Why do we have to believe all 66 books are inerrant?

[Philip]

It is quite foolish to not believe in Gen 1-9 literally.

Why is that?

I believe the Bible, do you? [Emphasis Oblio]

I'll second Oblio's comment. I believe the Bible, all of it. I do not, however, necessarily agree with your own interpretation.

Philip, what fallacy is this that I have underlined ?

I think I'll classify it as an Appeal to (Personal) Authority. Clearly, the author is appealing to her own authority to interpret Scripture. Further, she assumes that said interpretation is correct. It could be argued that it is a subtle ad homemin, but I'll stick with my first answer.

 

[Reader Nilus]

An interesting article on Creationism is Can an Orthodox become an evolutionist? by By Deacon Andrew Kouraev, Russian Orthodox Church I find it very interesting that Fr Andrew finds evangelism difficult after the students have been exposed to the claims of creationists.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Philip]

For example, in a book I am currently reading by Friedman, he puts forth the idea that the Bible from Genesis through to the court history of Kings was originally built around what he believes to be the first book of prose ever written. This prose would be what scholars refer to as "J".

JEP Theory has been largely discreditted.

 

[PreacherFergy]

God presented Gen. 1-9 as literal, so I accept them as literal. It is not my "interpretation," it is the fact of the matter. If God has implied that Gen. 1-9 were allegorical, I would believe it, but however He didn't. Paul surely didn't think of it as an allegory in Romans 5. I suppose you have a ulterior motive for teaching that it is allegorical. Perhaps you are a proponent of theistic evolution ???

 

[Philip]

God presented Gen. 1-9 as literal, so I accept them as literal. It is not my "interpretation," it is the fact of the matter.

He did? Do you have a Scriptural reference for that? If not, then it is most definitely an interpretation.

If God has implied that Gen. 1-9 were allegorical, I would believe it, but however He didn't.

Sure He did. The very style of the text implies it. All of God's creation, which testifies to Him, shows that it is allegorical.

Paul surely didn't think of it as an allegory in Romans 5.

The same allegory that explains Genesis works in Romans as well.

I suppose you have a ulterior motive for teaching that it is allegorical. Perhaps you are a proponent of theistic evolution

I do not interpret Genesis as allegory because I am a theistic evolutionist. Rather, I see theistic evolution as a possibility because I understand Genesis as allegory.

 

[Oblio]

God presented Gen. 1-9 as literal, so I accept them as literal. It is not my "interpretation," it is the fact of the matter.

Where is this fact presented ?

 

[PreacherFergy]

The burden of proof lies on you to prove that Gen 1-9 is allegorical. So what if Augustine thought of it as allegorical? It is presented as actual history. Only by eisegesis could you think that Gen.1-9 is allegorical.

 

[PreacherFergy]

I think I'll classify it as an Appeal to (Personal) Authority. Clearly, the author is appealing to her own authority to interpret Scripture. Further, she assumes that said interpretation is correct. It could be argued that it is a subtle ad homemin, but I'll stick with my first answer.

First of all, I have no idea why you are referring to me as a "she." For w/out a doubt, I'm a guy.

Secondly, it doesn't matter if you call it a red herring, straw man, or whatever you wish, you are beating around the bush of answering the question, where in Gen. 1-9 does it imply it is to be interpreted as allegorical? No doubt you started to believe this after it was taught to you by some liberal (German rationalist, perhaps).

I'm about to leave for work, so I won't be able to make any more replies until about 11pm or so (eastern time).

Jonathan

 

[Oblio]

The burden of proof lies on you to prove that Gen 1-9 is allegorical.

You stated God presented Gen. 1-9 as literal. We are asking where this is stated explicitly in Scripture as being literal.

 

[Philip]

Secondly, it doesn't matter if you call it a red herring, straw man, or whatever you wish, you are beating around the bush of answering the question,

Actually, I did answer it. I said I believe the Bible, just not your interpretation of it.

where in Gen. 1-9 does it imply it is to be interpreted as allegorical?

Again, as I stated, all of God's creation shows us that the text is allegorical. Further, the style of the text suggests that it is allegory.

No doubt you started to believe this after it was taught to you by some liberal (German rationalist, perhaps).

Actually, it was an Orthodox priest. He is certainly not liberal. To my knowledge, he knows nothing of German Rationalism.

Now, as to your claim that God presented it as history, can you offer any evidence of this?

 

[SolomonVII]

Philip,
You stated that JEP theory was largely discredited? Please tell me more. Which scholars have discreditted this theory?

 

[Reader Nilus]

Philip,
You stated that JEP theory was largely discredited? Please tell me more. Which scholars have discreditted this theory?

