Dear RLP

May 1, 2006 - 7:38am

Dear RLP,

I have been really confused lately, so I wanted to see if you can help me out at all. This may be a really big question, but why is the Bible important? I am a Christian, and I have heard other Christians say that the Bible is God’s word, but I don’t know how they are so sure of this. Other Christians say that the Bible is inerrant, which I can’t accept just based on my own reading of it.

So here is the problem. How can anyone know that the Bible is divinely inspired? And if it’s not, then why does it have any authority? I’m really confused about this.

Andrew

_______________________________

Andrew,

If I understand you correctly, you’d like to know why Christians think the Bible is inspired by God and therefore authoritative for Christian life. You would like to know how people came to believe that the teachings in the Bible have a connection to the will and desire of God.

I think these are wonderful questions, and frankly I’m stunned that more people don’t ask them. You go to church and this huge book is dropped in your lap. You’re trying to figure out what you should do with it, and everyone is talking about it as if the basic questions of its origin and nature were settled long ago. Most church people believe these writings are the words of God, so most churches begin with the assumption that you agree with them in this regard. Sometimes church people get defensive or even angry if you ask a question about the validity of the Bible. After awhile, curious people just stop asking and likely stop attending church at all.

There is no reason for us to be afraid of honest, passionate questions. People who ask questions are some of the most interesting kinds of people I know. Truth matters to them. They want to understand what the Bible is before they give it authority over their lives. That makes perfect sense to me.

I’m going to tell you the story of how the New Testament came to be. I think this story will get you started in finding the answers you seek. The Jewish scriptures, sometimes called the “Old Testament” by Christians, have a similar story behind them. Here is a warning ahead of time: There is no way to provide proof for claims about the authority of the New Testament. All we have are centuries of tradition and a natural selection process that took place in the early centuries of the Christian Church.

You should also know that there are Christian scholars who specialize in this subject. I am not one of them. I know enough to present a very basic and simplified story. There is a fair amount of disagreement and uncertainty among scholars on many of the particulars. Still, I think my version of this story will be good enough for your questions.

In the early years after the crucifixion, the friends of Jesus began to spread his teachings and story around their part of the world. They made the rather astonishing claim that Jesus had died on the cross for their sins and that God raised him on the third day. Those who accepted this message in faith and tried to live according to the way of Jesus were part of the movement that became known as Christianity.

In the beginning, those who had known Jesus told stories of his teaching, life, and work. As the friends of Jesus grew older and approached death, people began writing down these stories. This was done informally at first, but in time, more formal collections of stories formed and were called gospels, which means "good news." At the same time, Christian leaders like Paul, Peter, James, John, and some others whose names are not known, were engaged in writing letters of help and support to Christian communities around the Roman world. Some of these letters were so helpful that they too were gathered into unofficial collections.

For the next couple of centuries, the Christian movement made use of these collected writings. Those that were thought to be written by people who actually knew Jesus or were disciples of those who knew him were given priority. Some gospel collections were not thought to accurately portray the life and teachings of Jesus. These fell out of favor with the majority of Christians. Some writings fell away and others grew more popular and were revered. At some point in the 4th century, the collection was made official and closed. Twenty-seven books were included in the New Testament. Four gospels, an account of the earliest church, and a collection of other letters and writings.

Modern Christians say many things about the New Testament. Some say that these works are the very words of God, as if God dictated them or perhaps even wrote them. Those who say this are often trying to express their deep reverence for the New Testament and may just be saying what their pastors have told them. I don’t agree with that picture of inspiration, but I try to be gentle and kind in my disagreement.

Other Christians believe that somehow the Spirit of God was present in the writing and collecting of these books. They believe God was working behind the process, allowing a lot of freedom for those who wrote and collected, but working nonetheless.

Still others might say that they don’t understand what a word like inspiration means exactly, but they know that twenty centuries of Christian tradition tell them that the writings of the New Testament reflect the teachings of Jesus and have proved valuable in keeping the Church moored to her original message of love, grace, and redemption.

As for me, I know that an ancient tradition and many testimonies of human experience stand behind the New Testament. These are the writings that have nurtured our mothers and fathers in faith across the ages. For that reason alone, I have deep respect for the Bible. My own careful study of the gospels over the years leaves me continually astounded by their depth and by the way they continue to speak powerfully to people of all cultures, all ages, and all levels of education. So I join myself with the larger Christian community in affirming these writings as scripture and using them to guide my life. The New Testament provides me with a baseline or measurement that keeps my own spiritual journey connected to the original teachings of Jesus and his friends.

