/ Topic >  Re: On Not Abiding by the Rules / Forum >  TOL - Philosophy & Theology / 25Dec01 /
.
> On 25Dec01 geoff wrote: Cyberlunatic: Instead of just 'saying' you have proof, why dont you show it?
.
 textman answers: I've been showing evidence all along, geoff. Read the entire thread from the beginning; and this time round stay on the lookout for quotes from, or references to, the scriptures. Then you can either go check them out one by one against various sundry commentaries, or first make up a nice long list of them, and *then* start researching them. Either way's fine by me. ... Besides, I never said I had "proof" as such; what I did say specifically (in the previous article) is:
.
>> tx: Proof is irrelevant.
.
 Which is more or less *technically* correct (ie. as regarding the majority of subjects dealt with by the
less "scientific" biblical sciences). And then I went on at once to clarify:
.
>> The evidence for my claims is all right there in the sacred text.
.
 Which, again, is more or less technically correct. Accordingly, the main source of the different interpretations between the scribes & pharisees and the cyber-prophet is in the way that we discover and evaluate things like facts, evidence, linguistic and historical data, and so on and so forth. The two radically contrary interpretations of scripture that reaches the level of public consumption largely result from the way in which this huge doughy lump of data and evidence and various working concepts and hypotheses and whatnot is worked together, worked over, shaped and molded into something resembling a recognizable form, and then thoroughly baked in the hot ovens of intense scholarly consideration and reflection ... In other words, it's something that any bible-student (if not every bible-reader) should be able to manage with a little effort and patience.
.
> Because you dont have it; thats why.
.
 Apparently, neither do you:
.
>> tx: Where is the "evidence" that James the Just wrote Jm, eh? Where? Will somebody PLEASE show me
>> one tiny shred of evidence to support this so-called "well-known fact"?! Cause I haven't been able to
>> find one anywhere.
.
> geoff: You can keep saying, I have this, I do that. blah blah but you never ever show us why we should believe
> you. You dont show any authoritive source etc...
.
 The Word of God is no longer regarded as an authoritative source? I sincerely hope you don't mean *that*! Because that is the *ONLY* source that concerns me, geoff. As to why I don't quote the scribes & pharisees in support of my arguments and proposals, this is because my ideas are very contrary to theirs, and, as you so helpfully pointed out, "are simply dismissed by the educated because they are quite frankly, a load of c-wrap". There's really nothing much I can do with an attitude like that!
.
> therefore we assume you are a crackpot ... because you are ...
.
 Thus judgeth the Scribes & Pharisees!

P.S. Now Jesus went home, and a crowd gathered so that they were not able to eat. When his family heard this they went out to take control of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind." The experts in the law who came down from Jerusalem said, "He has Beelzebul," and, "By the ruler of demons he casts out demons." So he called them and spoke to them in parables: "How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom will not be able to stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan rises against himself and is divided, he is not able to stand and his end has come. But no one is able to enter the house of the strong man and remove his goods unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can thoroughly clean out his house. I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies people may speak will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. They are liable for an eternal sin." [He told them all this] because they said, "He has an unclean spirit". -- Mark 3:20-30/NETbible

/ Topic >  On Falling Down the Well of Absurdity / Forum >  TOL - Philosophy & Theology / 27Dec01 /
.
>> textman previously wrote: I've been showing evidence all along, geoff. Read the entire thread
>> from the beginning; and this time round stay on the lookout for quotes from, or references to, the
>> scriptures. Then you can either go check them out one by one against various sundry commentaries, or
>> first make up a nice long list of them, and *then* start researching them. Either way's fine by me. ...
>> Besides, I never said I had "proof" as such; what I did say specifically (in the previous article) is:
>> "Proof is irrelevant" <snip remainder>
.
> On 26Dec01 geoff replies: cybercrackpot: I said proof ... not some irrelevant ramblings about how
> proof is irrelevant. This claim basically makes you able to claim anything you want, not substantiate
> it, and continue on blindly.
.
 textman replies: That's a mighty ridiculous conclusion you got there, geoff, all things considered. Especially
since the only things I want to claim are those things specifically suggested by the evidence of the texts.
.
> I dont have the time to go back through this whole thread.
.
 Too busy to pursue the truth, eh geoff?
.
> None of the arguments were directly addressed to mine.
.
 That strikes me as entirely irrelevant too.
.
> So deal with mine now, and stop trying to hide.
.
 I'm not hiding. I'm still waiting for somebody to answer my questions ...
.
> The problem is, you DO NOT have a shred of evidence to prove your case.
.
 Sure I do. Yer just too stubborn to see it.
.
> Now, forget that we are talking about james the just, or james the son of zebedee...
> thats not really important.
.
 It is if you're suggesting that one of these is the author of Jm.
.
> We cant figure out which James it is until such time as you have conceded that your mythical jacob
> doesnt exist, and that iakobos is iakobos, not iakob.
.
 I concede that 'Jacob' is a better translation of 'iakobos' than 'James' is. I also concede that my late-
first-century and early-second-century Egyptian scholar-prophet named Iakobos is anything but mythical.
.
> <snip some rubbish>
.
> To prove this you are going to have to prove that the current understanding of Greek is wrong.
.
 I see absolutely no need whatsoever to do such an absurd thing as that.
.
> That the Scholars have had it wrong for 2000 years, and that you, the mighty tondaar have a priviledge
> inside information that no one else EVER has had.
.