It may have been modified, but the idea of sources is still valid. JEDP: Sources in the Pentateuch by Dennis Bratche
Jeff the Finn

 

[filosofer]

Archeology and Biblical scholars such as Richard Friedman are making great strides in providing us with a fuller understanding of the books of the Bible. For example, in a book I am currently reading by Friedman, he puts forth the idea that the Bible from Genesis through to the court history of Kings was originally built around what he believes to be the first book of prose ever written. This prose would be what scholars refer to as "J".
The Bible undoubtedly contains history, but it is more than mere history. Reading any of its 66 (or 80) books and just looking at the most literal interpretation impedes the reader from making more than the most shallow interpretation of the fullness of scripture. Like any great work of literature, the Bible contains a great depth. To tap into this depth we must go beyond the surface of a completely literal interpretation and look for meaning in its great themes that have inspired our civilisation for the past three thousand years.

Because someone begins the task of understanding and interpreting the text with the literal, unless the context demands figurative, meaning does not deny or devalue the deptho fthe text. To take the text seriously is to wrestle with the forms as well as the grammar/syntax. Thus, someone who accepts that Genesis 1-11 is specifically history has not automatically forfeited the understanding of the fullness of the text. Thus, while this section does provide a counterpoint to the Babylonian stories, does not demand that the Biblical story has to be "myth" or allegory. And for someone to claim that the text is allegorical does not "add" deeper meaning to the text; if anything, that imports meanings not present, which distorts the original text.

Incorrect. Rather, I claimed that the text of Genesis 1 demands an allegorical interpretation.

What in the text demands an allegorical interpretation? The Hebrew style is that historical narrative, the same style used in other historical books in the OT.

You stated God presented Gen. 1-9 as literal.
We are asking where this is stated explicitly in Scripture as being literal.

Well, this goes back to the original point I made: your starting point is that you assume the text is allegorical. Nowhere else do we in communication automatically assume that something is allegorical. And even if it were, which it is not, allegorical, the basis for allegorical interpretation is that the text is historically accurate and tied to that history. In other words, even the advocates of the allegorical method, originally did not deny the historicity of the events in the text; in fact, they accepted that as the starting point. And then proceeded to "add" to the historical understanding.

Again, as I stated, all of God's creation shows us that the text is allegorical. Further, the style of the text suggests that it is allegory.

No, so far you have only stated that that is what you believe/think; it is only your interpretation that claims that "all of God's creation shows us that the text is allegorical." However, having read the Hebrew of Genesis for the past 20+ years, I don't find that in the "style" at all. And even "critical" scholars admit that the style is narrative.

 

[gdigger777]

All we have and all we do in Christ, is by faith . If we spent more time seeking His face, instead of analyzing His Word, we would get more accomplished for His Kingdom. Satan's most infamous words, when it comes to certain things in the Bible, are, "How can this be true?" Sound familiar? Many "believing churches", get themselves caught up more in trying to figure God out, than telling people what God is all about! Amen? Food for thought. How much time had transpired between creation and Cain's sin? How many people had been born? As far as fish in the sea, please note, Genesis 6:6&7, The Lord was grieved that He had made man on the earth, and His heart was filled with pain. So the Lord said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth--men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air--for I am grieved that I have made them." No reference to aquatic life. Point being, it's okay to do a theological perspective on the Bible, but don't get of the path of what our mission is.
I hope this helps some.
Go with God and share Jesus,

gdigger777

 

[artybloke]

And for someone to claim that the text is allegorical does not "add" deeper meaning to the text; if anything, that imports meanings not present, which distorts the original text.

Hmmmm... problem is that Genesis 1-11 cannot be literal because it doesn't fit the known facts of the universe. God reveals himself in the universe and science shows us how God created. If certain understandings of the Bible have been falsified by an examination of the evidence, then they are no longer available as possibilities.

For much of the Bible, it doesn't really make much difference either way: the meaning of the book of Job won't alter much if you say it's factual or fictional. With Genesis 1-11, it does matter: because a literal meaning either makes God a liar in the Bible or in the universe (the universe looks old from any angle you care to look; so if it's really only a few thousand years old, then we're being decieved.) So a factual understanding of Genesis 1-11 doesn't make sense, and it has to be allegorical, mythical, poetic or whatever adjective you choose that indicates its non-literal meaning.

The Hebrew style is that historical narrative, the same style used in other historical books in the OT.

Actually, I respectfully disagree. Genesis 1 has a poetic structure, with the use of repetition, parallelism and refrain of a liturgical chant. It is not a straight historical narrative; in fact, nowhere in the OT is there a strict prose narrative, except in such tales as Ruth and Jonah. Jonah in particular has a fabular structure, with a somewhat abrupt ending. Methinks a course in literary genres might help.

 

[SolomonVII]

All we have and all we do in Christ, is by faith . If we spent more time seeking His face, instead of analyzing His Word, we would get more accomplished for His Kingdom. Satan's most infamous words, when it comes to certain things in the Bible, are, "How can this be true?" Sound familiar? Many "believing churches", get themselves caught up more in trying to figure God out, than telling people what God is all about! Amen? Food for thought. How much time had transpired between creation and Cain's sin? How many people had been born? As far as fish in the sea, please note, Genesis 6:6&7, The Lord was grieved that He had made man on the earth, and His heart was filled with pain. So the Lord said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth--men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air--for I am grieved that I have made them." No reference to aquatic life. Point being, it's okay to do a theological perspective on the Bible, but don't get of the path of what our mission is.
I hope this helps some.
Go with God and share Jesus,

gdigger777

Welcome to Christian Forums,gdigger777. This is the same thread I made my first post in too, way back in September. I never expected to see it popping back up again. ( I'll have to read what I wrote, to see if 9 months of CF have changed my attitude any.)

