Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9823 | ||
I am somewhat disappointed by the rhetoric that has been flying back and forth here. Some of the responders need to take a step back and remember that Christian charity and courtesy go hand in hand. That said, I'm going to try to respond to what legitimate comment I could filter out. 1. In regard to II Timothy 3:16, please read the verse carefully. Nowhere does it state, suggest, or imply that all Scripture is literally true. It says that Scripture is "inspired". That does not have to mean factual. It's just not there, folks. If it's not there, don't put it there. It is inspired. I believe that. It's not all literally true. 2. In many areas of the Bible,it's accepted by almost everyone that literal fact is not being served up. Examples: a. Mat. 1:17 - there were 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus. Really? That doesn't jive with what we know of Jewish history. But it does jive with the commonly-held practice at the time of adjusting geneoligies of prominent persons so they worked out to a multiple of 7 and/or 3 - significant numbers in Jewish numerology. b. Luke 3:23-38. 73 generations from Jesus to Adam. Really? Only 73 generations from CREATION to 27 A.D.?! Hmm, but there's that 3 and 7 again. c. Song of Solomon. Are we really supposed to take that book literally? Really? Or is it as some believe an allegory of Gods' love for His Church? Or is is simply one of the most beautiful erotic love poems ever written? d. Job 1:2. 7 sons and 3 daughters. Hmm, there are those numbers again. Did he really have 10 children? e. Matt 3:5-6 "Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea, and all the district around the Jordan; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins." Really? Everyone in Jerusalem and all of Judea? All of them? Approximately 2,000,000 people baptized by John? Or just literary license by the narrator? f. Psalms. What about Psalms? Hymns of praise, stories of grief, lamentations,and joy. Written to specific meter, and sometimes to fit acrostic patterns in the original language. Are they all literally true? Did God really make David lie down by still waters, and set up a table for him in the presence of his enemies? Did David really write all the Psalms that "tradition" assigns to him? Or are they the incredibly beautiful "praise and worship" songs of pre-Christianity. g. Revelation. Literally true? OK, first tell me what it MEANS, and then perhaps we could have a discussion about literal truth. Recognize, of course, that you'll be the first person in 2,000 years who will successfully make that claim. Or is Revelation apocalypic literature, and should be treated as such? I'm sorry, but before anyone stands up and defends the Bible as 100 percent "literally" true, they need to take a good look at everything they're defending. Did not Jesus Himself used the time-honored form of parable to deliver His messages? Or do you really believe that there was a man who built his house on a foundation of sand? I'm appending here a quotation from a good friend of mine, who is a pastor and holds a doctorate in New Testament Studies. He is one of the most solid, Biblically founded Christians I know: "Are the gospels first century history? Biography? Novels? All kinds of possibilities crop up with no certain answers. And all this resides in the realm of answering the question of "what the Bible meant." It's a whole new ballgame when we start talking about "what the Bible *means*. It's one thing to say this book is historical. But it's another thing to attribute theological truth to it because of it. Or, on the other hand, it's one thing to deny a books historicity and ipso facto say that there is no theological truth! One of the standard arguments about some of the so-called problems with the Bible is that these books are religious literary works. They are not meant to be scientific. (A concept that would have certainly been foreign to the original writers and readers. It seem a bit cultural-centric to say that all previous generations could not relate to the scriptures so that we could.) As a corollary to this, that means that each of the gospel writers may have said something not merely because "it was so," or because it made a better book, but rather, they said it this way because it strengthened their theological rhetoric. What all Bible readers (even non-believing ones)would agree with is that the gospel writers wanted to convince their readers that Jesus Christ is Lord. And we know, historically, that just about anyone who could write was trained in rhetoric." I simply don't see the conflict. Read intelligently, the Bible is a rich collection of history, parable, allegory, poetry, hymn, and wisdom literature. It is all inspired. It is all of the things outlined in II Timothy 3:16. It is the only source for theological truth. That doesn't make it all literally true. Yours in Christ, Jim D. |
||||||
2 | Who is the Source of Inspiration? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9866 | ||
