Home | Forum | Arcade
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
davelarge
Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 219
Location: Left a bit... Right a bit...
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:38 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I'm not sure I understand what an 'unbiblical supposition' is. It seems to me to be impossible to read anything without making some kind of assumption about what you're reading, even if it's just at the level of what language the text is meant to be.
Claiming that one can read without interpretation is also rubbish. Consider the sentence "He was green". It could mean at least three things:
1) The character in question is a cartoon character and his skin is actually coloured green;
2) The person is ill;
3) The person is envious.
How do you choose between these? You look for evidence in the text around the sentence and choose the interpretation which best fits. The point is that the bible is no different from any other text in this context - you have to apply some kind of assumption in order to gain any meaning from the words on the page.
Have I completely got the wrong end of the stick? How can it be possible to read without making this kind of assumption?
davelarge
_________________
Penguin-powered |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Covenanter
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 1446
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| davelarge wrote: | I'm not sure I understand what an 'unbiblical supposition' is. It seems to me to be impossible to read anything without making some kind of assumption about what you're reading, even if it's just at the level of what language the text is meant to be.
Claiming that one can read without interpretation is also rubbish. Consider the sentence "He was green". It could mean at least three things:
1) The character in question is a cartoon character and his skin is actually coloured green;
2) The person is ill;
3) The person is envious.
How do you choose between these? You look for evidence in the text around the sentence and choose the interpretation which best fits. The point is that the bible is no different from any other text in this context - you have to apply some kind of assumption in order to gain any meaning from the words on the page.
Have I completely got the wrong end of the stick? How can it be possible to read without making this kind of assumption?
davelarge |
In the Genesis context, unbiblical presuppositions are information that is accepted concerning origins, the age of the earth, evolution, etc, & reading that into the Genesis account. The days then become ages, & without form & void is allowed to imply judgement of an earlier creation, resulting in the fossil record. (See Scofield.)
There are also Biblical presuppositions that are dubious. The Pharisees repeatedly judged Jesus against the Law, (particularly the Sabbath law) and condemned him. Paul was condemned by those who insisted on circumcision as a perpetual covenant sign.
_________________
May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will ... (Hebrews 13:20-21) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tangent
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you for the quotations, theophilus.
| -theophilus- wrote: | | I think the only recent development is "Fundamentalism", elevating the literal interpretation of Genesis into dogma it seems. But the literal interpretation of Genesis itself certainly has heritage. I'd even say that it was the prevalent view amongst the Early Church Fathers. And I must say that their scriptural interpretation carries a lot of authority with me, and of course the Church. |
Yes, there have been Christians such as St Augustine who have not taken a literal view and Christians such as those you have quoted who do. That different viewpoints were accomodated is admirable. My bone of contention, as you have admirably put, is that Fundamentalism elevated the literal interpretation to dogma, which is enathema to me, and it is this dogma that is killing the church.
On the Internet, Christians love to debate this subject but I do not. I think it detracts from the urgent purpose of our mission which is to spread the Good News, and to my mind the literal debate does the opposite. It is turning people away from Christ when our mission is to turn them to him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtheb
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 1452
Location: second childhood
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
While I agree that using innerancy as dogma is a negative thing, I would feel that the philosophy that only the parts that fit either what we want to believe, or fit our incomplete knowledge are accurate, is even more dangerous.
_________________
The effectiveness of a posting is inversely proportional to its length.
C.S.Craig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davelarge
Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 219
Location: Left a bit... Right a bit...
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
But innerancy isn't the dogma that we're talking about. The point tangent was making was about literal innerancy. I think that the two are quite different.
_________________
Penguin-powered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtheb
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 1452
Location: second childhood
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
My second comment still applies.
_________________
The effectiveness of a posting is inversely proportional to its length.
C.S.Craig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davelarge
Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 219
Location: Left a bit... Right a bit...
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
So, if one believes that the Bible is inerrant, but accepts that it is not literally inerrant, one must decide what assumptions one will take when reading it.
If these assumptions are applied consistently then surely that's a cohesive approach, isn't it?
The only remaining piece of the puzzle is to decide how to work out what assumptions you're going to apply to the interpretation. I suspect this is the point at which we're in danger of finding that our logic is circular: We need the Bible to decide on our assumptions, but we can't claim Biblical infallibility until we have those assumptions.
Now what?
_________________
Penguin-powered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bobbyc
Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 1367
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| davelarge wrote: | | But innerancy isn't the dogma that we're talking about. The point tangent was making was about literal innerancy. I think that the two are quite different. |
Dave, I'm not sure I fully understand the distinction you are making. Can scripture be allegorically or symbolically inerrant? Perhaps you could elucidate. Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davelarge
Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 219
Location: Left a bit... Right a bit...
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, absolutely it can be non-literally true.
The point to consider is what truth is in any particular context. To take an every-day example, the phrase "it's raining cats and dogs" is not very likely to be literally true, but it could certainly be non-literally true during a summer thunderstorm. The truth in the statement is not concerned with what the precipitation is, but how much of it there is.
I would argue that it's exactly the same with the Bible. To take the example of the creation accounts in Genesis. I would argue that they are not literally true, but that's not a problem, because the truth that they are meant to convey is not about how the Earth was formed. Their point is that God made creation, and God loves creation. From that point of view, it doesn't matter how God created, so any old story will do the job: The important point is that it was God that did it, and that He loves what he made.
Is that a bit clearer? I'll gladly try again if not!
davelarge
_________________
Penguin-powered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tangent
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Very clear, davelarge, and thanks for the illustration.
| jtheb wrote: | | While I agree that using [literal] innerancy as dogma is a negative thing, I would feel that the philosophy that only the parts that fit either what we want to believe, or fit our incomplete knowledge are accurate, is even more dangerous. |
I agree. I hope you don't think I'm doing that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtheb
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 1452
Location: second childhood
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No Tangent I wasn't accusing you of doing that.
