Bible Question:
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 |
Bible Answer: 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 |