term, whereas I would hold to authoritative but not necessarily either inerrant or infallable.

I agree. I would separate the terms "authoritative" and "accurate". I do not think "authoritative" necessarily implies complete accuracy. If this choice

scripture is authoritative and accurate for all spiritual matters in the original writings -- God communicating to us through men, but not necessarily scientifically accurate

were amended to:

--scripture is authoritative for all spiritual matters--God communicating to us through men, but not necessarily accurate in all matters

I could agree with it.

You will notice I have also left out reference to the original writings. I think that is relevant only for inerrancy and of no importance if one does not adhere to inerrancy.

Also I would not restrict any failing of scripture solely to scientific matters. I think that the scriptures, especially the OT, sometimes display a primitive and less than accurate theology as well as science.

 

[chaoschristian]

I was further taught that "infallible" was originally restricted by the first Reformers to matters of faith and morals.

Historically, it is also important to remember that the infallibility of scripture was lifted up as an alternative to the RC claim for the infallibility of the Church. By attributing infallibility to scripture itself, the Reformers sought to free scripture from the authoritative "infallible" interpretation of scripture by the magisterium of the Church.

Thank you for pointing that out. It does flavor the notions a bit.

I agree. I would separate the terms "authoritative" and "accurate". I do not think "authoritative" necessarily implies complete accuracy. If this choice <snip quote>

were amended to:

--scripture is authoritative for all spiritual matters--God communicating to us through men, but not necessarily accurate in all matters

I could agree with it.

You will notice I have also left out reference to the original writings. I think that is relevant only for inerrancy and of no importance if one does not adhere to inerrancy.

Also I would not restrict any failing of scripture solely to scientific matters. I think that the scriptures, especially the OT, sometimes display a primitive and less than accurate theology as well as science.

Limed for agreement.

And on everything else Gluadys.

 

[Assyrian]

What's wrong with 'inspired'?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Since I suspect this is going to be another evolution thread, I sense that the issue is not whether Genesis is authoritative or not - virtually all Christians on all "sides" of this issue believe it is. The "issue" is whether every possible meaning we see is meant, whether Scripture is true in every possible sense seen by the reader. Thus, it's a hermeneutics issue, not an authority issue.


Just my $0.005...


Blessings!


- Josiah

 

[billwald]

Scripture is sufficient for matters of morals and religious practice.

 

[Melethiel]

scripture is authoritative and accurate for all spiritual matters in the original writings -- God communicating to us through men, but not necessarily scientifically accurate

This is probably the closest to what I would say.

 

[Willtor]

I'm about to start a new poll, but I want some help refining the choices. I want to represent the various positions without rancour. Here's what I have so far:

Scripture is authoritative and accurate in all matters in the original writings -- God communicating to us through men

Scripture is authoritative and accurate in all matters in the king james version (included for kjv only folks)

scripture is authoritative and accurate for all spiritual matters in the original writings -- God communicating to us through men, but not necessarily scientifically accurate

scripture is a source for us to learn about spiritual things, but is not authoritative and accurate -- men sharing insights they have about God

other: please explain
(I hesitate to put this in here -- by definition, all TEs will choose this one! <grin>

edit: note: this will also be a thread to hash out "errors" in the Bible as part of the discussion

Thanks

As Assyrian suggested, I like the idea of multiple choice. Then you can do interesting breakdowns of the data. As a suggestion, given your examples, you seem interested in spiritual authority, non-spiritual authority, and a touch o' the interest in KJV-ism.

1. The Scriptures are generally reliable in spiritual/doctrinal matters.
2. The Scriptures are infallible in all spiritual/doctrinal matters.
3. The Scriptures are inerrant in all non-spiritual matters (e.g. science).
4. The Scriptures are intended to teach spiritual/doctrinal matters.
5. The Scriptures are intended to teach non-spiritual matters (e.g. science).
6. The KJV 1611 is the best English translation of the Scriptures.
7. Scripture is exclusively in the proper understanding of Scriptural texts.
8. The Holy Spirit dictated specific words to the original authors for them to use.
9. I have another point to make because I am a TE (and I will go into painful detail below).

Presumably, someone who selects 3 will also select 1 and 2. But I wouldn't mind seeing the relation between the intent of Scripture and the ways in which it is useful.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

scripture is authoritative and accurate for all spiritual matters in the original writings -- God communicating to us through men, but not necessarily scientifically accurate

This is not bad, after all the Bible itself only claims to be sufficient for matters of spirituality and church practices.

I would drop the word &#8220;originals&#8221; however, since there are none known and any speculation on what the might or might not say is just that, speculation.

 

[shernren]

As Assyrian suggested, I like the idea of multiple choice. Then you can do interesting breakdowns of the data. As a suggestion, given your examples, you seem interested in spiritual authority, non-spiritual authority, and a touch o' the interest in KJV-ism.

1. The Scriptures are generally reliable in spiritual/doctrinal matters.
2. The Scriptures are infallible in all spiritual/doctrinal matters.
3. The Scriptures are inerrant in all non-spiritual matters (e.g. science).
4. The Scriptures are intended to teach spiritual/doctrinal matters.
5. The Scriptures are intended to teach non-spiritual matters (e.g. science).
6. The KJV 1611 is the best English translation of the Scriptures.
7. Scripture is exclusively in the proper understanding of Scriptural texts.
8. The Holy Spirit dictated specific words to the original authors for them to use.
9. I have another point to make because I am a TE (and I will go into painful detail below).

Presumably, someone who selects 3 will also select 1 and 2. But I wouldn't mind seeing the relation between the intent of Scripture and the ways in which it is useful.

6. The KJV 1611 is the best English translation of the Scriptures.

Whenever I feel remotely lit-ish I'm sure I agree completely with this statement, and yet I'm no KJVO. I think your intents would be more accurately represented by:

6. The KJV1611 is the sole divinely-authorized English translation of the Scriptures.

 

[Willtor]

Whenever I feel remotely lit-ish I'm sure I agree completely with this statement, and yet I'm no KJVO. I think your intents would be more accurately represented by:

6. The KJV1611 is the sole divinely-authorized English translation of the Scriptures.

It might be worthwhile to have both in a poll and see what people think about translation issues. I certainly think the KJV has the most beautiful and poetic language, but I don't think it stands up very well to other translations in terms of precision of meaning, or even in the quality of the manuscripts used to construct the Textus Receptus.