 

[inquisitor_11]

If we are, as christians, to base our belief in the inerrancy of the Bible simply on "our faith in the inerrancy of the Bible", then we could just easily justify accepting the Koran and the Veda's (as the inerrant and inspired Word of God) by that same "faith" in their inerrancy...

Not knowing much about either biology or geology, I've tried to approach our origins with a fairly open mind. The single biggest thing that has pushed me away from creationist approaches has been seeing creationists get their science smashed by atheistic and theistic evolutionists and continually falling back on "You don't believe the bible, your going to burn in hell 'cause you don't agree with us".

 

[wonder111]

I hear you inquisitor. I think a lot of people want to read the bible like a newspaper when not all of it is presented that way, and I'm glad it's not

 

[SolomonVII]

Inerrancy itself is an ambiguous term. So far after the fact, it is hard to determine what parts of the Bible were clearly historical, and which were spiritual contemplations and commentary about the important and earth shaking events of the times.

If by inerrant, one means that the Bible is a history in the modern sense of the word, for many of it becomes not a question of disbelieving that through God, all things are possible; but a question of probabilities given our modern vantage. For example, if the choice given to the teenage student is to believe the bible, or believe evolution, as a matter of their own sensibilities, many will turn away from even God.

Thankfully, for most churches, this interpretation of the Bible is not necessary. One can still have faith in God, and follow a scientific analysis of the natural world to what seems the most logical conclusions.

Unfortunately, even if my first post above at CF tended to be a somewhat liberal reading of scripture, many of my subsequent posts have been more in line with those who hold more literal views of biblical interpretation. Unlike many posters here who share my liberal interpretations, the profound faith that the Bible is the Word of God professed by those of a more fundamentalist mindset would never consider uttering comments like "yaweh is a monster", or "your hitler god" that Christians describing themselves as liberal have all too often argued here. With statements such as these, I must step back.

Apparently, the danger of rejecting the fundamentlaist point of view of the Bible is that by doing so the seriousness of the message, or the inspirational quality of scipture in its fullness can often be too easily dismissed.

Just as even today, Christians are using scripture to bring spiritual meaning to the multi-dimensional, or holographic theories of the universe that physicists are contemplating, it does no discredit to the Bible that it reflects the natural worldview of the times in which it were written. The intent was never purely historical or scientific, but instead to reveal the hand of God in the both natural and human worlds, as they were understood at the time. The ultimate focus was never our own world, but to redirect us towards God's Heavenly Kingdom. Whether the world is flat, holographic, or 10-dimensional are therefore merely secondary considerations.

Inerrancy in my view need not mean understanding the Bible as an infallible history or a scientific account of the origins of the natural world. It does however entail that the fullness of scripture- including the Letters of Paul and the Old Testament- are to be regarded as a true representation of the Divine presence in our lives. It also entails that, rather than disrespecting scripture by interpreting it according to our own particular view, we seriously endeavour to discover the intent of the original writers first.

 

[verismo]

...

At first I was confused as to why you are being so confrontational, then I realized my faux pas. Trent WAS a Catholic Council, and did include the Apocrypha! (As do the Anglicans and many Orthodox Churches.)

Nevertheless, to argue the point of whether the Apocrypha really belongs in the Bible only solidifies my initial problem: Even here we can't agree on what constitutes "THE" Bible!!!

...

Here's the truth, the Bible is a book that belongs to the Catholic Church. Why? They created its makeup, and declared that makeup to be inspired of God, and infallible. If you believe in the concept of "The Bible" you are believing in a Catholic concept. It is only "The Bible" because they said it is. The Bible does not assert that fact, the Church did.

As to the "Apocrypha", it does belong. Why? Well, it has always been there, Jesus used it, Paul used it, and quotes it in the New Testament, it is the Old Testament of the Christian people, and the Jewish People up to the 4th century. Martin Luther, in a stunning display of arrogance, changed the Protestant Bible to use rather that modern day Jewish Jamnian version, created hundreds of years after Jesus' death. These are facts that are not in dispute.

So, how do we know that it is "the Bible", only because the Church tells us it is. To believe on the Scriptures is to believe on Christ's Church (Mt 16:16-18). And what you believe in at that point is what Paul directed us to do: "...hold to the traditions you were taught by us, rather oral or by letter."

If the Bible were the only authority on Earth, it would have to assert that fact. It doesn't. Rather, as stated here before, the Bible names the earthly authority, in 1 Tim 3:15, "The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth." It exercised that power when it gave us the Bible. The Church gaves us the Bible, not the other way around.