Seperating Metaphor from Literal Truth.

[shernren]

So yes. Why is it that, if the heavens and the earth were created in Genesis 1:1, that only the earth was formless and void in Genesis 1:2? This is a very interesting question, and the answer is apparent no matter how uncomfortable you may be with it.

 

[busterdog]

No, I said that the text does not teach geo-centrism; it assumes it. Or the author chooses to use that perspective as an accommodation to his audience. Neither of these would be as strong as an affirmation of geo-centrism.

I thought about this a while after posting. If the writer chooses to adopt an idiom, then all we have is an idiom and very little information about what the writer thought about the nature of things. So, it would seem that you and I were saying the same thing from different perspectives.

I was about to address the idea that the passage could be "true enough" while speaking within the idiom of the times. But, you made the point yourself very clearly and effectively.

Unfortunately, I was speaking past you and addressing the idea that we measure the knowledge of the writer or his inspiration (ie, the BIble is not inerrant in these passages) on the basis of his audience. (I will accept for sake of argument that the audience was geocentric, since I don't think it matters greatly as long as we are not demanding that the writer be as ignorant as his audience.)

Now what we need is a set of rules that tells you when the writer is simply illustrating a point by idiom and when what some have taken to be an idiom (ie, six days of creation or the flooding of eretz) is really the point of the passage and literal truth.

If I am not mistaken, some others posting seem to be of the opinion that the text itself contains the ignorance of the writer. Said otherwise, the text itself is of human authorship and its divine inspiration goes no farther some general spiritual principles and is not capable of being extend to historical facts outside of the experience of the writer.

 

[busterdog]

I think science comes into play only in the case of the geocentric language, because it seems to be the only reason to reject a literal reading of these passages.

For the others, I think there are good and sufficient reasons to justify a non-literal reading of these texts on theological grounds without an appeal to science.

What I do not think is justified is to reject science to save a literal reading in one instance, yet appeal to science to save a non-literal reading in another instance. There is no consistency in rejecting science to save a literal reading of 6-day creation or a global flood, yet appealing to science to reject a literal reading of a geocentric cosmos.

I think the text itself makes the distinction without science. What we need is a reliable means of making that distinction. All of us are tempted to look at the "answers" in the back of the book before answering. If the YEC view is correct about what scripture purports to be, the text itself should tell you when metaphor is in view and when literal history is intended. We should be able to put our worldview aside long enough to really make an accurate observation. That is a scientific principle as well.

 

[shernren]

If the writer chooses to adopt an idiom, then all we have is an idiom and very little information about what the writer thought about the nature of things.

But if we accept your way of thinking, the idiom made it into Scripture; the writers' ideas about the nature of things didn't. If you believe that what is in Scripture is important to us and what isn't, isn't, then why should you think the writers' ideas about the nature of things is important?

 

[gluadys]

I thought about this a while after posting. If the writer chooses to adopt an idiom, then all we have is an idiom and very little information about what the writer thought about the nature of things. So, it would seem that you and I were saying the same thing from different perspectives.

One thing I think we both agree on is that God knew the geocentric cosmos was not what he created. So at some level there was an accommodation to the geocentric perspective.

I don't think it is particularly important whether God revealed the true nature of cosmological structure to the writer, who then chose to use the current idiom so that his more important theological points would not be obscured by the unfamiliar perspective, or whether the writer held the geocentric perspective himself and God accommodated his revelation to that for the same reason.

As shernren says, a non-geocentric perspective did not make it into scripture in either case. Though I do think the latter is more probable.

Unfortunately, I was speaking past you and addressing the idea that we measure the knowledge of the writer or his inspiration (ie, the BIble is not inerrant in these passages) on the basis of his audience. (I will accept for sake of argument that the audience was geocentric, since I don't think it matters greatly as long as we are not demanding that the writer be as ignorant as his audience.)

If we don't accept that the audience was geocentric, we have the problem of how the information on the inaccuracy of geocentrism was lost for millennia until retrieved by Copernicus. Of course, the idea of heliocentrism is much older than Copernicus, having been raised by some Greek philosophers. But these were lone voices and their ideas were, at the time, rejected by their contemporaries. As far as I know there is no historical record of an ancient society that did not by and large assume geocentricity. If the Hebrews were ever an exception to that, we have no record of when they were or when and why they gravitated to the same geocentrism as their neighbours.