My trust in the New Testament is an act of faith on my part. It is my own offering to a movement that stretches back to Jesus himself. I faithfully offer my life and belief with a full knowledge of what I am doing and why I am doing it.

rlp

This letter was reprinted with permission from Andrew.
Here are a couple of sources that provide further information and links.

Submitted by tippiedog on May 1, 2006 - 8:10am.

Doh. The recommendation above was from me.

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 1, 2006 - 8:52am.

I think the biblical authors were inspired by God to write, but I don't believe the words were inspired by God. Whatever truth that does lie within the language the biblical authors used I have a deep respect for - and whatever is left of that truth through the process of translation I also hold in deep respect. The challenge for me, is to recognize where in the bible is the truth conveyed.

Submitted by see through faith on May 1, 2006 - 12:10pm.

rant alert//
what gets me - and no offense to you anon - is that immediately we Christians get into a debate of inerrancey etc. sigh

what rlp said here

"There is no reason for us to be afraid of honest, passionate questions. People who ask questions are some of the most interesting kinds of people I know. Truth matters to them. They want to understand what the Bible is before they give it authority over their lives. That makes perfect sense to me."

is the crux of the matter.

honest, passionate questions are good. and we do need to know what the Bible is before we accept it in our lives. More than that we need to know the author. God Himself.

end of rant //

Submitted by Jonah on May 1, 2006 - 9:09am.

The comment by the Anon User above reflects what I believe to be a fundamental (!) problem with the position that Scripture is the inerrant word of God. The problem is of translation. With the exception of the very few who can read the texts in the original language, we are dependent on the committees which have translated the dominant English versions available.

Is one translation more irrerant than others? Is the King James' Version the only true one (as many maintain)? If not, has God acted as some sort of dictation machine for an unimaginable number of people on a vast number of translation committees?

Certainly, all things are possible with God. But it does stagger the human imagination and my personal credulity.

Jonah
http://jacsongs.blogspot.com

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 1, 2006 - 9:58am.

As one who comes from a conservative Christian movement (in the independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ) I find our seemingly wholehearted acceptance of a word for word dictation of the Bible to its human authors quite troubling. Not only does this stress the mistakes which some would say reside in our current canon of Scripture, as God would not have dictated His words and then allowed them to be perverted in such a way, it also restricts the growth of thought and maturation of theological understanding which appears within Scripture, as can be seen in the writings of Paul and others.

I, for one, have accepted a view of inspiration whereby God has supernaturally gifted individuals, i.e. those who have penned our current canon of Scripture, and allowed them to write down their thoughts on God, Jesus, and the Church. Now what's so amazing is that they all seem to have come to conclusions which are not contradictory, which compliment one another in many ways, and have helped enrich the faith of millions over the thousands of years since they first put pen to "paper."

On a sidenote, we all must remember that when the original autographs were being penned, it was not with the intention that they were going to be collected and bound within our modern version of the Bible.

Dustin (imaginationsinunity.blogspot.com)

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 1, 2006 - 10:07am.

I Believe that God inerrantly inspired each author to write what HE wanted. These books have been gathered together over these years and formed the Holy Word. The only thing I know of that God actually wrote with His own hand was the the original 10 commandments Moses destroyed then had to write again himself. God has used reallivepreacher and inspired him to write this blog and develop this website in an effort to offer the gift of eternal life through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. I know we aren't supposed to add to or take away from the Bible, but Reallivepreacher would make a good book. His letters are just as good and as relevant today as Pauls were during his time, and offer insight into finding that perfect peace. Cenotez.livejournal.com

Submitted by TheEdge on May 1, 2006 - 10:24am.

I see that I continue to be in the minority.

Gosh, we sure do limit God's All Powerful nature by failing to believe He could deliver his Word perfectly to us and preserve it for modern day believers.

This is essentially what my church believes:

* Having investigated Christ I have become convinced that He is the incarnate Son of God.
* I have read the historically reliable New Testament writings to find out what Jesus himself has to say about the Bible.
* I find that Jesus used and described the Old Testament Scriptures in the strongest possible terms as the Word of God – Mat. 5:18; John 5:39-47; 17:17 for some quick examples. He quoted from or referred to 18 out of 22 Old Testament books and virtually every major character and event as real history.
* We also find that he pre-authenticated the New Testament writings: John 14:26; 16:12-15 (the Holy Spirit will inspire the apostles with further teaching from Christ).
*It does not make sense to claim to believe in Christ, but doubt His claims of God's Word

Perhaps this guys says it even better:
http://www.4simpsons.com/The%20Bble.htm

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 2, 2006 - 12:06am.

