What part of 'ALL' cannot be understood?

[seebs]

You see, we have something called faith. It means we trust that God has preserved His Word, and in Christ we have hope of Glory. Meanwhile, according to you and other liberals, the entire Bible could be a hoax, and Christ could be a fraud, because God apparently doesn't care enough about us to make sure the Bible was preserved down through the ages.

Friend, I object to this line of reasoning, because it presupposes that we know God's goals and desires.

What if the Bible is preserved, but still contains writings of men who might in some cases have colored God's will with their own beliefs? It's still preserved fine, but this would imply a need to search the text diligently for truth, aware that it would be easily possible to misunderstand the text.

However, I mostly object to the characterization of errantist beliefs as "God apparently doesn't care enough about us". This has the emotional overtones of a child's angry demand that, if only his parents really loved him, they would act in a certain way which seems reasonable to him.

What if God, caring for us more than we can comprehend, chooses to give us something other than what we want? Should we dismiss this as impossible because it would show that God doesn't care, or should we search to find the way in which this course of action is in fact superior?

It seems to me that, until we have fully explored the question, we do not actually know what level of errancy God would tolerate in Scripture. From the teachings of Jesus on divorce, we can infer that some of the Hebrew understanding of law and God's intent was in fact the teaching of Moses. Jesus does not say "Because of the hardness of your hearts, God suffered you to put your wives away." He attributes this decision to Moses. From His simple declaration -- "From the beginning it was not so." -- we find that Moses did not fully reflect God's will in this.

Do not be too hasty to dismiss the possibility that, wanting us to develop and grow, to pass from milk to meat, God would choose to give us a text that we must chew on a bit to get the full benefit. Some of that might seem like flawed or erroneous teaching... But this ultimately holds no more water than accusations that the parables Jesus taught with are useless to us because they are not genuine factual accounts, but rather stories told to illustrate a point.

To assert that the Bible must be inerrant in every factual claim to be of use to us is no more plausible than insisting that, if the exact dialogue given in the story of the prodigal son did not occur in some family's life, precisely as depicted, we can no longer use the story to consider the relationship between grace and justice.

Peter warns us that, in the writings of Paul, there are "things hard to be understood". A hermeneutic which teaches that a layman's first effort at reading a passage in translation is the revealed truth contradicts the sense of this passage entirely. If Scripture were that simple, the Bereans wouldn't have had to search the Scriptures, only to skim through them quickly once and be done with it.

 

[B®ent]

My point, Seebs, is that IF the Bible contains errors and/or lies, then 2 Timothy 3:16 is a lie, and therefore the Bible cannot be trusted. Theological liberalism makes a mockery of the Bible.

 

[kopilo]

Error and lies are not one or the same. For many people they read the hebrew and greek versions of the bible because that is the closest we have to a non translated version.

 

[ebia]

My point, Seebs, is that IF the Bible contains errors and/or lies, then 2 Timothy 3:16 is a lie, and therefore the Bible cannot be trusted.

Um, no it doesn't follow. 2 Tim says all the OT (it isn't talking about the NT) is useful, not that it's all error free.

Theological liberalism makes a mockery of the Bible.

No, it makes a mockery of a particular understanding of the bible.

The NT provides an illustration of which OT laws are moral, cultural, and political. The moral laws remain valid to this day.

The NT says quite explicitly exactly the opposite - that the OT Laws have to be taken as a whole - you keep them all or you break them all. You even said so yourself further down:

He came not to revoke a single letter of the Law

 

[seebs]

My point, Seebs, is that IF the Bible contains errors and/or lies, then 2 Timothy 3:16 is a lie, and therefore the Bible cannot be trusted.

Hmm.

I think I disagree with this on two grounds.

The first is that I do not believe that errors make 2 Timothy 3:16 itself incorrect (it couldn't be a lie unless Paul were saying it despite knowing it false).

The second is that, even if we concede that 2 Timothy 3:16 is just plain wrong, we still have adequate justification for trusting the Bible on at least some claims.

Let's review the text.

King James Version

The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Timothy, Chapter 3, Verses 16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.​

World English Bible

Paul's Second Letter to Timothy, Chapter 3, Verses 16-17
Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.​

Douay-Rheims Bible

The Second Letter to Timothy, Chapter 3, Verses 16-17
All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.​

(Added verse 17 so we're looking at a full sentence.)

I do not believe that factual errors contradict the claim made here. Many of the claims in the Bible are instructive for reasons other than factual accuracy. The parables are a second-order example; it is instructive to us to consider them, even though we understand that the events described in a parable may not have happened.

