|
Post by justinadams on Sept 26, 2018 5:16:44 GMT -5
I agree that we should live by the words of the Lord God. Not by the words of man. The fact of the scriptures being what they are give credence to the superior intellect of the Lord. He has managed to get His Pure Message thru all the mechanisms set against Him. As you say, God did bypass the stupidity of man! However, do not forget history and what it also teaches us. C.S. Lewis also said that it is impossible to say that any scriptural writings we have are totally without error. What we forget is that God is Spirit. His Words breath thru whatever medium He wishes. It is still His Word because it is heard by our spirit which has been bought at a price and belongs to Him. Yeshua paid the price for allowing us to receive the Words of the Father. Conversations about canon were invented to subdue and scare people into a particular belief system - or they would be executed in the most horrible ways. I will not have any part in the justifications of canon. It has been used as a blunt instrument too many times - it is a lethal weapon. Those that do not read and learn from history will surely repeat it. Despising someone for not agreeing to a canon is tantamount to the old methods of inquisition. Absolutely horrible and dehumanizing. I have no ax to grind in this regard. People that marginalize others because they do no believe what they believe are one step away from a very deep and very wide ditch. I know that the Lord Yeshua will overcome and I am fully certain that He speaks His Word to whomever He wishes. I also know that the scriptures are for us to understand and learn about our Lord High God and His sacrifices for us. HIS-tory. I further know that He used fallen man to compile and promote His words the way He wishes us to receive them. I see that by the 'foolishness of preaching' men are saved. This makes perfect sense to me. Mankind is foolish and sees thru a glass darkly.
I re-quote what I have previously posted:
"Things Your Pastor Never Told You About the Early Church Fathers
From bibleheadquarters.org, from the book: "Things Your Pastor never told you," by Ben Alpert
TheWayPrepared.com
For almost a century, the early believers in Yeshua the Messiah were culturally and ethnically the same as, and worshipped alongside, mainstream Judaism. The first "Christians", as such, were Jews. The Torah was of great importance to them and they kept its laws, observing the Sabbath and performing circumcision. They did not follow "another religion", but remained within the Torah framework of Judaism.
This Messianic movement spread largely among Jews to begin with, and for some time it remained a sect within Judaism, mostly known as the sect of the Nazarenes. Early in the second century, the Nazarene sect, consisting of both Jewish and Gentile believers who converted to Judaism, became subjected to a number of religious and political events.
In 117 CE, the Roman Emperor Hadrian built a temple to Jupiter in Jerusalem and renamed the city Aelia Capitolina, turning Jerusalem into a Roman City. Demoralized after such a loss of Jewish national and religious life, which had begun with the destruction of the second Temple in 70 CE, the Jewish people looked for a Messiah to save them from the oppression of Rome.
In 132 CE, Simon Bar Kochba was endorsed by the leading Jewish intellectual of the time, Rabbi Akiba, to be the promised Messiah, and in 135 CE, Bar Kochba led a revolt against Rome. [1] The Nazarene Jews, however, refused to join in the revolt, as they concluded this would go against their belief in Yeshua as the Messiah. Although they had fought in the initial revolt against Rome, when Bar Kochba was declared the Messiah, they refused to fight under his banner. This resulted in bloodshed between Jews on both sides. By the end of the second century CE, a wedge was driven between the Nazarene movement and mainstream Judaism.
However, the Bar Kochba revolt was not the only reason for this separation. As more and more Gentiles joined the new Jewish movement, the actual Jewish presence became progressively less numerically significant. Although Christianity didn't officially take a stance against Judaism until early in the fourth century, divisions and differences of opinion began in the first century CE. As a result of the Apostle Paul's mission to the Gentiles, the ethnic composition of the Nazarean movement began to rapidly change from a Jewish majority to a Gentile majority. For some time, Gentiles remained within the Nazarean movement. However, by the end of the first century, non-Jewish influences affected the structure and beliefs of the now Gentile-dominated movement.
In the second century CE, many of the "Early Church Fathers", or "Apostolic Fathers", began to make statements which further separated gentiles from everything Jewish. Non-Jewish doctrines began to be developed which became the foundational beliefs of Christianity. Although Gentile Christians were not particularly opposed to the Jews and many still converted to Judaism, the formal position of the Church was decisively set against the Synagogue. The Church sought to conquer the Synagogue which, in their view, continued to cling stubbornly to its ancestral faith.