I don't fail to believe God could do this thing; I fail to believe he has done it.

~49

Submitted by see through faith on May 2, 2006 - 3:10am.

Take another look at Andrew's letter, will you?

When I do, I see a man who is searching for God - and the Bible is part of means by which He'll find Him. Our tolerance (yes tolerance!) to listening to his questions as he explores his faith are important but his salvation is not dependent on whether he believes that the Bible is inerrant or not.

to be frank,

I think "we sure do limit God's All Powerful nature by failing to believe He could deliver his Word perfectly to us and preserve it for modern day believers." is to miss the point.

:(

It isn't about the Bible per se, shocking though that might sound. The Bible is a means for us to get to know the heart of God, of Jesus Christ better. A tool. To be used. Not worshipped as itself.

Submitted by TheEdge on May 2, 2006 - 7:43am.

I agree.

What good is it for me to convince you that I believe in an inerrant Bible if it turns you off to a relationship with God?

I honestly do not have to change someone’s mind just to put a notch in my belt. I just found truth after a very long journey and like to share some of that realization when given opportunity. I realize that I do not have the popular view on this site and do my best to interact appropriately. One's belief in the Bible does not gain him salvation, the blood of Christ does.

Submitted by Keith on May 1, 2006 - 10:25am.

Every time one of these basic questions comes up in this place, I tense up--slightly--and wait for something that smells even slightly like a party line. It hasn't happened.

I don't even disagree with much of what you say--a pleasant paradox for me, since the likelihood of my ever sharing your faith is essentially zero.

Ignorance is reduced by familiarity. The Internet lets me be familiar to some extent with people I would never come into contact with otherwise. I doubt I'll ever accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior; but thinking a Texas Baptist preacher may be a net positive to the species...OK, that's new.

Submitted by The Token Catholic on May 1, 2006 - 11:33am.

As for me, I know that an ancient tradition and many testimonies of human experience stand behind the New Testament.

You sure you're not Catholic?

http://bigumuse.blogspot.com

Submitted by rlp on May 1, 2006 - 1:02pm.

;-)

The Catholics at least admit their dependance on tradition. Any use of the New Testament by a Christian is tantamount to the same thing, whether we admit it or not. This is a hard truth for some to swallow. I get that. But it's the truth, so...

Submitted by visual-voice on May 1, 2006 - 12:12pm.

If all of have sinned and fallen short of the glory and perfection of god, how can anyone be perfectly inspired to write down the perfect words of god?

The reason we reach toward religion.. one of the reasons... is we struggle with our sufferings and inadequacies. We reach toward a higher level of understanding, as we reflect and try to find meaning in our lives.

These texts deeply touch upon what it means to have a spiritual experience while living a human life on this earth. What many people miss is the fact these stories were told through 1st century eyes. The chosen metaphors and explanations made complete sense in an age prior to scientifica study. This is not to negate the bold truths the founders of the faith discovered. Not at all. However, the idea that no person today could be enlightend and inspired by god... that someone today might bring a fresher understanding and perspective to faith that would make sense in this time of intense modern struggle ~ it's a terribly constricting and uninspired way of thinking.

Jesus himself was considered a heretic. He brought a NEW covenant. His message was radically different, rebelious, and threatening to established society and religion. Who is to say a newer fresher message couldn't rise up out of the christian faith? God did it once, who is to say he wouldn't do it again?

Submitted by Keith on May 1, 2006 - 12:16pm.

According to Islam, he already has.

Submitted by visual-voice on May 1, 2006 - 3:48pm.

... and is that a good or a bad thing? Check out the PBS special on Islam ~ it completely surprised me. Muhammad hit the scene only 560 years after the death of Jesus. Still, this is a 1500 year separation from where they were then ~ in two separate cultures ~ and where we find ourselves now, in a globally connected society where fundamentalist ideas so easily bash into each other. If we are to survive in this world community, we must learn to be respectful of every religion, and find a way of defining what it means to spiritual and play fair with each other.