I don't understand why it should be a problem if the author was as ignorant as his audience on this point. Obviously he was not as ignorant as his audience on the matters which God wished him to speak of, but there doesn't seem to be a reason for the Holy Spirit to endow an author with basically incidental information on scientific matters not to be discovered by ordinary means for hundreds to thousands of years in the future.

Now what we need is a set of rules that tells you when the writer is simply illustrating a point by idiom and when what some have taken to be an idiom (ie, six days of creation or the flooding of eretz) is really the point of the passage and literal truth.

I doubt if there is or can be a rule. Perhaps some guidelines. One I would propose is the theological purpose of the author. Does the controversial item play a significant role in that purpose and what is that role?

Most of the geocentric passages are part of texts in praise of creation/the Creator. While geocentrism is the framework which gives shape to this praise, it is not a theologically important framework. No matter what relationship our perceptions of the cosmos bear to the reality of its structure, the cosmos itself is a wonder and a marvel that elicits praise for its Maker. So the use of a contemporary idiom does not detract from the principal theme and focus of the writer.

In the case of the creation account, the six days do have an important theological purpose, but it is not a chronological or historical purpose. Nor is there an indication (as with geocentrism) that this is a matter of using a common idiom. Other creation accounts do not specify six days--not even other creation accounts in the bible. The six/seven day sequence is unique to this author and so has importance to this author which he wishes to convey to his audience.

If I am not mistaken, some others posting seem to be of the opinion that the text itself contains the ignorance of the writer. Said otherwise, the text itself is of human authorship and its divine inspiration goes no farther some general spiritual principles and is not capable of being extend to historical facts outside of the experience of the writer.

Yes, that would be my position. I would say it is not so much the text that is inspired as the writer. Consider how Luke describes his research into the life and doings of Jesus. It sounds like a very ordinary human endeavour. Indeed, I expect he thought it was. Just as Paul probably thought of his letters as being an ordinary form of communication and nothing really special. I think inspiration provides the impulse to communicate, and/or to commit the communication to writing, and also provides the conviction of what God's will is in terms of what must be communicated whether as warning or promise. But the translation of that inspiration into human words is the responsibility of the author and will take place within the capability, knowledge and world-view of the author and his audience. Nevertheless God places his blessing on this text and uses it to convey to all future generations the experience of his Word. So in a sense scripture recapitulates/anticipates the incarnation, in its union of divine and human aspects.

I think it noteworthy here that the Church has always referred to the scriptures as the word (singular) of God, not as the words (plural) of God. The words are not the words of God. The words are human, but the Word they reveal is divine.

 

[gluadys]

If the YEC view is correct about what scripture purports to be, the text itself should tell you when metaphor is in view and when literal history is intended.

Well, that is the big IF isn't it? You might consider what the implications are for YEC if it cannot be established from the text itself when metaphor is in view and when literal history is intended. What if no proposed rule gives us a consistent interpretation? Is that sufficient to falsify YEC?

 

[busterdog]

Well, that is the big IF isn't it? You might consider what the implications are for YEC if it cannot be established from the text itself when metaphor is in view and when literal history is intended. What if no proposed rule gives us a consistent interpretation? Is that sufficient to falsify YEC?

Then you can simply look at the world to tell what is true and what isn't. But, you will never be able to disprove by that method the inerrant view - - except by the circular reasoning that your assumptions, which validate themselves were correct in the first place.

 

[busterdog]

But if we accept your way of thinking, the idiom made it into Scripture; the writers' ideas about the nature of things didn't. If you believe that what is in Scripture is important to us and what isn't, isn't, then why should you think the writers' ideas about the nature of things is important?

So far, all I have is the "because it just is" argument to prove that the writer's idiom is the same as his world-view or understanding of nature. Normal language proves every day that this association of these two is not required by the same people who want to require it when it comes to the Bible. Evidence of what the Egyptians thought about the age of things or the sun or whatever is the lamest form of guilt by association, which is standard academic fare for the filling in the missing link. What is so alarming is the intense desire for that link to exist. Why does academia want it so bad?

 

[busterdog]

One thing I think we both agree on is that God knew the geocentric cosmos was not what he created. So at some level there was an accommodation to the geocentric perspective.