Frustrated and embittered, the Church Fathers set out to prove that Judaism was a legalistic, dead and superseded religion. [2] By reversing the Biblical image of the Jews, the Church claimed to be the "New Israel", the "Jacob", whereas the Jews were Esau and Cain, the murderers of their brother. Israel was portrayed as blind and divorced by God. This theology of replacement, which evolved into a theology of displacement, stated that the Jews had forfeited what God had given them and now Christianity was the new "heir" to the promises and blessings of God. The Jews, however, could keep the curses.
In the Epistle of Barnabas, written around 135 CE, this "replacement theology" is clearly stated. Referring to the Mosaic Covenant, Barnabas writes:
"Indeed it is ours; for Moses had hardly received it when they (the Jews) forfeited it forever." [3]
The Church, however, did not claim the Biblical commandments in a literal sense, but rather "spiritualized" them. They perceived the literal as being only a shadow of what was to come, being that Jesus completed and abolished law. To continue observing the literal Sabbath, literal circumcision, literal dietary laws etc., was foolishness and nonsense. The Church Father, Tertullian, wrote concerning the Sabbath and circumcision:
"It follows, accordingly, that, in so far as the abolition of carnal circumcision and of the old law is demonstrated as having been consummated at its specific times, so also the observance of the Sabbath is demonstrated to have been temporary." [4]
In a letter to Diognetus, possibly written by Justin Martyr in the second century, similar statements are made concerning Jewish practices:
"As for their scrupulousness about meats, and their superstitions about the sabbath, and their much vaunted circumcision, and their pretentious festivals and new moon observances - all of them too nonsensical to be worth discussing...." [5]
The Apostolic Fathers continued issuing statements clearly divorcing Christianity from anything Jewish. The Mosaic Law, including the Festivals and the Sabbath, circumcision and Israel's election by God, were all brushed away as things of the past. Also, in order to gain the acceptance of Rome, the now Gentile-dominated "Church" made it loud and clear that it had nothing in common with Judaism. In the Epistle of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, to the Magnesians in 115 CE, Christians were warned of the error of looking to Judaism:
"To profess Jesus Christ while continuing to follow Jewish customs is an absurdity. The Christian faith does not look to Judaism, but Judaism looks to Christianity...." [6]
The teaching of the Church Fathers managed to invalidate Judaism in the eyes of the Gentile world. Although up until now the Jewish/Christian debate was not much more than a debate, the real turning point for the Jews in the Roman Christian world was the Council of Nicea, held in 325 CE. At this Council, Christianity became the official religion of the Roman State and the concepts and claims of the theologians were put into practice and the separation between Christianity and Judaism became official. Constantine, Emperor of Rome and leader of the Church declared:
"You should consider not only that the number of churches in these provinces make a majority, but also that it is right to demand what our reason approves, and that we should have nothing in common with the Jews." [7]
As the Church developed into the fourth century and became an international political power, it was confronted with the terrible fact that the Jews, merely by continuing to be Jews threatened the very legitimacy of the Church. They concluded that if Judaism remained valid, Christianity would then be invalid. Christianity's idea of redemption was so manifestly in opposition to that of the Jews, that it rendered their mutual coexistence inconceivable. The Church Fathers had to deal with this Jewish challenge and they did so in a most logical manner.
Judaism was declared an apostate and superseded religion and the Jews had now lost their right to exist. However, the Jews did exist and so the Church needed a reason for their continued existence. If their failure to recognize the Christ resulted in their dispersion, and if Christianity had superceded Judaism in being a "light to the gentiles", then why were the Jews around at all? The Church concluded that the reason Jews survived was to prove the truth of Christianity. They were to be around always, to be persecuted, vulnerable, wanderers on the earth without a home, as proof of God's wrath upon them.
The condition of the Jews was to be a negative witness to their crime of deicide. This was the purpose of their existence. The Jews, therefore, were forever, everywhere, held collectively responsible for Yeshua’s death because they were "a wicked nation." Furthermore, the calamities that befell Jewry--the destruction of the Temple and the dispersion--were seen as having Christological import, pointing to what Christians saw as just desserts for killing Christ.