2000 years ago, people unstandably believed heaven existed in the sky somewhere. Today, we know otherwise. It's not that the bible was wrong, at least not metaphorically. Heaven in the clouds is a perfect metaphor for ascending to a higher level of consciousness. We must do the same thing and ascend to a place where we understand a metaphor can be way more powerful than a true known fact. We need a spiritual language that makes sense... and an inerrant literal interpretation of the bible certainly doesn't accomplish this important task.

Submitted by Keith on May 1, 2006 - 7:08pm.

Neither a good thing nor a bad thing. Just a thing.

I really don't think there's any chance of everyone being respectful of every religion; the religions are too mutually exclusive and people are too... well... people.

Submitted by TheEdge on May 1, 2006 - 1:04pm.

Visual-voice,
I see some validity to your point. Though I question who has a better perspective of Christ...those that walked and talked with Him OR those of our enlightened, modern-day mind set???

Submitted by mattman on May 1, 2006 - 1:34pm.

except that not everything in the NT was written by those who walked and talked with Christ, including Paul and the letters attributed to him but likely not written by him, or Hebrews (whose authorship is unknown) or John which is likely the product of a community and not an individual.
This is why I LOVE reading the bible. Because it is not cut and dried, it is rich and layered and continues to surprise me and speak the living, dynamic word of God and not a singular stagnant literalistic interpretation.

Submitted by TheEdge on May 1, 2006 - 2:00pm.

Another good point...so touché. I just think we put too much stock into modern day thinking. We are 2000 years removed from these events and the authors of the NT were within a generation if not actual witnesses to Christ's life. Paul arguably did experience Christ, though not as the other Apostles did.

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 1, 2006 - 12:39pm.

Gordon has opened up the question that has plagued or enlightened all Christians throughout time. Where is the ultimate answer? I feel it is through open and honest study and discussion of the Bible. Through an inter-change of ideas from scholars, historians, scientists, believers and non-believers alike.This is when the truth comes out of the shadows.

Visual-Voice asks the question: "The idea that no person today could be enlightend and inspired by god... that someone today might bring a fresher understanding and perspective to faith that would make sense in this time of intense modern struggle ~ it's a terribly constricting and uninspired way of thinking." Well yes it is if you believe this. But I think the Bible needs to be studied with our modern day eyes, and yes it can be found applicable to our modern times. We must always see what Jesus means to us, here and now.

Agent Mulder said it best: "The truth is out there." Don't be afraid to search for it. Don't be afraid to accept it.

Submitted by a michael on May 1, 2006 - 1:42pm.

I'm not sure what to get out of this guys blog that I found thru Boing Boing http://www.rushkoff.com/2006/04/faith-illness-why-ive-had-it-with.php other than it is an interesting read...and opposing viewpoints generally stir creative thought.

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 1, 2006 - 9:56pm.

Thanks for this, douglas has it as close to what I think should be happening and how it is as I've seen.

Submitted by visual-voice on May 1, 2006 - 3:26pm.

The Edge comments ~ I see some validity to your point. Though I question who has a better perspective of Christ...those that walked and talked with Him OR those of our enlightened, modern-day mind set???

But I thought present day followers walk and talk with God every day via the Holy Spirit, that's what I was taught. We open our hearts to the presence of spirit in our lives. Love is present in the here and now, isn't it?

Submitted by TheEdge on May 1, 2006 - 3:57pm.

I did not mean to imply otherwise. Yes we walk and talk with God on some level. But do you equate that level as equal with that of The Twelve? My point, that I apparently am failing to make is that we are arrogant to discount "ancient cultures and authors" because we are so much more advanced and supposedly intelligent. To read the words of men that actually interacted daily with the physical Christ is compelling and not easily dismissed by my estimation.

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 1, 2006 - 7:32pm.

The words were penned by man, so how is it that these imperfect beings managed to get the NT absolutely right, God guided there hands? did he say “eh, for this, I’m rescinding that free will thing”? Was Mohammed a mad man who heard voices? The Jews were God's chosen people but blew 'cuz they didn't recognize Jesus as the messiah? And the Hindu’s and the Buddhist’s and the Apache and the Navajo somehow never got the message? For some reason God, who supposedly knows and is in touch with all things, picked a few people in and around Palestine 1,950 years ago to enlighten and write down the truth? Sorry I can't buy it. Don't get me wrong, the teaching and lessons in the NT are worthy and profound, but we should treat them as a living document that should be interpreted today, much like our constitution, written by humans. If most of the people who claimed to be following the teachings of Christ actually did the world would have been a more "kind and gentle" place over the last 1000 years; with far fewer wars, genocide, and poverty.