I don't think it is particularly important whether God revealed the true nature of cosmological structure to the writer, who then chose to use the current idiom so that his more important theological points would not be obscured by the unfamiliar perspective, or whether the writer held the geocentric perspective himself and God accommodated his revelation to that for the same reason.

As shernren says, a non-geocentric perspective did not make it into scripture in either case. Though I do think the latter is more probable.



If we don't accept that the audience was geocentric, we have the problem of how the information on the inaccuracy of geocentrism was lost for millennia until retrieved by Copernicus. Of course, the idea of heliocentrism is much older than Copernicus, having been raised by some Greek philosophers. But these were lone voices and their ideas were, at the time, rejected by their contemporaries. As far as I know there is no historical record of an ancient society that did not by and large assume geocentricity. If the Hebrews were ever an exception to that, we have no record of when they were or when and why they gravitated to the same geocentrism as their neighbours.

I don't understand why it should be a problem if the author was as ignorant as his audience on this point. Obviously he was not as ignorant as his audience on the matters which God wished him to speak of, but there doesn't seem to be a reason for the Holy Spirit to endow an author with basically incidental information on scientific matters not to be discovered by ordinary means for hundreds to thousands of years in the future.



I doubt if there is or can be a rule. Perhaps some guidelines. One I would propose is the theological purpose of the author. Does the controversial item play a significant role in that purpose and what is that role?

Most of the geocentric passages are part of texts in praise of creation/the Creator. While geocentrism is the framework which gives shape to this praise, it is not a theologically important framework. No matter what relationship our perceptions of the cosmos bear to the reality of its structure, the cosmos itself is a wonder and a marvel that elicits praise for its Maker. So the use of a contemporary idiom does not detract from the principal theme and focus of the writer.

In the case of the creation account, the six days do have an important theological purpose, but it is not a chronological or historical purpose. Nor is there an indication (as with geocentrism) that this is a matter of using a common idiom. Other creation accounts do not specify six days--not even other creation accounts in the bible. The six/seven day sequence is unique to this author and so has importance to this author which he wishes to convey to his audience.



Yes, that would be my position. I would say it is not so much the text that is inspired as the writer. Consider how Luke describes his research into the life and doings of Jesus. It sounds like a very ordinary human endeavour. Indeed, I expect he thought it was. Just as Paul probably thought of his letters as being an ordinary form of communication and nothing really special. I think inspiration provides the impulse to communicate, and/or to commit the communication to writing, and also provides the conviction of what God's will is in terms of what must be communicated whether as warning or promise. But the translation of that inspiration into human words is the responsibility of the author and will take place within the capability, knowledge and world-view of the author and his audience. Nevertheless God places his blessing on this text and uses it to convey to all future generations the experience of his Word. So in a sense scripture recapitulates/anticipates the incarnation, in its union of divine and human aspects.

I think it noteworthy here that the Church has always referred to the scriptures as the word (singular) of God, not as the words (plural) of God. The words are not the words of God. The words are human, but the Word they reveal is divine.

My burden is to defend inerrancy. I am not concerned about the audience. So, we have agreement about the early going of your post.

My other burden is for tendentious arguments. The cultural beliefs of the audience have been used by academics generally to try to show that the biblical writing was not inspired by God in its factual content. They are working against the argument that the BIble is unique. What happens is that we have a proposition that requires that you assume a context or data-set to in order to "debunk" it. So, you invalidate another view by the circular reasoning that your own world-view self-validates. I am not pointing the finger, I am just noting why I am trying to take such care on that point.

As for whether the evident purpose of a passage requires that an idiom be considered literal, I think you proposal is very sound indeed.

As for whether "six days" was intended to be literal, the question becomes how we define the purpose and context. I understand the argument. The question becomes, must we find the purpose announced specifically in the passage to apply your reasoning? Some have argued that this looks like a hymn, so it must have the same purpose. We are now on familiar ground: is there a surface text or isn't there? My argument is that there isn't a specific definition of purpose, as in the psalms, where the raw power of God is context for all that follows.

On the surface, IMHO, the primary questions are time and sequence in Gen. 1. There are no adjectives for God at all, which is different than the psalms. The opening phrase is about time, not God -- "In the beginning". In a way, this could be considered as a phrase out of order, since God should always be first. Iargue, that like the incarnation itself, it is for us, who are in time. Our frame of reference is the first subject, since God is reaching to us, exalting his Word above His Name.