Augustine declared:
"The true image of the Hebrew is Judas Iscariot, who sells the Lord for silver. The Jew can never understand the Scriptures and forever will bear the guilt for the death of Jesus." [8]
Concerning the accusation of "deicide", the killing of God, Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, stated that the Jews should "rightly suffer", for they had "slain the Just One." [9] If the Church believed that the Jews had, in fact, killed God, then it would stand to reason that "God is dead".
The stereotype of the "deicide people" was transmitted through theological writings, sermons and in following centuries, through Passion plays, folklore and the arts. Christian theologians condemned Jews, accusing them of being idolaters, torturers, spiritually deaf, blasphemers, gluttons, adulterers, cannibals, Christ-killers, and beyond God's forgiveness. John Chrysostom, known as the "golden mouthed" orator due to his eloquence in speech, unleashed a series of "Homilies Against the Jews." In the late fourth century he falsely wrote:
"They sacrificed their sons and daughters to devils; they outraged nature and overthrew their foundations of the laws of relationship. They are become worse than the wild beasts, and for no reason at all, with their own hands, they murder their offspring, to worship the avenging devils who are foes of our life. They know only one thing, to satisfy their gullets, get drunk, to kill and maim one another. The Jews are the most worthless of all men. They are lecherous, greedy, rapacious. They are perfidious murderers of Christ. The Jews are the odious assassins of Christ and for killing God there is no expiation possible, no indulgence or pardon. Christians may never cease vengeance, and the Jews must live in servitude forever. God always hated the Jews. It is incumbent upon all Christians to hate the Jews." [10]
Chrysostom argued that Jews will be crucified throughout history because they crucified Christ:
"It is because you shed the precious blood, that there is now no restoration, no mercy anymore, and no defense...." [11]
Persecution and violence toward the Jews became common due to heavy restrictive measures imposed by the Church against the Jewish people. In the three centuries from 300 to 600 CE, a host of rules were passed containing discriminatory provisions against the Jews in the Christian Roman Empire. These were summed up in four major rules contained in the Laws of Constantine the Great (315 CE); the Laws of Constaninus (399 CE); the Laws of Theodosius II (439 CE) and the Laws of Justinian (531 CE).
"Under Emperor Justinian, Roman Law was systematized and codified as Corpus Iuris Civilis, or "the Justinian Code". Church Law and doctrine now became state policy. The total of these laws declared that Jews were no longer allowed to hold high offices or have military careers. It became a capital offence to convert to Judaism and intermarriage between Christians and Jews was punishable by death. The Torah was forbidden to be read exclusively in Hebrew and Jews were allowed only a prescribed version of Scripture in their synagogues and were also prohibited to use prayers that were seen as anti-Trinitarian. The keeping of the Sabbath, Jewish Festivals and performing circumcision were banned and Jewish property was confiscated. Rabbinical jurisdiction was curtailed; all former religious and governing privileges were removed and Jews were not permitted to testify against Christians. With the Christianization of the Roman Empire in east and west throughout the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries, the increase in anti-Jewish legislation and teaching reduced Judaism to a position of permanent legal inferiority. In all respects, the Jew had to remain subservient to the Christian, and Christianity soon began to enjoy a position of superiority over Judaism, which caused serious consequences for the Jews." [12]
In 418 CE, Bishop Severus of Majorca forced Jews to convert. Violent street fighting broke out with a mob incited by the bishop. The synagogue was burnt. Finally the leaders of the Jewish community gave in and 540 Jews were converted. St. Jerome, who had studied with Jewish scholars in Palestine and translated the Bible into Latin wrote about the synagogue:
"If you call it a brothel, a den of vice, the Devil's refuge, Satan's fortress, a place to deprave the soul, an abyss of every conceivable disaster or whatever you will, you are still saying less than it deserves." [13]
In 489 CE, a Christian mob set fire to the synagogues in Antioch and threw the bodies of slain Jews into the fire. Jews could exercise no position of authority and Christianity had to be rigidly protected from "contamination" through living, eating or engaging is sexual relation with them. [14]
The status of the Jew was thus no more than that of an animal, as Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, declared to the faithful:
"Truly I doubt whether a Jew can be really human... I lead out from its den a monstrous animal and show it as a laughing stock in the amphitheatre of the world. I bring thee forward, thou Jew, thou brute beast, in the sight of all men." [15]
Under the stigma of this image, the Jews were gradually excluded from every sphere of political influence and their political and civil rights were increasingly denied them, until eventually such rights were almost entirely a thing of the past. Church teaching, such as that of John Chrysostom, paved the way for the slaughter of countless numbers of Jews throughout history.