 Yeah; the information comes from three sources all working together in concert to shed some much-needed light upon certain texts that have been, shall we say, coated and encrusted with the pious delusions of sundry and self-serving traditions that stretch back for many centuries. Frankly, I'm not at all surprised that the vast majority of scribes and scholars, pharisees and priests, preachers and ministers, believers and bible-students, are all incapable of seeing the raw texts through all the layers of fog and arrogance and piety and aggression and whatnot that gets between the Bible and the eyes of its readers. Indeed it would be unreasonable to suppose that the average cyber-saint could so easily drain his skull of the truckloads of rubbish and nonsense that have collected in there over the years ...
.
 Anyway, these three sources are the Inside, the Hermeneutics, and the Outside:
.
 (1) the Inside: This is the raw text of a particular document as it exists in reality *APART FROM* any and all interpretations that are imposed upon it from the external world (ie. chiefly by way of the reader). [Note: This necessarily involves a deep concern for the integrity of the original inspired autograph.]
.
 (2) the Hermeneutics: Refers to the amazing and astounding ability to read the scriptures, and think about their contents, *without* a slavish and ignorant recourse to the institutionalized blindness and stupidity of the scribes and pharisees. That's a very rare gift there, alright!
.
 (3) the Outside: And the last, but by no means least, element involves an extremely intangible quality that is difficult to pin down precisely, and can be called by various names: the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth, Grace, or even the Providence of the Father of Lights, etc, and so forth. But in any case, the name I like best is the one found in John's Gospel, namely 'the Encourager'.
.
> Remember your own words, cyberlunatic, that you are not a Greek language expert.
.
 I remember. Too bad these are the only words of mine that *you* remember.
.
> I am certain that you are NOT an expert in any biblical field, in fact, not one of the hermeneutical
> tools is evidenced used in the correct manner in your writings.
.
 I have no desire to be an expert according to the standards of the scribes and pharisees. And if they
don't like the way I handle the methods, tools, and techniques that I use, that's just too bad for them.
.
> so, deal with it.
.
 Okay, will do: My labors are not intended to convince the scribes and pharisees of anything; for they are
incapable of seeing beyond their own biases and exalted wisdom. They are intended to teach bible-
students whose minds haven't been too completely corrupted by the inerrant and infallible knowledge
of the so-called experts.
.
> Prove that iakob and iakobos both mean jacob in english,
.
 I have absolutely no interest or intention to do so.
.
> is that they are synonymous in Greek,
.
 Not necessarily.
.
> interchangable terms which can be used in place of each other.
.
 They're just names, geoff. There's no real iron-clad logic to the naming of names. The importance you
place on the translation of 'iakobos' is something which, quite frankly, I find bizarre and ridiculous.
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On 26Dec01 Jaltus wrote:: Textman, Why do you even call yourself textman if you think the text
> can be expanded?
.
 textman answers: Because the sacred text is my first, last, and always most *primary* source.
.
> Thus, you should be Unfinished textman.
.
 Being "unfinished" is part of what it means to be a believer.
.
> Also, how can you have the audacity to declare yourself a prophet?
.
 Audacity's got nothing to do with it, Jaltus.
.
> Your own words prove how false that is, since as writing as a prophet your words need to always be
> correct and always need to be said to come from God, which your ramblings are not.
.
 I don't agree with any of this. None of the prophets, not even the great ones of olden times, were perfect and flawless in all that they said. Only a fool would declare me a false prophet on the strength of the fact that I'm imperfect and unfinished.
.
> Perhaps we should call you Unsubstantiated man.
.
 You may call whatsoever you please; just don't call me late for communion!
.
                                                          - the almost impatient one - textman ;>
.
P.S. "Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is known by its fruit. Offspring of vipers! How are you able to say anything good, since you are evil? For the mouth speaks from the overflow of the heart. The good man brings good things out of a good treasure, and the evil man brings evil things out of an evil treasure. I tell you that on the day of judgment, people will give an account for every worthless word they speak. For by your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned." -- Matthew 12:33-37 / NETbible

/ Topic >  On the Perfection of Revelation in Christ / Forum >  TOL - Philosophy & Theology / 28Dec01 /
.
>> textman previously wrote: Whenever anyone invests divine qualities and attributes (that are proper
>> to God alone) into any finite object, then they are committing the sin of idolatry. <snipsome>. Of
>> course Christians do not openly worship the Bible with dancing and revelry as though it were some
>> golden calf. They do it in other "more civilized" ways. Such as promoting the myth of inerrancy
>> and infallibility ...  <snip remainder>
.
> On 27Dec01 bill betzler replies: Textman, I can see you saying this about a human like the Pope or
> someone else, but the Scriptures are very unique. They are God's word to us,
.
 textman sayeth: I would prefer to say that the scriptures are one physical manifestation of the Universal Logos. Another physical manifestation of the same divine reality was the prophet from Galilee, Jesus of Nazareth. In other words, both are unique in the same way (ie. invested with the Spirit of Truth), but only our Lord is the perfect manifestation or incarnation of the Cosmic Logos. Both man and scripture are involved within, and constrained by, the world and the historical process as a whole (as is every other material reality), but only the *person* of Christ can be rightly considered inerrant and infallible.
.
> therefore it is God himself who insures that the scriptures are infallible and inerrant. They were
> quoted by Jesus, Peter, Paul, Philip, and Apollos and more.
.
 The fact that the Hebrew scriptures were quoted by all these early Christians, and others, only demonstrates their love for, and respect for, the Tanakh. It does not show that they considered the scriptures to be infallible and inerrant. Consider the way that Paulos speaks of them: "For everything that was written in former times was written for our instruction, so that through endurance and through encouragement of the scriptures we may have hope" (Rom.15:4 / NETbible).
.