Some corroboration appears in Exod. 20. God apparently could have taken a billion years, but six days suited us better - thus the week and sabbath -- a pattern made for us, not God.

But again, we must make a choice about surface text. I argue that your context is implied by world view - since the Word must make sense to our knowledge.

I argue that the Word tells you explicitly its context and purpose -- that is, time and sequence, which is the essence of "in the beginning." You can argue that this is a statement of power. Again, the power is implied. Elohim were otherwise alone, of course. But, the first information we receive is not Elohim's uniqueness, but the act of making is explicit, and not any adjective about Elohim's nature..

So, that which you reason upon is actually presents. It is not invented. So, I understand why the "surface text" is considered a tendentious argument. But, because it is only implied, as I argue, we have a surface text that is distinct from this implication and significant on its own terms -- terms of time and sequence.

 

[Deamiter]

So far, all I have is the "because it just is" argument to prove that the writer's idiom is the same as his world-view or understanding of nature. Normal language proves every day that this association of these two is not required by the same people who want to require it when it comes to the Bible. Evidence of what the Egyptians thought about the age of things or the sun or whatever is the lamest form of guilt by association, which is standard academic fare for the filling in the missing link. What is so alarming is the intense desire for that link to exist. Why does academia want it so bad?

I don't understand at all what you said in the first two sentences, but I do understand the latter and I think you're quite mistaken. We can infer many things about the ancient Hebrew culture based on extrabiblical sources. That the Hebrew people lived in Egypt and Assyria, and because the Bible repeatedly notes that many parts of these cultures worked their way into the Hebrew culture (sometimes against God's command, other times without problem) only reinforces the idea that it's not at all invalid to compare the cultures.

Heck, the Torah is attributed to Moses who was brought up as an Egyptian himself!

So when we suggest that because the Egyptians used an inflation of ages to honor their ancestors, it's not attributing guilt to either Egyptians, nor is it implying that the Hebrew people, who could very well have adopted the literary device, are somehow lesser or guilty for writing similarly to their captors!

The very idea that using an inflation of age to honor one's leaders or ancestors should imply guilt or a lie is an utterly post-enlightenment concept and to apply it to ANY culture in the ancient near east is to severely misrepresent their culture and values.

 

[gluadys]

My burden is to defend inerrancy. I am not concerned about the audience. So, we have agreement about the early going of your post.

The concern for the audience stems from the fact that we are dealing with communication. A communication that cannot be received by the audience fails in its purpose; hence the need to accommodate the capacity of the audience. This would always be true in any communication from God to humanity. The wisdom of the Creator far surpasses that of humans in any age, and God must, as it were, talk down to us as a parent to a child.

My other burden is for tendentious arguments. The cultural beliefs of the audience have been used by academics generally to try to show that the biblical writing was not inspired by God in its factual content.

And I am not concerned about those who seek to show the bible was not inspired. That is not where I am coming from.

They are working against the argument that the BIble is unique.

On the other hand, it cannot be so unique as to be outside the realm of human experience. Back to communication again.

What happens is that we have a proposition that requires that you assume a context or data-set to in order to "debunk" it. So, you invalidate another view by the circular reasoning that your own world-view self-validates. I am not pointing the finger, I am just noting why I am trying to take such care on that point.

I am not following you here. What proposition? What world-view? What circular reasoning?

As for whether the evident purpose of a passage requires that an idiom be considered literal, I think you proposal is very sound indeed.

Thank you, though I don't think I said "evident". I don't agree that the purpose is always clearly evident. Certainly not in the text. It often takes some digging into the historical context to figure out what it meant in that time and place.

As for whether "six days" was intended to be literal, the question becomes how we define the purpose and context. I understand the argument. The question becomes, must we find the purpose announced specifically in the passage to apply your reasoning?

As I see, it, no we don't necessarily find the purpose announced in the passage or even anywhere in the biblical text. It must sometimes be inferred from the text in conjunction with other evidence.

Some have argued that this looks like a hymn, so it must have the same purpose.

And let's be clear that this proposal is based on the Hebrew, not on the translation. Are you familiar with the arguments in its favour? Are you aware not only of the repetitions (which show up in translation) but also of the rhythmic elements which indicate an association with Hebrew music? I don't speak Hebrew myself, but those who do and have studied the text tell me that these exist. Even to unusual word choices made to fit the rhythm of the music.