Statements such as these from Cluny and Chrysostom were constantly reiterated by Church leaders. The image of the Jew progressively evolved from that of "apostate", to the total representation of evil--the very incarnation of the devil himself. The "Church triumphant" saw herself as bearing the task of making the Holy Land (and other lands along the way) Judenrein. The leader of the First Crusade, Godfroi Bouillon, in 1096 CE, swore to avenge the blood of Christ in Israel and to leave no single member of the Jewish race alive. When the Crusaders arrived in Israel, then called Palestina, they rounded up the Jews in Jerusalem, herded them into the synagogue and burned the building to the ground. Marching triumphantly around the inferno, they sang a hymn-- "Christ We Adore Thee". Inside the burning synagogue, no doubt the Jews heard these strains of "Christian worship" as they perished.
Shortly before the Church's Fourth Lateran Council, held in 1215 CE, Pope Innocent III condemned the Jews to eternal slavery by decreeing:
"The Jews, against whom the blood of Jesus Christ calls out, although they ought not to be killed, lest the Christian people forget the Divine Law, yet as wanderers ought they remain upon the earth, until their countenance be filled with shame." [16]
With this statement, the Church settled the destiny of the Jewish people for many centuries. Church doctrine ultimately legitimized the torture and murder of Jews in Christendom for nearly two thousand years. They were to live as wanderers on the earth, having no home, rights or privileges. The Jews were treated as pariahs and became the scapegoats for all the ills of society. People everywhere, in all classes, were eager to exterminate the Jews. These people were not born with an instinctive hatred in their hearts toward the Jewish people, their hatred was the product of clerical propaganda. [17]
The doctrines and teachings of the Church from its beginnings to the Fourth Lateran Council, laid the initial layer of "Jew hatred" and took the Jewish people all the way to the Holocaust. This first step began with the attempt to drive Jews either into Christianity or into a place of non-identity, as Judaism was no longer recognized as a valid religion. By doing so, the Church clearly defined anti-Semitism's first characteristic — "You have no right to live among us as Jews."
Some Closing Thoughts
As we see in the brief and tragic historical account above, It was the 'Church Fathers' quoted above, who introduced the erroneous and shameful "strange fire" into the life of the Believers, through their man-made doctrines.
It is the seeds of man-made religious doctrines that, if allowed to germinate, eventually evolve into a false Religious system — whose corrupted fruit is hatred of the Jews, and abandonment of living according to the Scriptures.
As a result of this corruption, the Biblical practices and celebrations of the Born-Again Believers began to be outlawed, and then snuffed-out altogether, only to be replaced with man-made religious doctrines, un-Biblical practices, and pagan celebrations.
All of the protestant and evangelical religions of today stem from this early, 'evolved' form of religious doctrine and practice seen above, which has yielded the corrupt fruit of "Replacement Theology" and anti-semitism. This inherited corruption defines the current state of evangelical Christianity today, which bears no resemblance to the first-century followers of Messiah.
In light of this information, it appears that the Believers of today have been robbed by the 'Church Fathers' of their true, Biblical heritage (Isaiah 42:21-22; Jeremiah 16:19).
But Yahuweh has promised a full restoration of all things, before He returns (Mat 17:11; Mark 9:12; Acts 3:21) — and this restoration is now well underway! Both Jewish and Gentile Believers today are coming out from among the long-standing, man-made religious teachings and idolatrous practices found within both Judaism and Christianity.
Instead, they are beginning to 'keep' (the Hebrew word means 'to guard;' to 'watch;' to beware, take heed, and observe) the Biblical doctrines, practices and celebrations — just as Yahushua and the early Disciples did. This remnant of Biblical Believers today have a genuine love for the Jewish people, and an inward love for Israel.
As the Bride-Company is being led by the Holy Spirit into all Truth, she is being restored, and 'cleaned-up' by the Bridegroom Himself!
"If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee." (Rev 3:3)
Related Articles:
Seven Biblical Guidelines for Studying the Bible: Using Scripture to Interpret the Scriptures New! - What is the source of our current understanding of the Bible? The pure Truths of Scripture are of highest importance — how we understand the Scriptures will affect our eternal condition! To avoid being deceived by man-made doctrines, we must not rely on Preachers, Teachers, Bible notes or commentaries. Instead we must study and understand the Bible for ourselves — not looking through the lenses of tradition or man-made Bible study methods — but relying only on what the Bible actually says about how to study and understand the Scriptures! Here are 7 Biblical Guidelines that show us the way!