Just that the reaction to inerrancy is often a selectivity that destroys things.
_________________
The effectiveness of a posting is inversely proportional to its length.
C.S.Craig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Covenanter
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 1446
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| davelarge wrote: | So, if one believes that the Bible is inerrant, but accepts that it is not literally inerrant, one must decide what assumptions one will take when reading it.
If these assumptions are applied consistently then surely that's a cohesive approach, isn't it?
The only remaining piece of the puzzle is to decide how to work out what assumptions you're going to apply to the interpretation. I suspect this is the point at which we're in danger of finding that our logic is circular: We need the Bible to decide on our assumptions, but we can't claim Biblical infallibility until we have those assumptions.
Now what? |
The Bible comprises different types of literature, in the OT it comprises straightforward history, religious ritual, laws for behaviour, food & sacrifices, hymns, love songs, prophecy, warnings, etc. The NT has 5 books of history including teaching, letters to churches, & prophecy. Are these all equally literally inerrant?
Are Jesus' parables stories with a point, or was there really a man who fell among thieves & was rescued by a Samaritan? When Jesus declares that he is the way, the truth & the life, and the light of the world, do we need to ask what he means? Literal truth, or spiritual truth? There is a spiritual truth to be understood in the histories, but that does not give scope for error. 1 Cor. 10 shows a way of reading history.
The NT shows that the OT Scriptures point to Jesus & his saving work, & so give a guide to understanding the OT as spiritual truth.
I do not think we can simply take the creation account as a story, vis,
| Quote: | I would argue that it's exactly the same with the Bible. To take the example of the creation accounts in Genesis. I would argue that they are not literally true, but that's not a problem, because the truth that they are meant to convey is not about how the Earth was formed. Their point is that God made creation, and God loves creation. From that point of view, it doesn't matter how God created, so any old story will do the job: The important point is that it was God that did it, and that He loves what he made.
|
The account is written as history, & subsequent references to creation, including our Lord's & the commandments, take it a true record.
_________________
May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will ... (Hebrews 13:20-21) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davelarge
Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 219
Location: Left a bit... Right a bit...
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Covenanter
It's late, and I'm tired, so I'll try to answer you more fully in the morning. But for now, two points stand out to me from what you just wrote.
| Covenanter wrote: | | The Bible comprises different types of literature, in the OT it comprises straightforward history, religious ritual, laws for behaviour, food & sacrifices, hymns, love songs, prophecy, warnings, etc. The NT has 5 books of history including teaching, letters to churches, & prophecy. Are these all equally literally inerrant? |
I'm not claiming that any of it is necessarily literally inerrant. There are bits that I think are close enough to probably count - for example I think that the gospels get the gist of what was going on to the point that they could be considered history. But as for the narratives in the Old Testament, I really couldn't say.
This is what I mean when I say that I can't claim to fully understand how to read the Bible. I don't claim to have a fool-proof way of telling how to interpret any one particular portion of scripture, although I will acknowledge that some bits seem to be easier than others.
This is partly why I started this thread - to try and think a bit more deeply about the problem.
| Covenanter wrote: | | The account is written as history, & subsequent references to creation, including our Lord's & the commandments, take it a true record. |
I would take issue with the statement that it is written as history. At least in the NIV, the first chapter is typeset as poetry, and although I wouldn't claim that as a definitive proof that it is poetry, it's enough to make me stop and think twice.
As for the references that Jesus made to the creation stories, I think it's pretty obvious that He could have done little else. Can you imagine him sitting down with Peter for a physics lesson? No, Jesus worked within the allegorical framework so that he would be understood. The fact that Jesus refers to Adam and the rest of the story doesn't prove anything about its literal truth.
davelarge
_________________
Penguin-powered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Covenanter
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 1446
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dave,
I subscribe to the FIEC doctrinal statement, which includes:
| Quote: | 2. THE BIBLE
God has revealed himself in the Bible, which consists of the Old and New Testaments alone. Every word was inspired by God through human authors, so that the Bible as originally given is in its entirety the Word of God, without error and fully reliable in fact and doctrine. The Bible alone speaks with final authority and is always sufficient for all matters of belief and practice.
|
I further believe that the Bible we have is substantially the Bible as given, & can be relied on.
Areas where Bible believers disagree include:
Creation
Eschatology
the future of Israel
church government
church - state relationship
baptism
the sovereignty of God in salvation
Christians & unbelievers have killed & been killed because of their beliefs in such items, apart from persecution for their faith in Christ.
_________________
May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will ... (Hebrews 13:20-21) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davelarge
Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 219
Location: Left a bit... Right a bit...
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Covenanter wrote: | I subscribe to the FIEC doctrinal statement, which includes:
| Quote: | 2. THE BIBLE
God has revealed himself in the Bible, which consists of the Old and New Testaments alone. Every word was inspired by God through human authors, so that the Bible as originally given is in its entirety the Word of God, without error and fully reliable in fact and doctrine. The Bible alone speaks with final authority and is always sufficient for all matters of belief and practice.
|
I further believe that the Bible we have is substantially the Bible as given, & can be relied on. |
I too believe that "the Bible as originally given is in its entirety the Word of God, without error and fully reliable ... in doctrine". You'll notice the bit that I've left out is the only part of this statement which even remotely refers to the interpretive method which should be applied to the text.
This is my point - I'm not trying to argue that the Bible isn't right, but I want to think about in what sense the Bible is right!
davelarge
_________________
Penguin-powered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