 So do the scriptures really need to be infallible and inerrant in order to generate hope in believers, and provide them with instruction and encouragement? It did not seem to be necessary to the Christians of former centuries, so why suddenly is it a necessity now? ...
.
 But I understand the idea that God "insures that the scriptures are infallible and inerrant". It seems a "natural" notion resulting from excessive and thoughtless piety. It ignores or overlooks the fact that grace and providence work *with and within* the natural and historical processes, and not over against them. If God could allow His Son to fall to the tender mercies of the scribes and pharisees, why should He constantly and continually invade and disrupt the workings of the world in order to prevent sleepy scribes from making typos and other transmission-related errors?
.
 Now consider further the implications of this notion that God always invades and overwhelms the natural order of His Creation in order preserve or maintain the supposed purity and inerrancy of scripture. This is not a question of whether or not God has the power to do such a thing. It is a question of why He should even want to do so. If salvation and revelation are perfectly manifested and realized in the Lord Jesus, then what more needs be done except to await the reply to His loving and gracious offer? By committing Himself to an indefinite and prolonged course of supernaturally "protecting" the scriptures from the sinful and error-laden ways of the world and its peoples, it is inevitably implied that the Revelation of the Word in the Son is *somehow* incomplete (and therefore imperfect)!
.
 Now I don't think most people realize just how dangerous it is to our common faith to trifle with sacred things by giving in to the natural desire to idolize that which is loved and revered. Nor do I suppose that those who uphold the perfect, infallible, and inerrant Bible mean to say that the life and death of Jesus Christ is salvifically incomplete and imperfect; and yet there is no avoiding that this is where the theological consequences of the idolized-Bible take us ...
.
> Also, Jesus never warned us that the scriptures could be contaminated by humans with errors.
.
 Jesus did not have access to the empirical methods and techniques of the modern historical and biblical sciences. But even so, he did promise that while the Encourager would lead us to all truth, this would not happen quickly and absolutely, and end forevermore with the last word of the last NT document to be written. I have to assume that the Lord's vision of the role of the Holy Spirit is far wider, and more ongoing, than that. At least, that is the impression I get from the text.
.
> So why should we listen to your warning that the scriptures have errors?
.
 Well, bill, I guess the best answer to that question is that it would greatly enhance your understanding of the Word, as well as vastly improve your appreciation of the concrete historical process that lays behind and within the text on each and every page. Indeed, the best antidote to the tendency to divorce the Bible from all human realities is to gain a better and better understanding of the true history of the Greek New Testament and how it came to be wedded to the Tanakh, and then hammered into its final canonical shape. No one who really knows this fascinating history of the early Greek texts can fail to be impressed by the relevance of history (4X: unique people and events, and changes in general) to the deeper meanings embedded within the raw text. The very real and tangible World-Behind-&-Within-the-Text is not something that any bible-student can afford to ignore, and yet still fancy oneself an expert on (or even just knowledgeable about) the scriptures.
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On 27Dec01 geoff wrote: cyberlunatic: so what it comes down to in the end, after wading through a pile
> of baloney... You flatly refuse to attempt to show that iakob and iakobos are synonymous in Greek.
.
 textman answers: Why I do believe that friend geoff finally sees the light, folks! :) As I said earlier, geoff, (no doubt you missed it), even *IF* 'Jacob' is a bad translation of 'iakobos' I would still need a name other than 'James' for the author; simply in order to clearly distinguish him from James the Just (who obviously is not the author of the book attributed to him). So then what would you have me do? If I promised to use Iakobos instead of Jacob from now on, then you would have no cause for complaint; and we could all *finally* put this matter to a long-overdue rest. ... Isn't that right, geoff? So how about if I use 'Jacobos' instead of 'iakobos'? ... Would *that* meet with your oh-so-rigorous standards, O All-Knowing One?
.
> The reason you have to prove it, is because we can not believe that iakobos is better translated
> Jacob unless this is true.
.
 I believe it is true, and therefore am perfectly justified in using it in my translations. If you "know" I am wrong, then you are perfectly justified in objecting and making sure that the cyber-saints are aware of all the possibilities. I think it's safe to say that we all know where we stand on this matter, and that everyone is fully aware of all the possibilities!
.
> Of course, it isnt true,
.
 Swanson says it is.
.
> and it can not be proved.
.
 Swanson proves it can.
.
> So, again, we are left certain that you are a crackpot
.
 According to the inerrant and infallible logic and reasoning of the scribes and pharisees ... :D
.
> and are deliberately misleading people.
.
 Oh no! I leave that department to those far more qualified in the arts of misdirection and obscurity.
As for the cyber-prophet's pomo hermeneutics, it's clarity, clarity, and then some more clarity ... PLEASE!
.
> You are a dishonest and disreputable person who can not substantiate your own claims.
.
 Byte me! :)
.
> Unless you can prove that iakob and iakobos are interchangable synonymous names we can safely
> assume that the rest of your understanding is also completely bogus and false.
.
 Such an assumption is illogical *AND* presumptious!
.
 And I do mean illogical!
.
 Not to mention irrational, barbaric, and unchristian ...

/ Topic >  More PoMo Myths Exposed! / Forum >  TOL - Philosophy & Theology / 30Dec01 /
.
>> textman previously wrote: I would prefer to say that the scriptures are one physical manifestation of the
>> Universal Logos. Another physical manifestation of the same divine reality was the prophet from Galilee,
>> Jesus of Nazareth. In other words, both are unique in the same way (ie. invested with the Spirit of Truth),
>> but only our Lord is the perfect manifestation or incarnation of the Cosmic Logos. Both man and scripture
>> are involved within, and constrained by, the world and the historical process as a whole (as is every other
>> material reality), but only the *person* of Christ can be rightly considered inerrant and infallible.