We are now on familiar ground: is there a surface text or isn't there? My argument is that there isn't a specific definition of purpose, as in the psalms, where the raw power of God is context for all that follows.

I think the declaration of God's power is evident throughout the passage. Especially when the Hebrew term for "word" and "speak" includes the concept of the creative power to make what is spoken come to pass.

On the surface, IMHO, the primary questions are time and sequence in Gen. 1.

Do you think the author would agree? Or would the author perhaps say, "No, you have it all wrong. Don't you see that the primary question is one of who created the world? Not the gods of Babylon or Egypt, but the one living God who is the only God."

There are no adjectives for God at all, which is different than the psalms. The opening phrase is about time, not God -- "In the beginning". In a way, this could be considered as a phrase out of order, since God should always be first.

Ouch. That strikes me as classical ad hoc reasoning. The God should have primacy doesn't mean God must always be mentioned first. God is the subject of the verb, the actor. That is enough to put him first in every sense that is pertinent.

Iargue, that like the incarnation itself, it is for us, who are in time. Our frame of reference is the first subject, since God is reaching to us....

Basically, I agree with you there, but I don't think it follows that this means the time reference is what would matter to a chronologist or historian. For the Hebrews, frame of reference in respect of seven days is evidently the Sabbath. One of the inferred purposes of the account is to justify the Hebrew observance of the Sabbath.

... exalting his Word above His Name.

Speaking of assumptions, I set this phrase apart because I think it deserves special attention. It seems to me that you are making an assumption that "Word" here refers to a text. Is that right?

If so, to which text?

More fundamentally, why a text at all? In the NT we are introduced to a Word who is not a text and who was exalted. Is this possibly a prophetic reference to that Word?

In context, it seems to be referring to a word of power, for in the next phrase the psalmist thanks God for answering him in a time of need and giving him strength. Then he speaks of "the words of your mouth" not written words. And the words of God's mouth, as we know, are words that create, that give energy and salvation. So it is fitting that the psalm ends with a plea that God not forsake the works of his hands.

In short, I question whether the psalmist's phrase has anything to do with any text at all, much less specifically the text of Genesis 1.

Some corroboration appears in Exod. 20. God apparently could have taken a billion years, but six days suited us better - thus the week and sabbath -- a pattern made for us, not God.

It's not corroboration when it is the same person repeating the same thing. Corroboration requires evidence from a different source. Note that even under the Documentary Thesis, the author of Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 are the same person.

Furthermore, when you do look at other scriptural presentations of the Sabbath, it is not just a matter of a seven-day week. Sabbath is far more about justice than chronology. (I have been studying Sabbath theology for nearly a decade now.)

But again, we must make a choice about surface text. I argue that your context is implied by world view - since the Word must make sense to our knowledge.

I argue that the Word tells you explicitly its context and purpose -- that is, time and sequence, which is the essence of "in the beginning."

I think again that you are conflating "Word" with "scriptural text" and I am not comfortable with that. I do not agree that the text is explicit about its purpose, especially the sequential nature of the days. To me the liturgical meaning of the seven days is closer to the purpose.

You can argue that this is a statement of power. Again, the power is implied. Elohim were otherwise alone, of course. But, the first information we receive is not Elohim's uniqueness, but the act of making is explicit, and not any adjective about Elohim's nature..

God's uniqueness is implied by the fact that he is called "God" without a name. Polytheistic accounts had to name which god/dess was acting.

So, that which you reason upon is actually presents. It is not invented. So, I understand why the "surface text" is considered a tendentious argument. But, because it is only implied, as I argue, we have a surface text that is distinct from this implication and significant on its own terms -- terms of time and sequence.

Again I am not following you. What do you mean by "that upon which you reason"? What is not invented? What is only implied? How does the surface text differ from the implication?

Why do you think the surface text is about time and sequence? Does it occur to you that this reading of the surface text is based on your cultural conditioning? And therefore possibly does not concur with the writer's reading of the surface text.

 

[Deamiter]

My other burden is for tendentious arguments. The cultural beliefs of the audience have been used by academics generally to try to show that the biblical writing was not inspired by God in its factual content. They are working against the argument that the BIble is unique. What happens is that we have a proposition that requires that you assume a context or data-set to in order to "debunk" it. So, you invalidate another view by the circular reasoning that your own world-view self-validates. I am not pointing the finger, I am just noting why I am trying to take such care on that point.

