Originally posted by NemesioI have just read through this whole thread again, and I must say that I’m getting confused (maybe just ‘cause it’s late after a long day). Let me see if I can make some points:
Ok. Let's try this again.
Jesus was crucified after the Passover (Sts Mark, Matthew, and Luke).
Jesus was crucified before the Passover (St John).
Both are in the Bible. It says very specific things which have no leeway
for interpretation in both accounts, such as the 'Day of Preparation' and
the 'Passover meal.'
Now, you made the claim ...[text shortened]... 'pulling it out of the air?' Where is this 'explained
elsewhere in the Bible?'
Nemesio
1) Darfius (and others) are using such things as figurative ideas, “double entendre” and endogesis (reading into the text) to reconcile what would otherwise be contradictions. This must mean that they are not strict Biblical literalists.
NOTE: Endogesis is also used as a midrashic technique (yes, I know, that’s another thread), but is used in midrash generally to generate a possible interpretation, not to determine the exact meaning of the text. Suffice it to say that, since rabbinical Judaism is a fundamentally hermeneutical religion, that kind of “fictionalization” (for lack of a better word) is considered acceptable in the interest of identifying an interesting and edifying interpretation that is not produced strictly by the text. In other words, it doesn’t “prove” anything.
2) Giving up Biblical literalism is not—necessarily—the same as giving up Biblical inerrancy. But inerrancy of what kind? Factual inerrancy across the texts? Historical inerrancy (weren’t the differing birthdates for Jesus discussed in another thread?)? Doctrinal inerrancy? What?
It seems to me that the focus on internal contradictions of the kind cited goes pretty much to factual inerrancy across (within) the texts (though some of the ones raised by CliffLandin may go to theological questions—i.e., the nature of God). But it seems to me that, for anybody but a literalist, this is a red-herring. Who cares if the differences are based on hearsay, second-hand information, or were the result of the writers’ own endogesis—say, a given writer told the story this way to make some symbolic or soteriological point? In fact, that’s the only point of interest that I can see for examining them—that is, unless you’re committed, again, to some kind of literalism.
3) The attempt to defend historical inerrancy I think faces a higher bar. It would mean that any other historical evidence—texts, records of Roman tax procedures (did they really make people go to their birthplace to be “censused” for tax purposes?), or archeological finds, for example, would have to be simply dismissed if it in any way contradicted historical events in the Bible. Based on my own reading, I don’t think that historical inerrancy is defensible, but I also think that’s beside the point (and also outside this thread).
4) Doctrinal inerrancy is a concept I don’t even understand; maybe it’s meaningless. Nobody, to my mind, argues that the Bible contains doctrinal errors (that is, from a Christian viewpoint). What we argue about (if we argue) is what doctrinal conclusions we draw from the texts.
To sum up:
A) It seems to me that literalism is no longer even an implied subject of debate here.
B) The question of historical inerrancy has not really been a topic of this thread.
C) Internal factual inerrancy seems to me to be a red herring. I do not think reading things into the text is valid for defending it (I think it is only valid as a hermeneutical exercise—a kind of “teasing” of the text), but I don’t know why anybody would want to defend it.
If, in fact, what is now being argued here is factual inerrancy, then somebody ought to state that (and perhaps add why). Otherwise, the whole thing has just degenerated to something like: “There are contradictions in the Biblical text” “No there aren’t, because I can make them go away.”
Don’t mistake me. I’ve enjoyed “watching” this debate, I think I’ve learned from it, and I commend CliffLandin for his work in getting it started. I just don’t see where it’s going anywhere from this point. If I’m missing something, let me know.
Originally posted by vistesdI think I get what you are saying, and I agree if I understand. Little contradictions in the history of the bible really don't matter. The Gospels for example were written by apostles and such from memory, so naturally there will be a little bit of story change. The meaning remains the same though.
I have just read through this whole thread again, and I must say that I’m getting confused (maybe just ‘cause it’s late after a long day). Let me see if I can make some points:
1) Darfius (and others) are using such things as figurative ideas, “double entendre” and endogesis (reading into the text) to reconcile what would otherwise be contradicti ...[text shortened]... see where it’s going anywhere from this point. If I’m missing something, let me know.
Also we need to consider that the Bible has been translated a few times and has lost some of what was there.
Also, no one has responded to my responses about the contradictions.
Originally posted by NemesioDo you honestly think faith is hinged on this little technicality in the scriptures. Do you honestly think that, after feeling the wonderful effects on our lives from trying to live more like Christ, that our faith hinges on the perfect accuracy from the bible? If you do, then you obviously don't understand faith.
Ok. Let's try this again.
Jesus was crucified after the Passover (Sts Mark, Matthew, and Luke).
Jesus was crucified before the Passover (St John).
Both are in the Bible. It says very specific things which have no leeway
for interpretation in both accounts, such as the 'Day of Preparation' and
the 'Passover meal.'
Now, you made the claim ...[text shortened]... 'pulling it out of the air?' Where is this 'explained
elsewhere in the Bible?'
