h**p://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtfulpastor/ ... s-biblical
Interesting answer to the question of 'is the Bible inerrant or is it all 'relative' and why. The personal note at the bottom of the essay is really interesting, I thought.
Why post here? Because this sort of 'problem' was an early issue for me when I was still in the coc (and was shut down when I questioned anything) so I thought the subject might be of interest to others also. I know it is a topic many struggle with from growing up coc (or growing up fundamentalist).
On inerrancy - and how to understand it
On inerrancy - and how to understand it
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: On inerancy - and how to understand it
I guess I can see how it might make things easier to just stop believing in the Bible as God's Word. I just never found the arguments compelling, they always seemed to convenient and self-serving. Paul didn't write 1 Tim...wham, there...it is true because the guy decides to say it is true. Not sure how any of that differs from the POV he is complaining about. BTW, is "inerancy" (sic) meant to be a comment?
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
Re: On inerancy - and how to understand it
Nope - it is a topic for conversation. It is also a term tossed around a fair bit, but it has more than one meaning. The idea that 'inerancy' means that the Bible is correct about everything and literally factual is only one view of what 'inerancy' means. It once meant - and still means to many people - that it is SPIRITUALLY inerant. But it used 'the language of man' and therefore is full of metaphor, imagery, and other literary genres.
However, saying 'Paul didn't write I Timothy' is not an OPINION. It is a CONCLUSION, reached by many, many students of scripture, both believing Christians and not, based on the literary style of Paul's writing compared to the literary style of I Timothy.
I think even people who don't do a lot of reading and don't study literature, can still see the difference between, say, Dr. Seuss and Karl Jung, or between Hemingway and Charles Dickens when it comes down to 'style'. And yes, people CAN write in the style of somebody else - but it isn't invariably successful. The point is, I Timothy is NOT written in the 'style' of Paul, doesn't sound anything like Paul, uses Greek differently from the way Paul does, and is clearly not written by Paul. It SAYS it is written by Paul, but that is the only 'evidence', and nothing else about I Timothy supports that.
However, saying 'Paul didn't write I Timothy' is not an OPINION. It is a CONCLUSION, reached by many, many students of scripture, both believing Christians and not, based on the literary style of Paul's writing compared to the literary style of I Timothy.
I think even people who don't do a lot of reading and don't study literature, can still see the difference between, say, Dr. Seuss and Karl Jung, or between Hemingway and Charles Dickens when it comes down to 'style'. And yes, people CAN write in the style of somebody else - but it isn't invariably successful. The point is, I Timothy is NOT written in the 'style' of Paul, doesn't sound anything like Paul, uses Greek differently from the way Paul does, and is clearly not written by Paul. It SAYS it is written by Paul, but that is the only 'evidence', and nothing else about I Timothy supports that.
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: On inerancy - and how to understand it
Yes, it is a conclusion and not a Fact, even though the author states that it is a "fact". Many people have a hard time distinguishing and accepting that conclusions are not the same as facts, and this applies to many areas of life/society. And glad to see you corrected the 'erant' title.
But still I see the short term gain by making some things easier by insisting that the Bible text contains error and must be considered more a suggestion. And that the text is mainly first to be commented upon and debated rather than accepted as the Word of God. Yes, I get that. That approach has been tried for thousands of years with varying results. But it seems to me it just pushes the problem down the road to consider it as some sort of spiritual guidance in vague form...because know you have to decide what to chuck and what is of value and who has the "best" take on something. And then you have to decide about of the stuff value, what can be chucked because society or conditions on the ground have changed. And who has the next "best" take on the stuff. So for me, I just see this as pushing the problem down the road for a hamburger today.
But still I see the short term gain by making some things easier by insisting that the Bible text contains error and must be considered more a suggestion. And that the text is mainly first to be commented upon and debated rather than accepted as the Word of God. Yes, I get that. That approach has been tried for thousands of years with varying results. But it seems to me it just pushes the problem down the road to consider it as some sort of spiritual guidance in vague form...because know you have to decide what to chuck and what is of value and who has the "best" take on something. And then you have to decide about of the stuff value, what can be chucked because society or conditions on the ground have changed. And who has the next "best" take on the stuff. So for me, I just see this as pushing the problem down the road for a hamburger today.
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
Re: On inerrancy - and how to understand it
I am a generally good speller, but there are some words that defeat me, that that is one of them. I keep wanting to double the n as well as the r, or the n instead of the r - maybe I am defeated generally by Greek derived English words??
Some conclusions from data are such 'good' conclusions, that to fail to use 'fact' in referring to them is just quibbling for the sake of it. It is a conclusion that Paul didn't write I Timothy (and some other NT letters attributed to him also for that matter) and that conclusion is quite 'good' (has good evidence, is well accepted among scholars, can even be 'seen' by casual readers familiar with the Greek NT and Paul's 'real' letters...).
Since I - quite literally speaking - have no dog in that fight, it doesn't really matter a whole lot to me personally.
However, given that numerous people from numerous cultures have read the NT (and the OT too) frequently and often, and that as a rule every single one of those readers, over two millenia nearly, and from every culture around over that period, has come up with roughly THE SAME interpretation of the overall, general MESSAGE of 'the Bible' -
Maybe it isn't kicking that can as far down the road as you might think, and the 'message' is 'inerrant' even if the details are subpar (so to speak) and the edges may be fuzzy.