Doesn't the inerrantist view also self-validate by assuming that the Bible must be inerrant and then assuming context or rejecting certain evidence or data in order to validate the assumption of innerancy?

If what we can establish about the cultural beliefs of the Biblical people counters inerrancy in details, why should that counter the message of the Bible? And where does the Bible claim to be different by way of factual inerrancy? To be useful for teaching and correcting on spiritual matters, does the Bible need to correctly describe the geometry or age of the universe?

In studying other religions as I believe all Christians must in our call to preach the good news to the world, I have found that there are indeed many differences between the Bible and other religious writings. Most of these, however involve human nature. For example, the Bible does not claim to be divinely dictated as the Qu'ran. The stories in the Bible are more supported by continuing evidence ("the 400 who saw Christ are still alive today") than by claiming to be perfect as they were written by God!

 

[busterdog]

Doesn't the inerrantist view also self-validate by assuming that the Bible must be inerrant and then assuming context or rejecting certain evidence or data in order to validate the assumption of innerancy?

If what we can establish about the cultural beliefs of the Biblical people counters inerrancy in details, why should that counter the message of the Bible? And where does the Bible claim to be different by way of factual inerrancy? To be useful for teaching and correcting on spiritual matters, does the Bible need to correctly describe the geometry or age of the universe?

In studying other religions as I believe all Christians must in our call to preach the good news to the world, I have found that there are indeed many differences between the Bible and other religious writings. Most of these, however involve human nature. For example, the Bible does not claim to be divinely dictated as the Qu'ran. The stories in the Bible are more supported by continuing evidence ("the 400 who saw Christ are still alive today") than by claiming to be perfect as they were written by God!

The Word does seem to be self-validating and we argue for nothing more -- unless we are talking about a prophetic track record, including the resurrection itself.

As for self-validation, or starting with an assumption of validity, as Bob Dylan said, you're gonna have to serve somebody -- epistemologically speaking.

There are lots of things the Bible doesn't need to speak of to validate itself. I am hard pressed to think of a Biblical description of the solar system -- but omission is different from error. If the omission reflects a general ignorance in the audience, that's fine. But, that circumstance does not prove error in Bible itself.

Lets first decide whether God is speaking in scripture. Having done that, we can decide whether or not it is inerrant. Again, we are making assumptions, but its one lots of us aren't real shy about and its one that can't be disproven or falsified.

Mat 24:35
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Mat 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
2Ti 3:16
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Num 23:19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

1Sa 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he [is] not a man, that he should repent.

Not coincidentally, none of the serious errors ascribed to the word have ever sustained scrutiny. There is a very small number of copyist issues. But, this is a far cry from error in an affirmative statement such as those that appear in Genesis.

Let me just say - there are mistakes in the Bible. There are very minor questions about the original hebrew. We have some copyist issues and obviously English translation issues. There is a human mechanism that has affected the original inspired word. But none of them change surfact text or import mistakes in world view or history. Let's also agree that a large portion of modern academic criticism is about an unlimited assignment of error -- that is, one that goes right to the resurrection itself, if not the existence of God. If we get a little jumpy, understand that we are speaking in that context in anno domine 2007.

You will recall that Jesus calls himself the "I AM", but never does he say I am God. If you ever had an argument with a Muslim about this you kind of wonder why Jesus didn't make it easier for you.

For You have exalted Your word above Your name - Psa 138:2 -

I just have a hard time thinking that a Word exalted about the names of God is one with mistakes of fact. And remember, the name of God itself is sufficient for salvation. With all else that has been said, must the Bible state its inerrancy in "better" terms?


Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Rev 19:15
And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

 

[Deamiter]

As for self-validation, or starting with an assumption of validity, as Bob Dylan said, you're gonna have to serve somebody -- epistemologically speaking.

Funny how your defense of your circular assumption of Biblical inerrancy is based on a rather arbitrary choice of "gonna have to serve somebody."

You do realize that half of those references to God speaking are not talking about scripture right? One is talking about the law which DOES claim to be directly from God and which the Hebrew people certainly thought was on a higher level than other spiritual wiritng. The passage in 2 Timothy doesn't suggest in any way that all scripture is written by God (or dictated by God) and thus must somehow be inerrant.