The NT was a collection of oral stories, (they didn't have blogs and email) that were eventually written down, collected, and EDITED by imperfect, fallible humans. We must always, always question authority and when someone claims that they or this is the absolute truth it must be questioned and scrutinized the most.

Submitted by Matt Sturges on May 1, 2006 - 8:12pm.

To me, this whole subject is an exegetical black hole, one of the myriad reasons I decided not to go to seminary after all. I don't care anymore who wrote the Gospels or in what particular way they were inspired. It's fun to talk about, I suppose, as long as we understand that it's not really getting us any closer to God. If you believe that Christ lives in you, then you have the very living Word of God in your heart to check the text against.

That said, I don't really understand why anyone needs the bible to be 100% literally true; to me, it's like saying Jesus couldn't have had pimples.

Put it another way: a poem with only one possible interpretation is a waste of words.

Submitted by see through faith on May 2, 2006 - 2:55am.

getting closer to God IS the issue (not inerrancy etc)

so what did you do rather than go to seminary btw ?

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 1, 2006 - 8:57pm.

Its not really fun to talk about because people take the point of view that it "was the hand of God" which means you can no more discuss it then you can the shape of an oak tree a meadow. you can praise its beauty, but a discussion about individual limbs meaning more then other is pointless. But I completely agree with your poet analogy, but you know a "true believer" will step in and say "God said this is what it means, and I quote Mark, John, Luke the big one Paul, and others here, here and here...", God didn't say anything ( remember the free will thing) we are all in this together and cnnected in ways unfathonable and its only by discussing and questioning and trying to relate the rules and mores that govern our different cultures and interaction can we begin to create something better for all us.

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 1, 2006 - 9:45pm.

I like your words, Preacher. Interesting comments. I'm not putting my 2 cents in. I'm a follower of Christ. I believe in Him and in Scripture. I'll share that with ya, tell ya what I know and feel and hopefully point you in the right direction. Beyond that... it's up to God Himself.

-n

Submitted by Alice in Wonderbread on May 1, 2006 - 10:00pm.

"These are the writings that have nurtured our mothers and fathers in faith across the ages. For that reason alone, I have deep respect for the Bible." from RLP

There's "God's" truth everywhere. It's not exclusive to any single faith. There's truth in the Bible. There's truth in any text, song, person, peice of art, converstaion with another human being, which touches your heart and changes your life.

Hooray for Andrew for asking questions. Unfortunately the answer is not quite as simple as, pardon me Douglas Adams, 42.

Submitted by phil_tgn on May 2, 2006 - 2:33am.

why do i have this funny feeling that andrews question has beekn left un answered, "How can anyone know that the Bible is divinely inspired? And if it’s not, then why does it have any authority?"

most of those who commented seem to belive that the bible is not devinely inspired, or is partly inspired and is just a really good collection or ethico moral principles, just like many other such collections, so answer his question, if it is juist another collection of stories and laws, why is it to be followed, why give it preference, why obey all it says , for all it says is very difficult indeed to follow. so are we to obey the comfortable parts and declare the uncomfortabel ones as "edited/insignificant/unathauritative?"

if there is truth every where why does it contradict itself so much?

if paul be the author, why give him more importance than say, mohammed?

"If most of the people who claimed to be following the teachings of Christ actually did the world would have been a more "kind and gentle" place over the last 1000 years; with far fewer wars, genocide, and poverty."(anonymous user)

intrestingly the bible,in fact jesus himself seemed to belive that things like war and gemnocide would only increase, and it also teaches that everyone who proffessed to follw christ need not be real followers, and if you want to see the change those who really did belive in christ not just with their minds but also with their lives, "These are the writings that have nurtured our mothers and fathers in faith across the ages", look at them.

so what answer did andrew get?

Submitted by Matt Sturges on May 2, 2006 - 7:26am.

a subtle one.

Submitted by mattman on May 2, 2006 - 8:07am.

I agree with Matt (must be a name thing). And I think the answer he got was NOT a hedge on the New Testament's authority or is status as divinely inspired. The beautiful thing about Jesus is that we believe he is fully human AND fully God. If he is the embodiment of the eternal Word of truth, than it follows that such truth is found in the relationship between God and humanity. It makes no more sense to me to claim that the Bible is purely the work of humans or simply the hand of God than it does to claim that Jesus is either human OR God but not both fully. I read the RLP's answer as one that upholds the fact that the bible is both the product of Chrisitan community and the Holy Spirit. The Spirit works through the life of the community. The Bible's authority comes from the community who acknowledge that contained within its stories, poems, wisdom, correspondence, visions, etc. is a glimpse of the eternal truth at the heart of all that is.