True Grace - by David M Hargis - A Biblically accurate overview of New Covenant Grace as used in the context of the majority of the apostle Paul's writings
Grace-Grace - As seen in Zechariah 4, Yahuweh's New Testament Grace is two-fold; both aspects His Grace are required to walk in Righteousness
The Doctrine of Balaam Today: A Warning to the Bride - Yahushua warns His people of this error, which has been embraced by most Believers today; causes His people to commit sins, and brings a plague on entire congregations; he will fight against all who do not repent, but continue to hold this error
Eating Things Sacrificed to Idols: A Warning to the Bride - The Scriptures warn of a popular Religious Tradition among most Believers today
Walking in Eternal Judgment - One of the Foundation Stones of The Faith in Hebrews Chapter 6 is that we are to walk according to Yahuweh's eternal Mishpatim - His Rules of the House
Our Greatest Hindrance: The Doctrines and Commandments of Men - Modern-day examples of the Doctrines and Commandments of Men, which turn men away from the truth; Yahushua and His Disciples are for our examples
The Way of Salvation - The term Salvation in Scripture speaks of two distinct stages of our walk with Messiah; The Scriptures tell us of a clear and simple message of Salvation, and give many New Testament warnings important for Believers today
Footnotes:
From bibleheadquarters.org, from the book: "Things Your Pastor never told you," by Ben Alpert
[1] Dimont, Max, "Jews, God, and History", New York, 1962, pp. 106-108
[2] Wilson, Marvin, "Our Father Abraham", Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Michigan, 1989, p. 92
[3] Epistle of Barnabas
[4] Tertullian: An Answer to the Jews
[5] Epistle to Diognetus
[6] lgnatius to the Magnesians
[7] Dixon, M., "The Rebirth and Restoration of Israel", Chichester, Sovereign World, 1988, p. 80
[8] Calendar of Jewish Persecution
[9] Wilson, Marvin, op. cit., p. 93
[10] Chrysostom's Sermons, quoted in Dixon, p. 80
[11] Cohn-Sherbok D., "The Crucified Jew", Harper Collins, London, 1992, p. 33
[12] Wistrich, R., "Antisemitism, the Longest Hatred", Pantheon Books, New York, 1991, pp. 19, 25
[13] lbid
[14] Wistrich, R., op. cit., p. 45
[15] Hay, M., "Thy Brother's Blood", Hart Publishing Co. 1975, p. 57
[16] Brown, Michael, "Our Hands Are Stained With Blood", Shippensburg, Destiny Image, 1993, p. 13
[17] Hay, M., op. cit., p. 35
"If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee." (Rev 3:3)"
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 26, 2018 7:53:25 GMT -5
Justin, I have no doubt that hatred for the Jews exists and always has. None of what you said in that massive post has anything to do with whether or not we have a fully inerrant Bible and it doesn't in any wise show that our canon is not fully reliable.
Here is how I see it. Let's suppose I am writing a series of books, and my secretary is an anti-Semite. I tell her word for word what to write, and she does it. My books do not show the influences of hatred for the Jews because the woman who is an anti-Semite was writing my words, not hers. The same thing goes for the canon. Let's suppose that I am wanting to compile a bunch of short books to make up one volume. I tell my secretary what books are to go into that volume, and she follows my orders. It just happens this is the same anti-Semite that took dictation earlier for me. Her personal views have zero impact on the finished product, because I am the author.
God moved upon men to write each book that makes up the Bible, and gave them the words to say. They were his words, not theirs. He literally put the words in their mind, much like giving dictation to a secretary. God later moved upon men to compile his short books and place them into a single volume that would become the Holy Bible. God can use anyone, even imperfect individuals for this task, because they are only putting together a series of books God wrote. Therefore, nothing you have written is relevant to whether or not the Holy Bible and the Canon are fully trustworthy.