Nemesio
Besides, we all know that St. John wanted to destroy christianity by writing supposed contradictions in his writings. 🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by DraxusI think I get what you are saying, and I agree if I understand.
I think I get what you are saying, and I agree if I understand. Little contradictions in the history of the bible really don't matter. The Gospels for example were written by apostles and such from memory, so naturally there will be a lit ...[text shortened]... o, no one has responded to my responses about the contradictions.
You know, I was too tired when I wrote all that, and when I read what I wrote this morning—well, your line here just about sums my thoughts about my own post.
Little contradictions in the history of the bible really don't matter.
Actually, I don’t think big contradictions matter. The Bible is a collection of books written by different authors at different times. They told different stories to make different points, and some of them told basically the same story different ways to make different points. It’s the stories and the meanings we derive from them that matter. (And the meanings don’t seem to be the subject of this thread, but the contradictions per se.)
Let’s take a radical example, just for example. Suppose that absolutely none of the events written about in the Gospels actually happened. But suppose those stories accurately describe—in a radical and powerful way—the kind of God there is: one who would become human (or is so close to us as to know what it is to be human) in order to assure us that we don’t need to be afraid of God, or death, etc. You might even suppose, again, just for the sake of this example, that God inspired those writers to do just that: write fictional or mythical stories that nevertheless powerfully present the truth about God and God’s relationship with humanity. None of that would diminish the meaning of the stories.
I think people told (and then wrote) myths for millennia for exactly that purpose—long before anyone wrote actual history (or biography) as we know it today. They didn’t believe that the myths were factual accounts, but thought that they told something true about the deeper aspects of reality. They didn’t “believe” them (in the contemporary sense of that word), but they put “faith” in them as stories to live by. (And that’s a whole other long subject.)
Let me sum up my position generally:
1) I think there are contradictions in the Bible: in the stories as told by different people; in the fact that there are different and conflicting viewpoints expressed, sometimes in the same book (CliffLandin’s Proverbs quotes about contending with fools, for example), and that sometimes we are simply left with those differences (per; in the face of the historical record.
2) Playing with those contradictions, for the purpose of “teasing out” different ways of understanding the stories or pointing up dialectical tensions (truth may not contain error, but it certainly can be dialectical), is perfectly valid as an exercise.
3) I am—obviously—not a Biblical literalist. I don’t really think anyone is, although they may try, and I think to try is fundamentally idolatrous.
4) Questions of Biblical inerrancy don’t particularly interest me for the reasons I noted in my previous post. Reading this thread has helped me greatly to sharpen my position, however, and I think that’s one of the reasons why people debate (again, thanks to CliffLandin and all the participants), as well as to give me some better insight into the possibilities of understanding the texts dialectically (which I need to think about some more). In other words, I don’t think it’s been a wasted exercise.
If I’m not understanding the issues of inerrancy correctly, somebody let me know.
NOTE: I also just realized that Hand of Hecate stated pretty much my basic position much more succinctly (sorry, missed that).
😕😕
Originally posted by DraxusI don't believe faith hinges on this; indeed, I believe that St John
Do you honestly think faith is hinged on this little technicality in the scriptures. Do you honestly think that, after feeling the wonderful effects on our lives from trying to live more like Christ, that our faith hinges on the perfect accuracy from the bible? If you do, then you obviously don't understand faith.
Besides, we all know that St. John wanted to destroy christianity by writing supposed contradictions in his writings. 🙂
chose the day before Passover so that Jesus could symbolize the Paschal
Lamb, sacrificed for the people to protect them from the wrath of God.
That's a damn powerful metaphor (whether you believe it or not)!
However, Darfius is the one claiming that the Bible contains no error of
facts. I find this claim to be absurd (and am using this rather important
event, as opposed to some O.T. minutae to make the point).
Additionally, he claims that he reads the Bible 'literally.' Well, that's just
crap, too, because, when it comes to these contradictions, he creatively
interprets out the wazoo (and how he calls himself a literalist is totally
beyond me!).
He is the one claiming perfect accuracy, not I! My faith doesn't hinge on
any of the Bible's being true; if I magically found out tomorrow that Jesus
didn't even exist, it wouldn't make one iota of difference to me.
Nemesio
Originally posted by vistesdI believe that there is a breakdown of terminology here. Those who believe
Giving up Biblical literalism is not—necessarily—the same as giving up Biblical inerrancy. But inerrancy of what kind? Factual inerrancy across the texts? Historical inerrancy (weren’t the differing birthdates for Jesus discussed in another thread?)? Doctrinal inerrancy? What?
in the dogma of inerrancy believe that the Bible contains no error whatsoever.
All of the data presented are necessarily literally true. If the Bible says that
Jesus said, 'Let's go eat,' it necessarily means He didn't say, 'Gee, I'm hungry.
Wanna eat?'
Infallibility is 'doctrinal inerrancy.' Those who believe in this dogma believe
that, on matters of faith, the Bible is without error. Obviously, those who
believe the Bible is inerrant necessarily believe that the Bible is infallible, but
not necessarily the other way around.