.
> On 28Dec01 bill betzler replied: Jesus was a man who was “involved within, and constrained by, the world
> and the historical process as a whole (as is every other material reality),” so how is it that God can give to
> Jesus inerrancy and infallibility, but not to the scriptures?
.
 textman answers: Because the person of Jesus, as the incarnation of the Logos, is divine in a way that the scriptures can't be; owing to the fact that the Bible is not, and can never be a person. Moreover, after Jesus ascended to the higher realms he was no longer subject to the constraints and limitations of our tiny world.
But the scriptures *remain* within the world (and all *that* involves), and indeed is a part of this world.
.
> It seems reasonable that if God can give to Jesus those  attributes within the physical restraints
> then God also possesses the ability to give the same to the Scriptures.
.
 It is not a question of whether or not God can do this. The Creator has absolute control over His creation, and can therefore do anything within the constraints of His own divine love and will. But just because God *can* do something, doesn't automatically mean that He *must*. Fundies figure that if they were God then OF COURSE they'd make damn sure that the scriptures are infallible and inerrant, you bet! As for myself, I'm not yet convinced that the Father of Lights thinks like a Fundy ...
.
 But besides that, it seems to me that you fail to appreciate the uniqueness of the revelation in Christ. The Lord's divinity was not imposed upon him from somewhere outside the world. The picture of the dove descending from heaven and filling the freshly baptized Jesus with the Holy Spirit is more of a symbolic image than a journalistic account of some actual event. Jesus' divinity was already within him; he "carried" his divinity within his unique personality. But since the Bible has no personality as such, any divine qualities would have to be imposed as a foreign element and constantly maintained. Why should God even want to do such a thing, bill?
.
> Read the following:
.
 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." -- 2Tim.3:16-17
.
> Is the inspiration of God fallible or errant?
.
 Within the context of your argument, I would have to say that inspiration does not need to be infallible or inerrant in order to fulfill its function of being profitable to all believers; none of whom, owing to the limitations of human nature, can ever be perfect as God is perfect. ... But let us say that the inspiration of God must be, by definition say, infallible and inerrant. In this case, I would point out that it is the person of the biblical author that is inspired with the grace of God; and the writings that issue from the inspired author's quill is the result of a process that takes place within the person (the heart, the mind, the will). In other words, the words that emerge on the page have one source containing two elements: a human and imperfect source (the author), and a perfect divine source (divine inspiration). Logically then, once the inspiration has "mingled" with the man, perfection need not be, and perhaps should not be expected.
.
>> tx: The fact that the Hebrew scriptures were quoted by all these early Christians, and others, only
>> demonstrates their love for, and respect for, the Tanakh. It does not show that they considered the
>> scriptures to be infallible and inerrant. Consider the way that Paulos speaks of them: "For everything
>> that was written in former times was written for our instruction, so that through endurance and through
>> encouragement of the scriptures we may have hope" (Rom.15:4/NETbible).  So do the scriptures really
>> need to be infallible and inerrant in order to generate hope in believers, and provide them with instruction
>> and encouragement? It did not seem to be necessary to the Christians of former centuries, so why
>> suddenly is it a necessity now?
.
> bill: You have reduced the significance of the Scriptures, to Jesus himself, to: "only demonstrates
> their love for, and respect for, the Tanakh." Jesus had love and respect for his mother.
.
 If Jesus loves and respects the scriptures as much as he loves and respects his mother, then I see nothing wrong with that!
.
> The scriptures are greater than Mary.
.
 More important to the Faith, no doubt.
.
> What significance then are these words of Jesus?
.
 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." -- Mt.5:18
.
 The significance of this passage relates to the controversy among the early churches regarding the place of 'The Law & the Prophets' in the life of the churches after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the emergence of Christianity as a religion distinct and separate from Judaism. The author of Matthew and his church affirmed the necessity of the Torah as part of the new Faith, and this is his way of saying so. In that sense, I quite agree with the point being made here; but I do not believe that this verse somehow "demonstrates" that the Bible is infallible and inerrant. These few words just can't support that much weight.
.
> The Scriptures are much more than a generator of  hope in Christians, even though that is significant
> as we learn from Paul.
.
 So then you disagree with Paul's assessment of the meaning and value of the scriptures in the sense that
he did not go on at once to glorify the scriptures as any good Fundy should? Perhaps this ought to suggest
to some of our good cyber-saints that maybe Paul wasn't a Fundy after all!
.
 "We have also a more sure word of prophecy;
.
 "We have" here refers to the Christian prophetic tradition that included the authors of James, Jude, and 2Peter. In other words, the "more sure word of prophecy" is the continuing growth and life of a dynamic Christian prophetic tradition that builds upon the achievements of all the previous prophets (including Paulos & Silvanus). This point is particularly pertinent to students of 2Peter, as the prophet who wrote that epistle essentially did for Jude what Matthew did for Mark.
.
 "whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawns"
-- 2 Peter 1:19
.
 In other words, all you good cyber-saints out there would do very well indeed to pay attention to the
cyber-prophet; who is very much "a light that shineth in a dark place"!
.
> 2 Peter is telling me we have a “sure word”
.
 The words of the Christian prophets are sound and sure; and I frankly couldn't agree more!
.
> and you would lead me to think that this scripture is wrong
.
 I would never ever do that! Perish the thought!
.
> and you are right in telling me that the word isn’t all that sure.
.