I have read the Bible, and it DOES NOT contain any messages promoting hatred for the Jews. Much of Job is a conversation between Job and his friends that God says are not accurate portrayals of reality. It is an accurate account of what they believed. Nothing in Job states the earth is flat. The only book I know of that makes one believe in a flat earth is Enoch, a book that isn't in the canon. I feel like you are the one underestimating the power of God to give us a perfect book containing HIS words.
|
|
|
Post by justinadams on Sept 27, 2018 5:53:53 GMT -5
Inerrancy: "The Bible's view of inspiration is not a sort of mechanical "dictation theory." Such theories we rightly associate with the Book of Mormon and the Muslim view of the Qur'an. By contrast, the Christian view of inspiration involves a proper recognition of the genuinely human element in Scripture, and so as students of the Bible we strive to understand the historical context of the biblical writings and the characteristics of the human authors. To be sure, there are isolated examples of dictation, such as the giving of the Ten Commandments, but that is not the usual mode of inspiration. Second, the doctrine of inerrancy does not require that we impose upon the Bible standards of accuracy and evaluation that are alien to it. That is to say, inerrancy does not mean that everything in the Bible has to be stated with scientific precision. Sometimes the biblical writers have chosen to present truth in an impressionistic fashion. For example, in John 6:1 we read, "After this Jesus went away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee." But at the end of John 5 Jesus is still in Jerusalem, and John does not bother to tell us how Jesus got to Galilee or which "other side" of the lake is referenced. Moreover, it has long been recognized (since the second century AD, in fact) that the Gospel writers did not necessarily present the events of Jesus' ministry in precise chronological order. In short, we must allow the biblical writers to present the material in the way they deemed best under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Third, the doctrine of inerrancy does not require the Bible to have been transmitted without mistakes in the copying process. Before the invention of the printing press manuscripts and books had to be copied by hand, and scribes sometimes made mistakes in copying. Though in general the biblical manuscripts were transmitted with great care, we do see some evidence of scribal mistakes. For the most part, these manuscript differences are inconsequential and even trivial, and no major doctrines of the Christian faith are placed in jeopardy by such findings. The branch of biblical studies that deals with these matters is called "textual criticism," and many Evangelical scholars with a high view of Scripture have made important contributions in this field. Because of the issues raised by textual criticism, we speak of the inerrancy of the Bible "in the original autographs"--that is, as the books were originally written by the human authors and not as they were subsequently transmitted. It is popular in some circles to mock this notion of "inerrancy in the original autographs." Some claim that because we obviously do not have the original autographs available to us now, this doctrine presents meaningless claims that conveniently cannot be disproved. But our reference to the "original autographs" is not an attempt to shield Scripture from scrutiny or to "prove" the inerrancy of the Bible. Rather, it is simply a faith statement seeking to do justice both to what the Bible claims for itself and to the findings of textual criticism. That being said, we are also assured of God's providential care for his Word and that the message has been preserved. Fourth, when properly understood the doctrine of inerrancy does not entail the necessity of rational proof that the Bible is without error. It does not make the infallible truth of Scripture hang on our human ability to prove its veracity. Though Evangelical scholars certainly may present solutions to so-called "Bible difficulties" (see, e.g., Gleason Archer, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties [1982]) such efforts are best understood as efforts at "faith seeking understanding"--we affirm the truth of God's word on the basis of what Scripture teaches, and then we seek to understand and explain the form that inerrancy takes in specific passages. At the same time, we also recognize in proper humility that we lack the data needed to solve all such apparent problems. Finally, the doctrine of inerrancy does not close off interpretive discussion. Some people reject the doctrine of inerrancy because they think it restricts us to particular disputed interpretations of Scripture, such as a literal interpretation of the days of creation in Genesis 1 or a particular view of God's sovereignty. But it is quite possible for people with equally high views of the inspiration and authority of the Bible to disagree on the interpretation of individual texts. While there are certainly some interpretations that compromise the authority of God's word (e.g., the suggestion that Paul's views on women were those of a sexist Rabbi, and that we should reject them) and some interpretations that are simply mistaken, we must make a practical distinction between the authority of the Bible and the interpretation of the Bible. The fact that the Bible itself is without error does not mean that our interpretations are inerrant. Once again, an appropriate humility is essential." www.reformation21.org/articles/a-laymans-historical-guide-to-the-inerrancy-debate.php
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 27, 2018 7:12:59 GMT -5