The latter is justified by II Timothy 3:16 (All Scripture is inspired by God [i.e.,
Theopneustos]). The former is never Biblically justified. Of course, if one
does not accept, for example, the creative additions as 'Scripture,' then one
is not obligated to see them as infallible, which leads to a whole mess of what
fundamentalists consider 'subjective editing of God's Word.'
In any event, given that Darfius has been unwaveringly defending literalism
with inerrancy, I think he is taking the former meaning above.
Nemesio
P.S., If I have time tonight (doubtful) I'll respond to the rest of your post, but
wanted to get some definitions that I am using (which I believe are fairly standard)
out in the open.
Originally posted by Nemesio1. I believe your interpretation of the Paschal Lamb being a symbol for Christ true. Jehova left many clues and symbols of his coming in the Mosaic Law, this is probably one of many. (Lets save the whole Jehova is/isn't Jesus thing for another thread, lol)
[b]I don't believe faith hinges on this; indeed, I believe that St John
chose the day before Passover so that Jesus could symbolize the Paschal
Lamb, sacrificed for the people to protect them from the wrath of God.
That's a damn powerful metaphor (whether you believe it or not)!
However, Darfius is the one claiming that the Bible contains no erro ...[text shortened]... row that Jesus
didn't even exist, it wouldn't make one iota of difference to me.
Nemesio[/b]
2. I also agree with reading the bible and not taking everything literally. For example, in the book of Revalations, we can't just assume that satan will rise up as a seven (?) headed dragon and everyone that is bad will have 666 tatooed on their foreheads. Lots of symbolism 🙂
Originally posted by DraxusI'd encourage you to be careful in agreeing with me. In the eyes of some,
1. I believe your interpretation of the Paschal Lamb being a symbol for Christ true. Jehova left many clues and symbols of his coming in the Mosaic Law, this is probably one of many. (Lets save the whole Jehova is/isn't Jesus thing for another thread, lol)
2. I also agree with reading the bible and not taking everything literally. For example, in the b ...[text shortened]... dragon and everyone that is bad will have 666 tatooed on their foreheads. Lots of symbolism 🙂
you may be damning yourself to eternal hellfire. 😲😲😲😲😲😲
Nemesio (with tongue firmly in cheek)
Originally posted by NemesioWell, in the eyes of some is not how I'll be judged on the last day. So let em think whatever they want 🙂
I'd encourage you to be careful in agreeing with me. In the eyes of some,
you may be damning yourself to eternal hellfire. 😲😲😲😲😲😲
Nemesio (with tongue firmly in cheek)
Originally posted by DarfiusSo you would describe Revelation as 'clearly literal' but
I am literal when it's clearly literal and interpret it symbolically when it's prudent. In other words, the Holy Spirit guides me in my reading.
the day on which Christ was crucified as 'symbolic?'
How do you know that the Holy Spirit doesn't guide my
reading when she (the Greek word for Spirit is feminine)
tells me that none of the Bible needs to be taken literally?
I'm just trying to get a sense of your criteria here.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioTo be honest I would say you have no idea what the Holy Spirit is.
So you would describe Revelation as 'clearly literal' but
the day on which Christ was crucified as 'symbolic?'
How do you know that the Holy Spirit doesn't guide my
reading when she (the Greek word for Spirit is feminine)
tells me that none of the Bible needs to be taken literally?
I'm just trying to get a sense of your criteria here.
Nemesio
Originally posted by DarfiusAnd, you realize, that I could very easily make the same claim.
To be honest I would say you have no idea what the Holy Spirit is.
Don't you see?
You can't 'prove' that Christianity is more logical than any other
religion. Joseph Smith, Jesus, Mohammed, and a whole host of
other persons are very, very much similar. It is a matter of faith,
not reason, which brings you to believe one or the other. No
particular religious practice is any more 'credible' than any other
because, ultimately, it is faith which undergirds the justification.
This is why your disdain of Islam, Latter Day Saints, or even your
cousin the Roman Catholic Church is hypocritical. There are just
as many holes in your claims as there are in any other claims about
the 'rightness' of a particular religion.
And, this is why your self-assuredness is irrititating to those who
disagree with your religious bents, because there is no reason to
believe that you are any more justified in being self-assured than
any other tradition.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioBut Nemesio, you say this because you are not touched by God. If you were to come to Him in humility and ask, you would see that He is the one true God and that there is no other God but Him. I will pray for you 😛
And, you realize, that I could very easily make the same claim.
Don't you see?
You can't 'prove' that Christianity is more logical than any other
religion. Joseph Smith, Jesus, Mohammed, and a whole host of
other persons are very, very much similar. It is a matter of faith,
not reason, which brings you to believe one or the other. No
partic ...[text shortened]... ieve that you are any more justified in being self-assured than
any other tradition.
Nemesio
Originally posted by StarrmanTHE..................
But Nemesio, you say this because you are not touched by God. If you were to come to Him in humility and ask, you would see that He is the one true God and that there is no other God but Him. I will pray for you 😛
wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round, the
wheels on the bus go round and round...
JUST LIKE THIS DEBATE!
😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