Submitted by rlp on May 2, 2006 - 10:41am.

The only possible answer. There is no way that anyone can know for sure how the New Testament came together. If we don't know that, we certainly have no clear answer on what inspiration means.

The answer I gave him was the only answer available. This is how these came together. This is what they have meant to Christians through the ages. These are the reasons that I choose to trust their message.

The truth is often less clear than we would like. The truth often requires us to make choices and commitments in the middle of our uncertainty.

Submitted by see through faith on May 2, 2006 - 11:20am.

I think you did good. I think you looked beneath the surface to see what the question really was -rather than jump in with your 'truth' nailed to a 2x4

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 2, 2006 - 8:17am.

I've found the conversation between visual-voice and TheEdge fascinating since they both touch on some of my beliefs. I agree with visual that I don't see the neccesity of having the scriptures be "dictation" from God (although to I would never say that it couldn't happen)and I agree with TheEdge about not relying too much on our own "wisdom". We need to temper what we know now with a respect for what they knew then. Of course I would also point out that given the number of times that Jesus had to repeat teachings it's not at all clear that disciples "got" him any better than we do today! lol!

phil_tgn asks a good question (actually several but I'm only going to take on one!)
if there is truth every where why does it contradict itself so much?

I would answer that truth (or perhaps Truth, which I do believe exists) never contradicts itself. The difficulty comes in our ability to comprehend Truth. We can not see more than a small portion and therefore do not understand it completely. Because of that we try to "fill in" bits. Sometimes we get it right, more often we get it wrong.

Peace
Jay

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 2, 2006 - 9:39am.

The Heart Sutra ends with the line know that the Prajna Paramita .... is the supreme mantra which is able to relieve all suffering and is true, not false.
Following reasoning of some of those who write to this blog, that must make the Sutra true becausee it proclaims its own truth.
I find this quite falacious reasoning.

I would rather rely on the authority of tradition than quoting from the text in question to establish its authority. The later merely begs the question. And, anyone, who like Andrew, is asking serious questions should be responded to respectfully and not further beg the question -- "It's true because such and such Biblical verse says so."

Additionally, I really don't understand the need of some to insist upon inerrancy of the Bible. What is lost if we chuck inerrancy out the window??? I see inerrancy as the hobgoblin of small minds (a slight reworking of Emerson's famous quote).

In fact, it seems to me that the insistence by some on Biblical errancy comes dangerously close to (if not indeed being) idolatry and the worship of an idol.

Celle T.

Submitted by phil_tgn on May 3, 2006 - 3:12am.

Thanks every one.I agree that it is not possible to "prove" that the bible is inspired, but at least faith in its divine origin, is required for practising what it teaches, right?

Celle T;

Well, if you chuck inerrancy out of the window, why not chuck the deity of Christ, or say the Trinity, or even salvation by grace? after all the text insists about these too.If the text is not acceptable as its own proof then how is tradition that is based on the text? And if tradition is not based on the text then how is it relevant at all?.

While inerrancy is defined differently, is not at least a belief that "all scripture is God inspired and adequate for rebuke, correction and instruction in righteousness, that the man of god may be perfect in all..." (quoting from memory sorry) needed?. How can an error laden scripture be "adequate". If mans unrighteousness has crept in to the bible then how can it instruct us in righteousness?

And believe me I am not hung up about the inerrancy thing, the bible is. If it were allowed, I would be the first one to chuck it right out, it would make the christian life a lot simpler if I could blame all the stuff in the scripture that i don't like or doesn't make sense on human error.

Mattman;

Jesus was man and god, but mind you he was perfect and sinless in his humanity, and so if one argues that the likewise the scripture is a product of human christian community, led by the holy spirit, one would also have to concede that it would have been preserved and there fore perfect like its source.(not my argument mind you)

Thanks Jay, I agree that by definition Truth cannot contradict itself,
I was speaking about truth.:-)

I guess Andrew got his answer after all, even if not a very comfortable one. Like Jesus' answers, never what you want to hear, not always what you can predict, not always easy to accept or reason but always liberating and TRUE.