 The word is sure; especially the prophetic word (as 2Peter specifically indicates). This means that it is dependable and reliable and basically sound in whole and in part. But this does not necessarily mean or imply that the scriptures are infallible and inerrant in every possible way. That idea is something that Fundies *ADD* to the witness of the Word in order to make it taste better, and to justify the conclusions of their irrational piety!
.
> It looks like I should make a choice here. Let me think. Hmmmm.
.
 Believe the prophets, I say! ... Anyway, bill's understanding of 2P.1:19 is a good example of how the reader's theological conceptions and beliefs bend and filter the meaning of the raw text until it comes out just so. I mean for pete's sake, if the inspired author had wanted to say that the "word of prophecy" is 'Infallible & Inerrant', I'm pretty darn sure he could have found a way to say so. Only a Fundy could imagine that "sure" means only and exactly "infallible and inerrant"!
.
>> tx: But I understand the idea that God "insures that the scriptures are infallible and inerrant". It seems
>> a "natural" notion resulting from excessive and thoughtless piety. It ignores or overlooks the fact that
>> grace and providence work *with and within* the natural and historical processes, and not over against
>> them. If God could allow His Son to fall to the tender mercies of the scribes and pharisees, why should He
>> constantly and continually invade and disrupt the workings of the world in order to prevent sleepy scribes
>> from making typos and other transmission-related errors?
.
> bill: Piety has nothing to do with the inerrancy of the Scriptures.
.
 You mean to say that it is the outcome of a carefully reasoned theology, and the result of a sensible interpretation of scripture? ... wow
.
> We cannot confer inerrancy on the Scriptures.
.
 No. But you *can* project the impression of inerrancy into the scriptures! And who's to stop you from doing
so once you have a mind to it, eh? Aside from the odd prophet now and then, I mean.
.
> The inerrancy comes from God.
.
 I agree that if there is any inerrancy it could only come from God. But first show me the need for inerrancy, and
then show where in scripture that the word 'inerrancy' is used to specifically describe the scriptures ... If you
can't do so, then it may be that we've got something extra-biblical going on here?
.
bob: Where's this inerrancy I've heard so much about?
joe: There, there! [points to a copy of KJV]
bob: [looks] But I see errors there.
joe: No, no. Look closer ...
bob: [looks closer] I see *lots* of errors there. Mostly itty bitty ones.
joe: No, no. They only *seem* to be errors. Actually, the inerrancy comes from God, so its got to be there, so              .      obviously you're wrong, see?
bob: I see. [shakes head sadly and re-evaluates the wisdom of Buddhism]
.
> Our piety toward the Scriptures only exists because we trust the Scriptures to be God’s word to us.
.
 I trust the scriptures to be God's word to us. So why drag in all these unbiblical doctrines and theological
figments? ... Such things have no place in a sober and sensible evaluation of the sacred texts.
.
> “The tender mercies of the scribes and pharisees?” Being facetious I presume.
.
 "facetious"? ... Wutz that? ... Who? Me?  :)
.
> "why should He constantly and continually invade and disrupt" You should be a political spin doctor,
> you would do well. "invade and disrupt" Are these the only words available to describe God’s
> interaction with his creation?
.
 It's the only way to describe an exceedingly bizarre and hopelessly irrational type of interaction with his creation!
.
> If it pleases God to interact with his creation through miracles and angels and the Holy Ghost, keeping
> people awake, etc., isn’t that God’s right?
.
 "keeping people awake" you say? I'm not sure I follow you there. But I see what you're driving at. Unfortunately, the logical consequence of an excessively supernatural universe is the negation of providential grace working with and within the natural and historical processes that constitute the bulk of our world. And the logical consequence of *that* negation is the absolute and radical separation of the world and God; such that God can only interact with us by pulling cosmic strings. btw: Such a separation would also rule out all possibility of the Incarnation.
.
>> tx: Now consider further the implications of this notion that God always invades and overwhelms the natural
>> order of His Creation in order preserve or maintain the supposed purity and inerrancy of scripture. This is not
>> a question of whether or not God has the power to do such a thing. It is a question of why He should even
>> want to do so. If salvation and revelation are perfectly manifested and realized in the Lord Jesus, then what
>> more needs be done except to await the reply to His loving and gracious offer? By committing Himself to an
>> indefinite and prolonged course of supernaturally "protecting" the scriptures from the sinful and error-laden
>> ways of the world and its peoples, it is inevitably implied that the Revelation of the Word in the Son is
>> *somehow* incomplete (and therefore imperfect)!
.
> All things have a purpose.
.
The purpose of scripture is to do what Paul says it does.
.
> The purpose of Jesus was to fulfill the Law and be a propitiation to God for our sins, plus more.
.
 I would say that the primary purpose of Jesus was to reveal the universal love of the Heavenly Father.
Everything else is secondary in the extreme!
.
 When they found him, they said, "Everyone is looking for you." He answered, "Let us go elsewhere, into the
surrounding villages, so that I can preach there too. For that is what I came to do." - Mk 1:37-38/NETbible
.
> The OT Scriptures predicted Jesus and gave us Law and Prophets, plus more. The NT gives us the life of
> Jesus, his reconciliation, plus more. They all confirm each other but are different.
.
 They are different, yes. But it is the same spirit and logos throughout; and this is what unites them as well.
.
> That it pleased God to give us an infallible record in writing
.
 Do you have any evidence to support this outrageous assertion?
.
> about the infallible sacrifice, and more, just shows me that He doesn’t want us to trust the memories of men
> over time to pass His word on to future generation. So He gave us the sure word.
.