However, consider the teaching of Moses, that men may put away their lives, and the teaching of Jesus, that it is not so. If we simply take these at face value, Moses was wrong.

So. Here's the Bible:

The Fifth Book of Moses, called Deuteronomy, Chapter 24, Verse 1

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.​

And here's Jesus, again in the Bible:

The Gospel According to St. Matthew, Chapter 19, Verses 7-8
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.​

So. Let's just imagine that we don't use any of the traditional dodges. We just say "wow, I guess that verse in Deuteronomy is wrong."

Okay. It's wrong. Is it no longer profitable for teaching, for correction, or for instruction in righteousness? By no means! This verse, read as a part of the whole of Scripture, tells us things about the nature of leadership, about the concessions we make to cultural norms or the desires of those with power. This verse is excellently instructive, and useful in attempting to "thoroughly equip" the man of God for every good work.

But now on to the second argument. The argument is, if 2 Timothy 3:16 is wrong, we have no reason to trust the Bible. This is in error. Many people offer 2 Timothy 3:16 as a reason to trust the Bible, but it is not the only reason. The Sermon on the Mount is reason enough to many; reading it, we see something greater than ourselves, and feel ourselves called to God's service. This is a much better reason to trust the Bible than a verse claiming inspiration. Just about every holy text claims to have been inspired by God; that a text should make such a claim is totally irrelevant to an evaluation of it.

But when you search the text and find truth in it, then you have a much better reason to trust it.

Whom do you trust more? A man who has always told you the truth, even at cost to himself, or a man who reassures you at length that he is completely trustworthy?

Scripture may be trustworthy in matters of faith and morals without being inerrant on factual claims of no relevance. I don't care whether the Hebrews could count the legs on a grasshopper, or knew whether or not rabbits chewed cud. I just don't care. I do, by contrast, care whether or not I must love my enemy. Making the second claim depend on the first would be silly.

 

[Polycarp1]

I have no problem with II Timothy 3:16. However, that verse which B(r)ent quoted in post #1 and Seebs again in post #165 is not what Paul wrote. I made that point very early on in this thread, but nobody seems to be discussing it.

 

[seebs]

I have no problem with II Timothy 3:16. However, that verse which B(r)ent quoted in post #1 and Seebs again in post #165 is not what Paul wrote. I made that point very early on in this thread, but nobody seems to be discussing it.

You are perhaps getting at the distinction between "All scripture is inspired" and "All scripture which is inspired"?

 

[ebia]

You are perhaps getting at the distinction between "All scripture is inspired" and "All scripture which is inspired"?

I think he's getting at the point that Paul probably didn't write the letter to Timothy.

 

[seebs]

I think he's getting at the point that Paul probably didn't write the letter to Timothy.

Well, yeah, but who cares? Paul's more fun to talk about than "the guy who wrote this".

 

[Athene]

Bah, I really hate it when people tell me what I must be thinking, I'm a liberal christian therefore I must believe the bible to be full of errors and lies and to be absolutely useless. Nonsense.

I believe 100% that the bible was inspired by God, I don't on the other hand believe that God used Paul and Matthew and the other authors like you or I would use a pen, and that they had no control over what they wrote - unless we are also to believe that God on occasion will remove our free will whenever it suits.

But I do believe the bible was inspired by God, people today write things inspired by God, poems, stories, songs. Paul, Matthew, Mark, they were touched by God, they loved God, they wanted to write about God, to share their experiences, to share the knowledge that God had imparted into them - and yes I consider the writings useful, profitable for teaching, correction and instruction, but I'm not going to make the gross error of believing that these people were not in control of themselves when they wrote and that they were free from any prejuidces and world views of their own and that their writings are free from such.

 

[RealityCheck]

Hmm.

I think I disagree with this on two grounds.

The first is that I do not believe that errors make 2 Timothy 3:16 itself incorrect (it couldn't be a lie unless Paul were saying it despite knowing it false).

The second is that, even if we concede that 2 Timothy 3:16 is just plain wrong, we still have adequate justification for trusting the Bible on at least some claims.

Let's review the text.

King James Version

The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Timothy, Chapter 3, Verses 16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.​

World English Bible

Paul's Second Letter to Timothy, Chapter 3, Verses 16-17
Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.​

Douay-Rheims Bible

The Second Letter to Timothy, Chapter 3, Verses 16-17
All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.​

(Added verse 17 so we're looking at a full sentence.)