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 3, 2006 - 5:46am.

I find your argument very unsatisfying. You seem to be saying that I have to accept inerrancy because otherwise I might have reason to not accept the divinity of Christ or the trinity. I don't see the problem here. Do you want a 100 percent guarantee? What's the point of faith if you need such a guarantee.

I find issues of inerrancy (and the trinity too) to be the stumbling blocks which prevent the church from being a whole body. These things divide us. We should let them go.

What would you say to your 20 year old son who still rides his bike with training wheels if he responded, "If I took them off, my bike might wobble. If my bike wobbles, then my bike might fall over. If my bike falls over, I'll get injured. The bikes more stable with the training wheels on!"

Well, your son would be right, but he fails to understand that training wheels aren't necessary if you trust the laws of physics which make it difficult to unbalance a spinning wheel. I'd say the same goes for God. Let the wheel of faith spin, but let go of the training wheels of need for the truth inerrancy, transubstantiation, trinity even miracles. Whether these things are true or not (and let me add that I leave open the possibility that they are true), only God really knows. Leave them to God to fathom and just let your faith grow.

The point I wanted to make earlier was that there are many religious texts that proclaim their own divine and inerrant origins. If you're going to accept the Bibles claims on such matters out of hand, then I'd say you're compelled to accept the validity of these claims from other faith traditions (ranging from Islam to Buddhism and Hinduism).

Celle T.

Submitted by TheEdge on May 3, 2006 - 1:52pm.

Celle,

My thoughts have already been conveyed and I feel no need to rehash. However, I find it humorous that you equate those of us that believe inerrancy as having our training wheels on. Training wheels make riding a bike easier...much like Christianity is easier without all those Biblical rules.

Sorry...I had to giggle.

Seriously, if I felt like I had a choice I would prefer to take your position. It is the easier stance to take, it meets with little or no controversy with non-believers or other faiths, and it allows for the political correctness of modern times to rest easy.

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 3, 2006 - 2:39pm.

OK, I must giggle too.... because I hadn't meant the insult. I'm smarter than that and should have made the connection about training wheels. I hadn't meant to insult anyone. And, I'm coming up short of a better analogy.

Of course, I see the words "political correctness" and I must flinch. I wasn't aiming to be politically correct. And, in fact, I wasn't NOT trying to imply that all traditions are on an equal footing. The suggestion about other faiths I made was not only to suggest a weakness in the argument for inerracy but to emphasize the inadequacy of such an argument to convince me otherwise.

I find substantial enough authority in the text with or without inerrancy. And, I suppose I feel that I only do disservice to the faith by insisting upon a point that can never be proved on way or the other.

For example, a mathematics professor math be an authority in her field but that does not mean she never makes a mistake or knows all the answers. The student questioning the professor about the material also does not mean the student questions the professor's authority.

Celle T.

Submitted by phil_tgn on May 4, 2006 - 6:51am.

well I cannot see how you cannot see that inerrancy is vital, mind you i am not insisting that the bible is inerrant down to the spelling , as some do, my argument is just got to do with authority, as was andrews question.In your words, true that a mathematics proffessor does not need to be right always, but if you have no way of determining when he is right and when wrong, and you have to base your life, make major choices, sacrifice comfort etc. one would go for an "inerrant" proffessor right? or atleast a "as inerrant as can be" proffessor.
and if the professor claims that what he teaches is all you need to be perect mathematitian, and then makes mistakes, wont you call that inconsistant?

just because a doctrine divides does not mean it should not be preached, if all the docrines that have divided the church in the ages past like those denying the deity of christ or justification by faith alone or as you say trinity were allowed to persist, what would the word christian mean? a person who belives in christ ? as what? god, man, good guy, or a schizophrenic adultrer?

i have agreed earlier that inerancy cannot be "proven" and may i also say that the reason i belive that the scripture is without error at least in matters which i have meantioned earlier is not just the declaration of the text but many others, form manuscript to changed lives to internal consistancy which i assure you the religions you menationed do not offer in the same manner.

I am a medical student, to me error in the text is equal to death of the patient when it comes to critical matters, so i must assume that the text is correct whan i follow it and the patient lives, but if i do not belive in the text, i cannot practice.(i mean i still CAN as in ability, but i would be aiming ibn the dark hoping that this part tells me the right treatment.)

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 4, 2006 - 2:27pm.