 But how does "a more sure word of prophecy" translate into an infallible and inerrant Bible? That's what I'd like to know. The Egyptian prophet who wrote 2Peter was certainly not talking about the Holy Book that you know and revere, since it did not even exist as such in the second century! Surely you're NOT going to tell me that your interpretation of those words supercedes the meaning intended by the inspired author?!
.
>> tx: Now I don't think most people realize just how dangerous it is to our common faith to trifle with sacred
>> things by giving in to the natural desire to idolize that which is loved and revered. Nor do I suppose that
>> those who uphold the perfect, infallible, and inerrant Bible mean to say that the life and death of Jesus
>> Christ is salvifically incomplete and imperfect; and yet there is no avoiding that this is where the
>> theological consequences of the idolized-Bible take us ...
.
> No danger. Our piety toward the scriptures is the result of it’s inerrancy. Our piety does not confer inerrancy.
.
 I disagree completely. I think you've got it exactly backward! The modern concept of inerrancy grows directly out of the soil of a pattern of thought and emotion that fairly oozes with unrestrained and irrational piety. Do the Jewish believers regard the Torah or the Tanakh as infallible and inerrant? Did Paul or the Evangelists? Did the early Church Fathers and Apologists declare the Greek scriptures to be infallible and inerrant as well as superior to the Hebrew scriptures? If inerrancy is as necessary as you obviously suppose, surely someone somewhere would have mentioned something along those lines prior to the Enlightenment ... ??? ... Yes? No? Maybe?
.
>> tx: Jesus did not have access to the empirical methods and techniques of the modern historical and biblical
>> sciences. But even so, he did promise that while the Encourager would lead us to all truth, this would not
>> happen quickly and absolutely, and end forevermore with the last word of the last NT document to be
>> written. I have to assume that the Lord's vision of the role of the Holy Spirit is far wider, and more ongoing,
>> than that. At least, that is the impression I get from the text.
.
> bill: Talk about undo piety toward hermeneutics. Poor Jesus, the very word of God, creator of all, was
> lacking because of no empirical science skills. ??? Look where your conclusions bring you.
.
 I'm looking. I see that no hermeneutics in the world can rightly attribute to Jesus knowledge and skills that would not even exist for many centuries to come. It would be like claiming that Jesus knew about the first moon landing (but kept that knowledge to himself). My hermeneutics respects the fact that Jesus was a man of his age; as well as the Incarnation of the Logos of God.
.
> I agree the HS can give us a personal word outside of the scriptures.
.
 And what happened to our "more sure word of prophecy", bill? Is the Holy Spirit still able to inspire prophets, even in this post-modern age? And if so, would not the prophet's authority exceed those of all other believers?
.
> But it is the solid inerrant knowledge of the scriptures that tells us if the knowleged received by someone
> possible could have come from the HS.
.
 Right; (except for the inerrant bit). This is because it is the same spirit and logos that speaks through the Hebrew prophets, through the Son of God, through all the apostles and evangelists and Christian prophets. Any pomo prophet today would have to speak from the same spirit and logos, and therefore be in harmony with revealed truth. Perfection and inerrancy, however, would logically rule out any possibilty of prophecy; since the prophets, being human, remain imperfect and unfinished. In other words, the myth of infallibility has itself killed more prophets than the Inquisition!
.
>> tx: Well, bill, I guess the best answer to that question is that it would greatly enhance your understanding
>> of the Word, as well as vastly improve your appreciation of the concrete historical process that lays behind
>> and within the text on each and every page. Indeed, the best antidote to the tendency to divorce the Bible
>> from all human realities is to gain a better and better understanding of the true history of the Greek New
>> Testament and how it came to be wedded to the Tanakh, and then hammered into its final canonical shape.
>> No one who really knows this fascinating history of the early Greek texts can fail to be impressed by the
>> relevance of history (4X: unique people and events, and changes in general) to the deeper meanings
>> embedded within the raw text. The very real and tangible World-Behind-&-Within-the-Text is not something
>> that any bible-student can afford to ignore, and yet still fancy oneself an expert on (or even just
>> knowledgeable about) the scriptures.
.
> bill: Fascinating I am sure. That it pleases you and many others is great. That God gave you and others the
> ability to understand is wonderful. But living the life is still the goal
.
 Living the life of faith and discipleship is always the ultimate goal, yes.
.
> and hermeneutics and knowledge of the historical process of the scriptures is not necessary for that,
.
 By no means is it necessary per se, but if we learn about the Lord and the will of God through the Word, then how we approach and treat the scriptures is clearly very important. At least it is for those who seek answers to questions that are not well provided for according to the teachings of the scribes and pharisees.
.
> when the inerrancy of the scriptures is assumed by faith.
.
 So then you admit that inerrancy is a modern creation that is in no way dependent upon a rational understanding and interpretation of the Word of God? If the doctrine of scriptural infallibility is founded on *theology* and not well-grounded in the sacred text then it falls under the maxim you stated so well: 'knowledge of the scriptures tells us if the knowledge received by someone could have come from the HS'. Does the dogma of inerrancy pass the same acid test that you would use on the Word's worthless slave?
.
> So the conclusion really is this. You need the scriptures to be errant to keep your job.  -- bill
.
 Not at all. Even if the scriptures contained only one insignificant typo, there would still be a need for a rational and faithful hermeneutics that takes the Word of God seriously enough to at least make a go at building a sensible framework for reading and interpreting the scriptures. Errant or not errant, the Word remains as complex and mysterious as ever it was. It is only sheer vanity that causes most believers to imagine that they can read the scriptures as well as anyone, and that they are therefore free to reject any and all authorities that fail to tickle theirs ears!
.