Certainly Paul considered contemporary writing on spiritual matters to be 'scripture' so doesn't the plain reading suggest that "scripture" can refer to any inspired writing and not just those we've collected in our Bible?

About contradictions not standing up to scrutiny, quite honestly, the mental gymnastics people play to accomodate texts that are contradictory in their plain meaning is quite unnecessary and even contradictory to a point of view that refuses to consider allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1 based on a "plain meaning" hermeneutic. One would do well to do away with the nonsense of inerrancy altogether given that it's not even a useful doctrine since our interpretation and understanding of these alledgedly inerrant scriptures could never be perfect anyway!

 

[busterdog]

Funny how your defense of your circular assumption of Biblical inerrancy is based on a rather arbitrary choice of "gonna have to serve somebody."

You do realize that half of those references to God speaking are not talking about scripture right? One is talking about the law which DOES claim to be directly from God and which the Hebrew people certainly thought was on a higher level than other spiritual wiritng. The passage in 2 Timothy doesn't suggest in any way that all scripture is written by God (or dictated by God) and thus must somehow be inerrant.

Certainly Paul considered contemporary writing on spiritual matters to be 'scripture' so doesn't the plain reading suggest that "scripture" can refer to any inspired writing and not just those we've collected in our Bible?

About contradictions not standing up to scrutiny, quite honestly, the mental gymnastics people play to accomodate texts that are contradictory in their plain meaning is quite unnecessary and even contradictory to a point of view that refuses to consider allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1 based on a "plain meaning" hermeneutic. One would do well to do away with the nonsense of inerrancy altogether given that it's not even a useful doctrine since our interpretation and understanding of these alledgedly inerrant scriptures could never be perfect anyway!

Well, hopefully we at least understand that the "circularity" is deliberate. I have yet to see an alternative.

As for the gymnastics, unfortunately, this is the equvalent of an dissertation on quacking and duck walking. Is it my fault that I need to explain the obvious?

Your salvation is based upon a similar form of reason. Why should your world view be based upon a stronger form of reason? There is no better a priori in this problem than there is for salvation. In fact, these problems are related in any event.

As for the immediate object of those several verses, I don't think there is a clear distinction between the law and all the rest of it.

 

[shernren]

So far, all I have is the "because it just is" argument to prove that the writer's idiom is the same as his world-view or understanding of nature. Normal language proves every day that this association of these two is not required by the same people who want to require it when it comes to the Bible. Evidence of what the Egyptians thought about the age of things or the sun or whatever is the lamest form of guilt by association, which is standard academic fare for the filling in the missing link. What is so alarming is the intense desire for that link to exist. Why does academia want it so bad?

We're not academia, and we don't need Scripture to be geocentric. We'd be entirely happy if the Bible had a whole chapter on how the earth goes around the sun. But the Bible doesn't. That's really the heart of it. We're interested in making the Bible say what it says. You're interested in making the Bible say what you want it to say. You want the Bible to be heliocentric, and to have a spherical earth, and to explain the scientific evidence better than modern theories do.

But why demand of the Bible something the Bible never demanded of itself?

Look at what you're trying to say here: "So far, all I have is the "because it just is" argument to prove that the writer's idiom is the same as his world-view or understanding of nature." Aren't you agreeing that the Bible indeed speaks from a geocentric idiom? That is what concerns us: the idiom the Bible uses is always geocentric and never heliocentric. Think about that for a moment. You believe that the Bible is verbally inerrant, and that God decided to include the geocentric idiom without including the worldview of the authors. You claim to be concerned about the Bible. Well, the geocentric idiom is in the Bible. Any views the authors had about the universe that might not have been geocentric, isn't. The Bible says it. Shouldn't you believe it?

 

[busterdog]

We're not academia, and we don't need Scripture to be geocentric. We'd be entirely happy if the Bible had a whole chapter on how the earth goes around the sun. But the Bible doesn't. That's really the heart of it. We're interested in making the Bible say what it says. You're interested in making the Bible say what you want it to say. You want the Bible to be heliocentric, and to have a spherical earth, and to explain the scientific evidence better than modern theories do.

But why demand of the Bible something the Bible never demanded of itself?