The medical textbook is not there to give you all the answers to every conceivable situation. It's authors expect you to think about the situation. Some times what the textbook says could be quite dangerous if applied without thinking.

A textbook with lots of mistakes is a bad thing. But, it would be wrong to think it is inerrant. Medical developments change the way we view the body and what constitutes good health and ethical medical treatment.

I would say one should approach scripture the same way.

You seem to be looking for something with all the answers and you seem to want it so bad that it seems you capitulate to a text (in this case scripture) when your reason and prayer might be a better guide.

Scripture to me tell me something important about who I am in this tradition. It tells me something about where we've been and how we think within this tradition. It tells me something about how this tradition based community views itself, regulates itself and thinks about God. It tells me how that community has understood God.

But, if I want to know God now, I don't read a book. I talk to God.

I don't want to raise scripture above human wisdom and reason. That is to worship scripture as an idol and break perhaps the most important of all the commandments: now to worship idols (if only we could understand the full amazing impact of that single command).

Celle T.

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 4, 2006 - 11:53pm.

It is not alright to raise the scripture because that is idolatory, but it is alright to raise our wisdom and our reason and that is not idolatory, sorry cant buy that. The "textbook" was a parable, it is pointless to read more than intended into a parable.

Ok celle, we have, what they call a difference in fundamental presuppositions, so theoraticaly we wont get anywhere with this discussion. so chuck it, you stand convinced that the scripture has authority and is to be obeyed regardless of its inspiration, i stand convincd that the source of authority is its inspiraion,so let us do what is important, study and obey the scripture, and talk to god, i do that thru prayer, he talks back thru his word the scripture, and if you are convinced that he speakes to you in other ways, so be it, i am glad for you.

Phil

Submitted by himitsu on May 15, 2006 - 2:12am.

Faith

Faith can not be enforced. It has to come from heart. Then,it will be a long lasting faith. God also love such people,who has this type of faith.

Submitted by Anonymous User on May 23, 2006 - 4:19am.

first of all,i really dont understand how a "gospel" could be included in a "bible" which is suposed to be the words of god.the gospel makes no sense to me at all.The thing i understand is that all the gospel did was ruin the bible,for example it states in the gospel that:"And when Jesus saw the disciples of John, he was moved with compassion toward them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd."but i understand this as,
Cf. Mark 6:34. Matthew (14:14) modifies Mark's statement considerably. First of all, he omits Mark's words "because they were as sheep not having a shepherd," which he puts after reporting about John's messengers sent from the prison (Matt. 9:36). Secondly, while Mark says that "he began to teach them many things," Matthew says that "he healed their sick." Luke tries to combine both versions. Mark's statement rightly suggests that it was after John's death that Jesus truly began to act as the leader of the Baptist movement.(CAN SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE ME AN EXPLANATION BECOZ I HAVE MANY MORE OF THESE QUESTIONS WHICH ARE CONTRADICT ALOT OF THINGS)

Submitted by Anonymous User on January 4, 2007 - 1:01am.

the scientific formula of time i am time you are motion theres nothing in you that can understand me scientificlly mathematically theres nothing in your formula that can come to me i am time i can come to you.i am the light you are the darkness.the big bang started time.i call it the birth of science.time into motion leaveing space behind 3 formulas working in harmony the formula of time accelarates mathematically calculating the space left behind to the correct formula time space a moon emty and void in time the formula of time would calculate the right formulas for each step it would take to matthematicaally calculate the correct formula for everything and in time earh was created to the right formula a perfect design and in time man was created and in time the sientific formula of time came through the planet in the form of a man mankind feared him because he could do impossible things because there was.nt many people on the planet the formula of time was powerful doing what his father created him for to create correct any formula tha wasnt the correct formula so take the formula of a blind man mathematically his formula would be incorrect but in time the formula of time would correct the formula end result the blind man would be able to see mankind didnt understand this they didnt know it was just science so they killed him little did they know that the formula they killed was responsable for the mathematics of there solar system when he died the solar system started a slow decline in to the incorect formula and in time it would collapse time is of essence time waits for no man in the beginning god created heaven and earth in the beginning god created time and motion 2000 years later the formula of time has come back but mans formula of motion has grown and time is week and time is so crawling through mans motion time needs to start wih science time in the formula he must be 1 billion light years in a new solar system before the collapse of mans solar system god wants time in the safty zone with or with out mankind i am time the missing link faith thats all mans got but theres nothing in you that can understand me and you will die