> Though I be the least of all His servants, nevertheless I am a servant.
.
 And you're a darn mighty fine one at that, bill! :)
.
 However, it is my understanding that the slave (prophet) exceeds the servant (minister) in authority on all matters that fall under his interest. If this is the case, then it may be that "we possess the prophetic word as an altogether reliable thing. You do well if you pay attention to this as you would to a light shining in a murky place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you do well if you recognize this: no prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." -- 2Peter 1:19-21 / NETbible
.
 I think that pretty much says it all. And please note that the prophet makes no mention of infallibility or
inerrancy! A significant omission, I should think.

/ Topic > Re: More Pomo Myths Exposed! / Forum > TOL - Philosophy & Theology / 3Jan2002 /
.
>> textman previously wrote: <snip> But let us say that the inspiration of God must be, by definition say,
>> infallible and inerrant. In this case, I would point out that it is the person of the biblical author that is
>> inspired with the grace of God; and the writings that issue from the inspired author's quill is the result
>> of a process that takes place within the person (the heart, the mind, the will). In other words, the words
>> that emerge on the page have one source containing two elements: a human and imperfect source (the
>> author), and a perfect divine source (divine inspiration). Logically then, once the inspiration has "mingled"
>> with the man, perfection need not be, and perhaps should not be expected.
.
> On 1Jan02 bill betzler replied: I would think that logic dictates that God's abilities can
> easily over-ride man's imperfection to bring about an inerrant word.
.
 textman answers: If the Heavenly Father were to act as an author it is surely logical to suppose that His writings must be infallible and inerrant. But God doesn't do this because the Father's love precludes any possibility of "over-riding" the dignity of the human person. So what the Father does instead is to transmit His divine will by way of the Logos through the agency of the Holy Spirit which *inspires* (not over-rides) the imperfect human author.
.
> Even an imperfect man (one who cannot do everything right, but can do some things
> right) could with God's help write the scriptures inerrantly.
.
 It seems to me that this could only be the case if the author was not an author at all, but merely some kind of glorified secretary who simply writes down whatever he "hears". Anything else would compromise both his freedom and humanity. No doubt you consider the loss of the writer's integrity as an author to be an acceptable price, since the resulting writings are inerrant (which you claim is God's will). But I don't agree that inerrancy is God's will, because God's love does not manifest itself in any way that degrades the human person (as your concept of inspiration does). I submit that the Holy Spirit does not operate according to the dictates of inerrancy. The Encourager inspires the entire (fallible and errant) person of the sacred authors by inspiring them to be *authors*, not secretaries! Any other view of inspiration is necessarily false to the author, to history, and ultimately, to God as well.
.
>>> bill previously wrote: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth
>>> pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." -- Mt.5:18
.
>> tx: The significance of this passage relates to the controversy among the early churches regarding the place
>> of 'The Law & the Prophets' in the life of the churches after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the emergence
>> of Christianity as a religion distinct and separate from Judaism. The author of Matthew and his church affirmed
>> the necessity of the Torah as part of the new Faith, and this is his way of saying so. In that sense, I quite
>> agree with the point being made here; but I do not believe that this verse somehow "demonstrates" that
>> the Bible is infallible and inerrant. These few words just can't support that much weight.
.
> bill: The word's belong to Jesus,
.
 Actually, the words are the author's, placed into the mouth of Jesus. The author of Matthew does a great deal of this sort of thing (just as Plato did with Socrates). However, it is unlikely that Jesus spoke these precise words in any realistically historical sense; and it would be a serious error in judgment to overlook this detail.
.
> not Matthew and the church.
.
 You should not confuse what is unique to Matthew with actual historical realities. The author of Matthew did not write his great revision of Mark in order to present a more factual historical account. Such a view of that gospel (or any of them, for that matter) is naive in the extreme, and not worthy of a mature believer.
.
> I understand the controversy that you speak of. Matt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy
> the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
.
 And how do these words of Jesus harmonize with what is said just a few chapters later: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.” (Mt10:34-36/NETbible). Personally, I don’t think that there is any real contradiction in these two quotes; both sound very like the prophet from Galilee.
.
> Since heaven and earth cannot pass until all is fulfilled, where does that leave room for error
> in the scriptures concerning the tittle and jot?
.
 Well bill, since eternity is a very long time indeed, I'd say that leaves a great deal of room for all sorts of errors! :)
.
>>> bill: The Scriptures are much more than a generator of hope in Christians, even though that is significant
>>> as we learn from Paul.
.
>> tx: So then you disagree with Paul's assessment of the meaning and value of the scriptures in the
>> sense that he did not go on at once to glorify the scriptures as any good Fundy should? Perhaps
>> this ought to suggest to some of our good cyber-saints that maybe Paul wasn't a Fundy after all!
.
> bill: 2Tim3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make
> thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
.
 This is most likely a reference to the LXX and the early apostolic writings (ie. Paul and Mark).
.
> 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
> correction, for instruction in  righteousness: 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect,
> thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
.
 Actually, I had in mind Paul's quote from Romans (since 2Tim is not an authentic letter from Paulos).
.
> I agree with Paul's assessment of the scriptures.
.
 You mean the author of 2Tim's assessment?
.
> And I would agree that "hope" is the only reason that the scriptures exist if "hope" explains fully the above
> 2Tim verses plus others.
.
 Oh certainly not just hope. There is more, as you say. The author of 2Tim moves beyond Paul's hope (and apparently losing sight of it in the process) in order to extend the churches use of the scriptures in more ecclesiastical directions (ie. doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction). See?
.