Look at what you're trying to say here: "So far, all I have is the "because it just is" argument to prove that the writer's idiom is the same as his world-view or understanding of nature." Aren't you agreeing that the Bible indeed speaks from a geocentric idiom? That is what concerns us: the idiom the Bible uses is always geocentric and never heliocentric. Think about that for a moment. You believe that the Bible is verbally inerrant, and that God decided to include the geocentric idiom without including the worldview of the authors. You claim to be concerned about the Bible. Well, the geocentric idiom is in the Bible. Any views the authors had about the universe that might not have been geocentric, isn't. The Bible says it. Shouldn't you believe it?

You may be unable to seperate an author's world view from idiom on this issue. I apply the rule generally that they should be presumed seperate for any other type of communication and there is no reason why this is a special case requiring that the possible ignorance of the audience must rule out the perfect knowledge of the Holy Spirit in every phrase and expression of Scripture -- excepting copyist issues, which are trivial.

I have not even looked for any argument that heliocentrism is expressed in scripture. (And its absence is an interesting issue.) My essential argument is that there is no sound argument for the proposition that Bible expresses geocentrism out of ignorance of the truth.

As for the context, we are in fact dealing with the question of whether the Bible contains significant points of ignorance. I am not aware of anyone here making that mistake about the resurrection. But, we do seem to have the inference here that such errors show us by their similarity that the author's ignorance about evolution is the reason for the description of Adam and Eve, for death entering with the fall and the six days of creation. There is a similarity to this pattern in denying King David was real, denying that Hezekiah ever dug a tunnel, confabulating a "reed sea" crossing for Moses and then denying the resurrection. I understand that the latter are distinct arguments rarely seen here.

I do find it interesting, particularly with Glaudys, that we get to more and more agreement the more we understand what the claims are about his particular phrase and the more we get to the essence of what is communicated in these passages about alleged geocentrism.

If these passages are telling us nothing about Gen. 1, 2, 3 and 6, is there much left to argue about?

In fact, I will give you this. There is a persistent bent in scripture toward being reader oriented, or man and earth-centered. That is, the Word is incarnate in our idiom and suited largely to our limited knowledge. (However, Ezekiel 1&2 is clearly speaking out of a different set of rules.) Obviously Jesus does similar things in being the Son of Man.

Not everyone here seems to think this man-centered, earth-centered idiom equates to factual error, but it seems to be one of the main reasons I guess why these threads get so long. This is important ground to be defended, assuming there is an attack. Maybe there isn't as much as we thought.

The other argument is that if a passage doesn't fit our reckoning, you just make it metaphorical. In many passages, we agree that this is an offense to Scripture. I extend this to argue that "geocentrism" gives no general license to argue as such in Gen. 1,2,3 and 6.

 

[shernren]

You may be unable to seperate an author's world view from idiom on this issue. I apply the rule generally that they should be presumed seperate for any other type of communication and there is no reason why this is a special case requiring that the possible ignorance of the audience must rule out the perfect knowledge of the Holy Spirit in every phrase and expression of Scripture -- excepting copyist issues, which are trivial.

So essentially, the author's worldview cannot have been geocentrist no matter what, even if his idiom was, simply because he was writing Scripture? How did you determine that?

 

[busterdog]

So essentially, the author's worldview cannot have been geocentrist no matter what, even if his idiom was, simply because he was writing Scripture? How did you determine that?

1. We are talking about the Holy Spirit.

2. No one can prove that it was likely to be a world view. Ordinary literary rules do not require it. The best reading from a purely literary critical view is that idiom only is the most reasonable reading, not world view.

 

[Deamiter]

1. We are talking about the Holy Spirit.

2. No one can prove that it was likely to be a world view. Ordinary literary rules do not require it. The best reading from a purely literary critical view is that idiom only is the most reasonable reading, not world view.

I think the question is, "Did you not come to this view that it is nothing more than an idiom because you have information from extrabiblical sources showing that the Earth is spherical and that it orbits the sun?"

Just as Martin Luther and centuries of Christians were certain that these passages were not mere idiom, isn't it possible that you are wrong about Genesis 1 being factual?

After all, you can't prove that a young earth was likely to be a world view. Ordinary literary rules do not require it. The best reading from a purely literary critical view is that allegory only is the most reasonable reading (of Genesis 1 and 2), not world view.