Some conclusions from data are such 'good' conclusions, that to fail to use 'fact' in referring to them is just quibbling for the sake of it. It is a conclusion that Paul didn't write I Timothy (and some other NT letters attributed to him also for that matter) and that conclusion is quite 'good' (has good evidence, is well accepted among scholars, can even be 'seen' by casual readers familiar with the Greek NT and Paul's 'real' letters...).
Since I - quite literally speaking - have no dog in that fight, it doesn't really matter a whole lot to me personally.
However, given that numerous people from numerous cultures have read the NT (and the OT too) frequently and often, and that as a rule every single one of those readers, over two millenia nearly, and from every culture around over that period, has come up with roughly THE SAME interpretation of the overall, general MESSAGE of 'the Bible' -
Maybe it isn't kicking that can as far down the road as you might think, and the 'message' is 'inerrant' even if the details are subpar (so to speak) and the edges may be fuzzy.
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: On inerrancy - and how to understand it
The conclusion against Paul as the author is accepted by those who are of a given attitude, such as yourself. Yes, folks who think a certain way interpret the data a certain way...it does not mean the conclusion is good or bad, just means that those with that world view are most likely to accept and agree. Paul is writing to a beloved individual, not a general audience. Paul clearly states his health is failing and this being a late letter, he already points out that he even sometimes writes with his own hand (so he uses a secretary), and the topic Paul is discussing is a bit different and again, he is communicating in a personal letter to a close friend.
Guess what....his style, tone, and vocabulary are different from the Roman or Galatian letter...so what, it is different. This is not proof and certainly not such a good conclusion that it is tantamount to "fact". IMO, someone who wants to embellish this conclusion as "fact" is selling a POV. Paul was educated, and travelled...but supposedly he is supposed to have a limited style and vocabulary anytime he puts pen to paper. But yes, I understand why folks do not want to have to accept completely the Pauline epistles, so it is best to come up with some excuse. So in the 1800's this stuff about Paul's vocabulary came up. Somehow that the CofC starting in the 1800's is used to discount it...but any modern take on language interpretation is supposed to be taken seriously?
Guess what....his style, tone, and vocabulary are different from the Roman or Galatian letter...so what, it is different. This is not proof and certainly not such a good conclusion that it is tantamount to "fact". IMO, someone who wants to embellish this conclusion as "fact" is selling a POV. Paul was educated, and travelled...but supposedly he is supposed to have a limited style and vocabulary anytime he puts pen to paper. But yes, I understand why folks do not want to have to accept completely the Pauline epistles, so it is best to come up with some excuse. So in the 1800's this stuff about Paul's vocabulary came up. Somehow that the CofC starting in the 1800's is used to discount it...but any modern take on language interpretation is supposed to be taken seriously?
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
Re: On inerrancy - and how to understand it
Have it your way - as I said, not my fight.
Anyway, that is a side issue to the 'inerrancy' notion.
Anyway, that is a side issue to the 'inerrancy' notion.
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: On inerrancy - and how to understand it
Right and as I said, I understand your way (or this guys way). I am just looking for a third or alternative way. A way that it can still be God's Word and also at the same time not have to be such hardnosed jerks about everything. Which is what I think Jesus was about at several times, of having some sort of balance between law and love.
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
Re: On inerrancy - and how to understand it
I guess the point of the 'Paul isn't the author' business is - how important is it to someone's FAITH that Paul 'has to' have written I Timothy? Is it a total deal breaker - a crisis of faith - if ANY SINGLE point of 'scripture' is (hypothetically) absolutely 'proven' to be incorrect?
This applies mostly to these intransigent inerrantists who think NOT ONLY that every word of the scripture is absolutely LITERALLY true, but that their own personal (or their own groups) understanding of meaning is the ONLY meaning possible (and everybody else is wrong).
Some people manage to maintain their faith despite having serious questions about Biblical inerrancy, and others maintain a strong faith without (seemingly having reconciled themselves) concerns about 'factuality', but other people if and when they have an unresolved question, see it as critical to having faith at all.
That is, the point isn't actually whether or not Paul did or didn't write any particular letter attributed to them, it is more about how individuals handle that sort of potentially controversial idea. How 'inerrant' is our own 'inerrancy' and how important is 'inerrancy' to our own attitude toward scriptural 'truth'?
This applies mostly to these intransigent inerrantists who think NOT ONLY that every word of the scripture is absolutely LITERALLY true, but that their own personal (or their own groups) understanding of meaning is the ONLY meaning possible (and everybody else is wrong).
Some people manage to maintain their faith despite having serious questions about Biblical inerrancy, and others maintain a strong faith without (seemingly having reconciled themselves) concerns about 'factuality', but other people if and when they have an unresolved question, see it as critical to having faith at all.
That is, the point isn't actually whether or not Paul did or didn't write any particular letter attributed to them, it is more about how individuals handle that sort of potentially controversial idea. How 'inerrant' is our own 'inerrancy' and how important is 'inerrancy' to our own attitude toward scriptural 'truth'?
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: On inerrancy - and how to understand it
I see that as a distinction without a difference. What is almost always being sought in the so-called enlightened POV is an expanding of wiggle room and gray areas to fit current fashions and social changes. What is the point of so much of the NT being about guarding against apostasy to follow a useless "faith" and the OT history of apostasy being punished. The question it seems isn't then about whether one has "faith" but rather faith in what?
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.