Greetings Jim! I haven't been involved in this thread as of yet! (I don't think!) But, I did want to respond to your post. There seems to be two theological problems with your position. 1) The Source of Inspiration: As you pointed out, 2 Tim. 3:16 does not say specifically that Scripture is without error. However, it does say that Scripture is God-breathed. So, the source of Scripture is God. If this is true, then how could a God, who knows all things and who cannot lie, be the source of error? 2) The Meaning of Literal: The second problem concerns your use of the word literal. Some use a different definition than I do, but I think most of us simply use the term literal in the following sense. "Scripture means what the author intended for it to mean." Therefore, if an author uses hyperbole, we should interpret his statement as hyperbole. If an author uses an estimate, we should interpet his statement as an estimate. However, this is a far cry from saying that these statements are errors. None of your examples illustrate a single error, but do illustrate quite a bit of opinion. a) and b) are both assumptions, we simply do not know exactly how many generations were involved. However, if Matthew or Luke used an established practice of listing a geneology, how does this equate with a error? c) What definition of literal do you use here? If it was written as an allegory, isn't reading it as an allegory taking it literally? d) Another assumption! The only historical record we have of Job says that he had 7 sons and 3 daughters. Is there another source that shows this one to be in error? e) Here is a good example of what is means to be literal. Mt. lists all of the areas from which people were coming to John (a city-wide crusade so to speak). Nothing in the passage says that every indivdual was present, only the regions. f) Again, we take the Psalms literally when we interpret them according to how they were written. They are songs of praise and prayers. Many of them may be based upon actual events, but they are not intended to be read as history, but as prayer or praise. Concerning David, if the text says he wrote a Psalm, what evidence is there that he didn't. g) Again, we take Revelation literally, when we interpret it according to how it was written. It was apocolyptic literature. However, that doesn't make it false. Jim, I havent' read all of this thread yet. Maybe you have explained your definition before, but would you mind explaining to me what you mean by 'Literal?' It would help to make sure that all of your responders are debating your actual position. Thanks! In Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Who is the Source of Inspiration? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9928 | ||
Tim - I think some of this I've covered in another response to one of your posts, but I want to flesh out answers to a couple of the questions you asked. As I say elsewhere, we appear to be very much in agreement on all of this. Interpreting Scripture as it was written is exactly what I'm talking about. In reviewing everything that's been posted, I have come to believe that what I've managed to get everyone upset about is something I NEVER said. People seem to be insisting that I'm saying that because I believe, for example, that the Creation story isn't "literally" true - I don't believe that it necessarily happened day by day, blow by blow the way it's written in Genesis - that I'm therefore saying that the Bible is in error. That's simply not true! The Bible can't be in error - it is Inspired. But it can be something other than "factual" - not in message, but in method. The Bible isn't a dry recitation of "facts", it's story and song and poetry and beauty and glorious tales - all of it god-breathed and suitable for teaching and instruction. That doesn't make it flawed or full of errors - that makes it what it is - unique, holy and beautiful. I'm a little bit uncomfortable with your definition of "literal", only because it's kind of the opposite of what I've heard before. I thought that to take something "literally" is to take it exactly as it's written. To interpret it, on the other hand, is to take into account the authors' intent when it was written. So, for example, to say "he has the manners of a dragon" would mean literally that someone does in fact have draconian manners (g), while the interpretation of that sentence would perhaps be "he is a crude and voracious person." I hope this helps you and everyone else understand what I'm trying to say. Thanks again for being willing to take the time to ask reasonable questions, and provide helpful insight. Yours in Christ, Jim Dunne |
||||||
4 | Who is the Source of Inspiration? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9939 | ||
Greetings Jim! I too had the impression that you were trying to say one thing, but it was sort of coming out a different way. I'm glad that you have had to opportunity to come back and clarify your position. This is an excellent leason for all of us on the Forum. We must be very careful how we say things. We must also define our terms. For instance, in this particular thread there were two definitions (or more) of literal being used. The result was that communication wasn't really taking place. Concerning my definition, it is a simple definition that I have worked out over the years which I think most who believe in inerrancy would agree with! The word 'literal' has a lot of baggage associated with it in our day. It is hard to pin down. Even in your example, you said that if someone "had the manners of dragon," taking that literally would mean that someone has draconian manners. However, you could also make the case that taking that literally means the person is a dragon. I like my definition (no bias here :-).) It is simple and gets to the heart of the matter. We need to read Scripture for what it is. If it's history, we read it as history. If it's poetry, we read it as poetry. If it's a parable, we read it as a parable. To me, that is taking Scripture literally. Thanks for your response! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Who is the Source of Inspiration? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 10009 | ||
Tim - Agreed. 100 percent. Although I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with saying that someone with the manners of a dragon really was a dragon! (g) Take care, Jim D. |
||||||