I do not believe that factual errors contradict the claim made here. Many of the claims in the Bible are instructive for reasons other than factual accuracy. The parables are a second-order example; it is instructive to us to consider them, even though we understand that the events described in a parable may not have happened.

However, consider the teaching of Moses, that men may put away their lives, and the teaching of Jesus, that it is not so. If we simply take these at face value, Moses was wrong.

So. Here's the Bible:

The Fifth Book of Moses, called Deuteronomy, Chapter 24, Verse 1

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.​

And here's Jesus, again in the Bible:

The Gospel According to St. Matthew, Chapter 19, Verses 7-8
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.​

So. Let's just imagine that we don't use any of the traditional dodges. We just say "wow, I guess that verse in Deuteronomy is wrong."

Okay. It's wrong. Is it no longer profitable for teaching, for correction, or for instruction in righteousness? By no means! This verse, read as a part of the whole of Scripture, tells us things about the nature of leadership, about the concessions we make to cultural norms or the desires of those with power. This verse is excellently instructive, and useful in attempting to "thoroughly equip" the man of God for every good work.

But now on to the second argument. The argument is, if 2 Timothy 3:16 is wrong, we have no reason to trust the Bible. This is in error. Many people offer 2 Timothy 3:16 as a reason to trust the Bible, but it is not the only reason. The Sermon on the Mount is reason enough to many; reading it, we see something greater than ourselves, and feel ourselves called to God's service. This is a much better reason to trust the Bible than a verse claiming inspiration. Just about every holy text claims to have been inspired by God; that a text should make such a claim is totally irrelevant to an evaluation of it.

But when you search the text and find truth in it, then you have a much better reason to trust it.

Whom do you trust more? A man who has always told you the truth, even at cost to himself, or a man who reassures you at length that he is completely trustworthy?

Scripture may be trustworthy in matters of faith and morals without being inerrant on factual claims of no relevance. I don't care whether the Hebrews could count the legs on a grasshopper, or knew whether or not rabbits chewed cud. I just don't care. I do, by contrast, care whether or not I must love my enemy. Making the second claim depend on the first would be silly.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to seebs again.


​

 

[Polycarp1]

What I was getting at is that the overwhelming majority of English translations, including that which Brent used, are not what Paul wrote. Those "is"es are not italicized for emphasis; that's the standard KJV (and some other texts) way of indicating "These words have been introduced into the translation, and are not present in the original."

Why not? Because 3:16 is a string of modifiers tagged onto the main clause of the sentence in 3:15. Where Paul is telling Timothy to keep in mind the (Jewish) Scriptures he was taught in childhood, all of them able to make him wise unto salvation, inspired and useful for doctrine, reproof....

It's not a magic self-endorser for the Bible as a whole. Unless you care to lift it out of context, supply those missing verbs, and use it as a weapon to slap down liberals.

 

[kopilo]

I agree.
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Athene again."

 

[seebs]

What I was getting at is that the overwhelming majority of English translations, including that which Brent used, are not what Paul wrote. Those "is"es are not italicized for emphasis; that's the standard KJV (and some other texts) way of indicating "These words have been introduced into the translation, and are not present in the original."

Yes! I was hoping someone knew that.

Why not? Because 3:16 is a string of modifiers tagged onto the main clause of the sentence in 3:15. Where Paul is telling Timothy to keep in mind the (Jewish) Scriptures he was taught in childhood, all of them able to make him wise unto salvation, inspired and useful for doctrine, reproof....

It's not a magic self-endorser for the Bible as a whole. Unless you care to lift it out of context, supply those missing verbs, and use it as a weapon to slap down liberals.

And part of the problem is that it's not clear where to supply the verbs. That could be a restriction ("all Scripture-which-is-inspired") or a statement ("all Scripture is inspired").

 

[outlaw]

You see, we have something called faith. It means we trust that God has preserved His Word, and in Christ we have hope of Glory.

And we also have the God given gift of our minds and the gift of a personal relationship with God. the mind lets ups look at clams and reason things for our selves and our relationship with the Divine lets us bypass any written word or anyone who claims authority over how we (or anyone) can have a relationship with God.

Meanwhile, according to you and other liberals, the entire Bible could be a hoax, and Christ could be a fraud, because God apparently doesn't care enough about us to make sure the Bible was preserved down through the ages.

According to me?

Wow…I didn’t know that…


You don’t know what a relief it is having you tell me what I believe and think because apparently I am just to stupid to know that for myself.