Inerrancy: "The Bible's view of inspiration is not a sort of mechanical "dictation theory." Such theories we rightly associate with the Book of Mormon and the Muslim view of the Qur'an. By contrast, the Christian view of inspiration involves a proper recognition of the genuinely human element in Scripture, and so as students of the Bible we strive to understand the historical context of the biblical writings and the characteristics of the human authors. To be sure, there are isolated examples of dictation, such as the giving of the Ten Commandments, but that is not the usual mode of inspiration. Second, the doctrine of inerrancy does not require that we impose upon the Bible standards of accuracy and evaluation that are alien to it. That is to say, inerrancy does not mean that everything in the Bible has to be stated with scientific precision. Sometimes the biblical writers have chosen to present truth in an impressionistic fashion. For example, in John 6:1 we read, "After this Jesus went away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee." But at the end of John 5 Jesus is still in Jerusalem, and John does not bother to tell us how Jesus got to Galilee or which "other side" of the lake is referenced. Moreover, it has long been recognized (since the second century AD, in fact) that the Gospel writers did not necessarily present the events of Jesus' ministry in precise chronological order. In short, we must allow the biblical writers to present the material in the way they deemed best under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Third, the doctrine of inerrancy does not require the Bible to have been transmitted without mistakes in the copying process. Before the invention of the printing press manuscripts and books had to be copied by hand, and scribes sometimes made mistakes in copying. Though in general the biblical manuscripts were transmitted with great care, we do see some evidence of scribal mistakes. For the most part, these manuscript differences are inconsequential and even trivial, and no major doctrines of the Christian faith are placed in jeopardy by such findings. The branch of biblical studies that deals with these matters is called "textual criticism," and many Evangelical scholars with a high view of Scripture have made important contributions in this field. Because of the issues raised by textual criticism, we speak of the inerrancy of the Bible "in the original autographs"--that is, as the books were originally written by the human authors and not as they were subsequently transmitted. It is popular in some circles to mock this notion of "inerrancy in the original autographs." Some claim that because we obviously do not have the original autographs available to us now, this doctrine presents meaningless claims that conveniently cannot be disproved. But our reference to the "original autographs" is not an attempt to shield Scripture from scrutiny or to "prove" the inerrancy of the Bible. Rather, it is simply a faith statement seeking to do justice both to what the Bible claims for itself and to the findings of textual criticism. That being said, we are also assured of God's providential care for his Word and that the message has been preserved. Fourth, when properly understood the doctrine of inerrancy does not entail the necessity of rational proof that the Bible is without error. It does not make the infallible truth of Scripture hang on our human ability to prove its veracity. Though Evangelical scholars certainly may present solutions to so-called "Bible difficulties" (see, e.g., Gleason Archer, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties [1982]) such efforts are best understood as efforts at "faith seeking understanding"--we affirm the truth of God's word on the basis of what Scripture teaches, and then we seek to understand and explain the form that inerrancy takes in specific passages. At the same time, we also recognize in proper humility that we lack the data needed to solve all such apparent problems. Finally, the doctrine of inerrancy does not close off interpretive discussion. Some people reject the doctrine of inerrancy because they think it restricts us to particular disputed interpretations of Scripture, such as a literal interpretation of the days of creation in Genesis 1 or a particular view of God's sovereignty. But it is quite possible for people with equally high views of the inspiration and authority of the Bible to disagree on the interpretation of individual texts. While there are certainly some interpretations that compromise the authority of God's word (e.g., the suggestion that Paul's views on women were those of a sexist Rabbi, and that we should reject them) and some interpretations that are simply mistaken, we must make a practical distinction between the authority of the Bible and the interpretation of the Bible. The fact that the Bible itself is without error does not mean that our interpretations are inerrant. Once again, an appropriate humility is essential." www.reformation21.org/articles/a-laymans-historical-guide-to-the-inerrancy-debate.php What you are describing is "a doctrine of inerrancy," not my doctrine of inerrancy. My view is that God wrote his words through men, like dictation. There is no human element where biases made their way into the text. Personalities may come through, but God didn't allow anything to get into the text that isn't an eternal truth. I believe God directed men to create a perfect canon consisting of 66 books and all their contents, and the KJV Bible is without error. I reject textual criticism. The canon is closed forever, no debates. That is my doctrine of inerrancy. The doctrine of inerrancy you describe is worthless, as people claim belief in a perfect Bible, but not any in existence today. That is trying to have your cake and eat it too.
|
|