|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Importance of Innerrancy to Moderate Christians | |||||||||||||||||||||||
AlienInvader Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 48 From: MD Joined: |
quote:ok quote:ok... wait, wtf? mostly right, does not a holy text make, what you're implying is that, it's good enough, as a holy text? and people along the way, blew it's inerrancy out of proportion? quote:doesn't really, fit well, with what i've seen. Observation trumps theory ^_^. quote:it's disheartening to see their antics too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
salvation isn't supposed to be a "lesson" it's supposed to be a promise. A tale, a parable even, isn't good enough to qualify as a holy text, pandering in the salvation of souls. Sorry but that has nothing to do with whether or not the Bible is inerrant. Salvation is a whole different issue. But if you want to know my position of Salvation, one place to start is Message 1
actually, that's a whole different topic, my question isn't about which canon, that's unimportant, what i'm questioning is the source of belief regardless of the group of text. You asked about the importance of inerrancy. I simply asked if it is impossible for Christians to even decide what books are in or out of the Bible, how can the issue of whether the Bible is inerrant even be discussed? Which Canon constitutes the Bible is certainly important. Assume for a second that in court you were presented with several different copies of what was supposed to be the same contract. Suppose each of those contracts contained different material, and each was certified as being accurate, and each was purported to be the "TRUE and ACCURATE" version? Imagine in addition that one of those contracts had only five sections while another included those five as well as 40 more?
my question is about the why of the belief structure, and foundation, of those who don't "jump through loops" to reconcile the bible, but instead acknowledge it as flawed. Do they, as you do, consider it a moral guideline, one extended parable, and little else? and if so, how do they justify their belief in an afterlife with its only base in this extended parable? and if not, then what do they believe? First, do not think that I "consider it a moral guideline, one extended parable, and little else". It is quite a bit more than that. It is also a glimpse at a people as they grow, evolve and mature. It shows their thinking about life, GOD, society, their history and mythology, their traditions and customs, their hopes, asperations, fears, conflicts, failures and successes. Nor do I see the Bible as flawed. To assume I believe that is to misunderstand my position. But just as with anything else, we can try to use the Bible for other than what its intended purpose was, and that act may result in failure. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
AlienInvader writes: salvation isn't supposed to be a "lesson" it's supposed to be a promise. Not at all. What has already been given can not be "promised". It can only be used.
A tale, a parable even, isn't good enough to qualify as a holy text, pandering in the salvation of souls. And yet the Bible is chock-full of parables, and some of them are explicitly designated as parables. Take the parable of the prodigal son, for example. Though the son turned his back on his father, his father welcomed him back with open arms. There was never any promise of that. It was inherent in the father-son relationship described. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
what you're implying is that, it's good enough, as a holy text? and people along the way, blew it's inerrancy out of proportion?
Yes, that is indeed what I am saying. And that's why inerrancy should not matter to moderate Christians. It is only a problem for people who have made the scripture itself into their God (i.e. fundamentalists).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Did you know that taking the Bible at face value is a relatively new stance?
NONE of the church fathers took the entire Bible literally, they all interpreted the text to some degree. I have stated before, and I hope if I am wrong I can be corrected, that I cannot find anyone who says to take the Bible at face value before Martin Luther in the 16th century. Maybe other members know of someone, but I haven't seen any evidence. This 'gimmick' of having to contort reality to make the Bible inerrant is actually the product of a weak faith, these people do not trust the words in the Bible, they NEED external evidence because their faith in its accuracy is so weak. Imagine if they did find some evidence of Noah's flood, or an Exodus, or a Conqest, or a period of the Judges, or a united monarchy, or this or that, surely that would make Jesus' promises in the Bible just that little bit more believable. Nope, Bible inerrancy = weak Christian. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AlienInvader Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 48 From: MD Joined: |
... you are frustrating... i'm working from a hypothetical, so can you please not criticize my premise?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AlienInvader Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 48 From: MD Joined: |
quote: my issue is that, the bible itself isn't designated as one big parable, a large portion of the recounting is presented as truth... nonfiction if you will; or that's how it's taken.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AlienInvader Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 48 From: MD Joined: |
and what this further means is... i know a lot more fundamentalists than i do moderates... if we follow your criterion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
... you are frustrating... i'm working from a hypothetical, so can you please not criticize my premise? Sorry about that. No, not when the premise does not apply to the case under study. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AlienInvader Member (Idle past 4954 days) Posts: 48 From: MD Joined: |
lovely, for some reason though, i find it hard to believe that the period of the dark ages and the plague era where people believed in all sorts of rot, would not involve the belief in some form of inerrancy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
The KJV?
Not in my circle! Later translations are more easily understood. I even go so far as to use The Message transliteration when I talk to the juveniles...it speaks much clearer in thought for thought translation. My question regarding innerrency is not so much whether the word for word ideas are translated, but whether the thought for thought....the ideas and meanings...are important.
2 Peter 1:21-- For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
AlienInvader writes: my issue is that, the bible itself isn't designated as one big parable.... And nobody is suggesting that it is "all parable". One difference between an inerrantist and a moderate is that the moderate recognizes that there are sections that are the equivalent of parables but are not designated specifically as parables. The moderate recognizes that a parable doesn't have to say, "This is a parable," in flashing neon lights.
a large portion of the recounting is presented as truth... Another distinction that inerrantists fail to make is between "presented as truth" and actual, verifiable "truth". I have a book which purports to be the "true" biography of James Bond. One has to examine it fairly closely to determine whether or not it was intended as work of fiction.
nonfiction if you will; or that's how it's taken. "How it's taken" is pretty much irrelevant. Any work of fiction can be "taken" as non-fiction by somebody who doesn't read it critically. If a book contains useful information, advice, etc., what difference does it make if everything in the book is literally true? What difference does it make who wrote it? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes: Jesus, on the other hand needs to be real because He represents an origin of thought. Why does a "representation" have to be "real"? A painting of an apple represents a real apple, but is it a "real" apple? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3957 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
Jesus, on the other hand needs to be real because He represents an origin of thought. nonsense, jesus is not the origin of any thought. david didn't have jesus and god loved him and forgave him. noah didn't have jesus. joseph (and his technicolor coat of jealousy) didn't have jesus. jesus could easily be a parable of application of that personal relationship to the entirety of mankind. why does it need to be true to tell us that god loves us and is capable of forgiving us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Brian,
I'll totally bow to your superior knowledge of the subject matter, but didn't Augustine originate the "official" inerrancy line? Of course, he also supposedly clarified that any particular translation might contain mistakes. The letter to St. Jerome, and one of the Confessions, IIRC, were where he talked about it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024