>> tx: Believe the prophets, I say! ... Anyway, bill's understanding of 2P.1:19 is a good example of how the
>> reader's theological conceptions and beliefs bend and filter the meaning of the raw text until it comes out
>> just so. I mean for pete's sake, if the inspired author had wanted to say that the "word of prophecy" is
>> 'Infallible & Inerrant', I'm pretty darn sure he could have found a way to say so. Only a Fundy could
>> imagine that "sure" means only and exactly "infallible and inerrant"!
.
> bill: 2Pet.1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables,
.
 Such as biblical infallibility and inerrancy ...
.
> when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses
> of his majesty. 1:17 For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice
> to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
.
 A quote from Mt showing that the author of 2Peter was well acquainted with the written gospel traditions.
.
> 1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 1:19 We
> have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth
> in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 1:20 Knowing this first, that no
> prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the
> will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
.
 Which version is that, bill? Doesn't strike me as a modern version; owing to the 'God spake' bit there at
the end. [Note: See how observant us scholar types can be?] Ye olde merry English version, is it be mayhaps? :)
.
> We all bend the scriptures according to our beliefs. It isn't a Fundy Phenomenon.
.
 That's exactly right, bill! Since interpretation is unavoidable, the question then becomes how do we choose from among conflicting interpretations? Or how do we decide which among many understandings is the most valid (in terms of being more rational and faithful)? These are the sorts of questions that have a remarkable urgency for all manner of believers, and yet are rarely dealt with by many Christians interpretations (most of which simply assume an assurance of rightness grounded in the very infallibility and inerrancy that, apparently, automatically transfers over from the scriptures). Needless to say, such Christian understandings are woefully inadequate and inevitably deficient in reason, history, respect, and just plain common sense.
.
 For example, we have suggested above that piety is a prime mover in the popular idolization of the Holy Bible, but this is not the whole story by any means. Another post-modern problem that figures prominently in the myth of inerrancy is the perennial problem of authority. Those believers deluded by priestcraft have an easy time with bible-study, since any questions that may be asked have long since been answered (in exhaustive detail even) by their recognized authorities (priests, bishops, councils, important documents, etc etc). In electing not to follow the way of the pharisees, many believers are left with a powerful dilemma: What authorities can be used in the place of the now defunct pharisees? The path chosen by most of these non-priestly believers is the authority of the scribes; which, by slight of hand, is seemingly located within the scriptures themselves, but actually resides in the scribal interpretations thereof.
.
> Who was disputing the validity of the scriptures  in the OT when Jesus was on earth?
.
 Well, the rabbis were disputing, not validity, but different understandings of the texts. Apparently, the hermeneutical problem of choosing between conflicting interpretations is a very old one, yes.
.
> Jesus wasn't part of any disputations.
.
 They would be difficult to avoid, since almost everybody was doing it to some degree.
.
> As we read the scriptures we easily get the impression that the writers didn't need to
> use the words inerrancy and infallible,
.
 Exactly right! They had no use for them, or anything like them. So by rejecting them, we remain in harmony with the Word, and hence the scriptures themselves uphold the validity of our position. ... Is that right?
.
> it was understood to be so
.
 But you can't really demonstrate that anyone in ancient times held this pomo fundy understanding. You have *only* your theology which defines the Bible as inerrant and infallible. Other than constantly referring to your definition as a "logical" conclusion drawn from the scriptures, there is no real substantial support, either in scripture or Christian tradition!
.
> in that it was God's word to current and future generations.
.
 The first few generations of Christians were not much concerned with future generations, since most of them (including Paul) expected the dramatic and violent end of this world, not long delayed ... They had NO idea that believers two thousand years down the road would be projecting their own pomo ideas into the heads of the long since deceased!
.
> And 2Pet above shows that the prophecies of Jesus are more sure than the apostles personal witness.
.
 The text you just quoted says no such thing, bill. “the prophecies of Jesus” you say. Wuts that? ... It seems to me that most of the currently popular errors are NOT in the scriptures as much as in the minds of the readers.
.
> How can the scriptures contain errors  and yet be "sure"?
.
 Easy. Most of the errors are small and minor, or of no consequence to the matter of our personal salvation. The Bible does not need to be correct about all historical details in order to be salvifically effective, because most of these things are largely irrelevant to the essentials of faith. You think that the validity of the Bible is in doubt if we admit so much as a single error. I think that the validity of the Word is self-evident, and cannot possibly be compromised by typos, additions, and other minor errors. Who then has the greater faith?
.
> Also, if the errors must be outside of the prophecy statements,
.
 I don't see why they *must* be, but whatever ...
.
> yet with mans' propensity to error, how do we get inerrancy in prophecy and not else where in  scriptures?
.
 Inerrancy in prophecy has NOT been established. And probably never can be.
.
> The bottom line. Christians need to believe that the scriptures are without error because we cannot trust
> any human to correct them for us. --  bill
.
 Well then, it seems to me that what we have here is a very severe case of bad faith among believers in general. Here are a lot of self-sufficient and independent pomo individuals who wish to be authorities and experts unto themselves such that they may reject any and all external influences that may make a claim unto them. In order to do this effectively however, the absolute authority of this idolized paper-pope must be grounded in an inerrant and infallible Bible, because having already rejected the prophets, they have no recourse to any valid authority outside themselves. By glorifying the Bible, and taking immediate ownership of it, they can rest content in the knowledge that the Lord will never send any prophets into their midst to call them to an accounting for the bitter fruit they have harvested!

P.S. "Wherever a man dreams or raves, another man arises to give an interpretation" (from 'The Symbolism of Evil' by Paul Ricoeur, 1969).

textman
*