The Bible

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I'm curious as to why that statement applies only to the readers, and not the writers?

i think what it means is the men who wrote have error, we who interpret have error, but what is written has no error thus making the author of the Bible to be God. God has no error.

This is from Christian Answers.com

Can the Bible be infallible if it is written by fallible humans? And if not, how can we accept it as literal truth?

There is no logical reason why this could not be true. After all, even fallible humans can get things right some of the time, especially if they are supervised by Someone who is infallible.
Christians do not claim that the humans who penned the books of the Bible were always accurate in everything they said or did. We simply believe that the Bible is right when it claims that God guided these men in their task of writing Scripture, in such a way that the result is an infallible book. The apostle Peter undoubtedly said some foolish things during his lifetime, but God did not allow him to clutter up the Bible with any of those blunders.

One standard explanation of the concept of "inspiration" is given by Ryrie:

God's superintendence of the human authors so that, using their own individual personalities, they composed and recorded without error His revelation to man in the words of the original autographs. (Charles Ryrie, A Survey of Bible Doctrine (Chicago: Moody Press, 1972), p. 38)

Some theologians teach that the Bible is inspired and authoritative, and that it is an accurate revelation of what God wants us to know about salvation - but they leave room for minor errors in non-crucial areas. One theologian, for instance, says that the Holy Spirit's work in inspiring the Bible only guaranteed "selectivity of events and accuracy of reporting and interpretation sufficient to achieve God's purpose throughout the rest of man's existence." (Dewey Beegle, Inspiration of Scripture, p. 190)

However, classic Christianity rests on the assurance that the Bible is completely accurate. It may contain statements that are (1) figures of speech; (2) non-technical descriptions; or (3) difficult to understand. But actual errors would fall into a different kind of category. If there are any errors in Scripture, no matter how small, the book can no longer be our standard of truth. I become the standard of truth, as I determine which Bible statements are right and which are wrong. And if I can't trust God to get the facts straight on things like dates and measurements (where I can check on Him), why should I expect Him to be more accurate in areas like sin and salvation (where I can't check on Him)?

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t002.html

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Bandit

i think what it means is the men who wrote have error, we who interpret have error, but what is written has no error thus making the author of the Bible to be God. God has no error.

This is from Christian Answers.com

I don't have much of a problem with the readers, hardly any with the writers...its the damn editors that got me ticked!

ahem, I'm calm now.

v/r

Q

[InLove]

Hi--Peace--

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I don't have much of a problem with the readers, hardly any with the writers...its the damn editors that got me ticked!

Wretched lot, those editors...

InPeace,
InLove

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Proph 1

Whats the point of the of the Bible?

Good question.

The belief-based view of the bible is that it’s the story of God and His covenant with the human race as filtered through the Hebrew people (old testament) or the body of Christ (new testament). The belief-based view relies on faith, though it deploys “reason” strategically as needed, especially to appeal to certain mentalities. (One of the most imposing monuments to this process is the Aristotelian-Thomistic system of the Catholic Church.)

Based on ordinary reason, the bible is an elaborate rationalization of power; the monotheism at its core is distinguished less by philosophical subtlety – many other religious philosophies are just as coherent and interesting – than by its ready assimilation to political and social ends. Many elites through the centuries have used the bible to justify their power; many in oppressed classes have equally used the bible as a basis to demand change or revolution.

A reason-based view of the bible – as a human document no more divine or mystical than any other – can also be based on faith, but on a faith that doesn’t require beliefs. One can, for example, read the bible as part of a beneficial spiritual practice without ascribing to any conventional dogma.

However you read the bible, the bottom line was laid out by Jesus: by their fruits you shall know them.

[Quahom1]

Welcome to CR Devadatta.


v/r

Q

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

Good question.

The belief-based view of the bible is that it’s the story of God and His covenant with the human race as filtered through the Hebrew people (old testament) or the body of Christ (new testament). The belief-based view relies on faith, though it deploys “reason” strategically as needed, especially to appeal to certain mentalities. (One of the most imposing monuments to this process is the Aristotelian-Thomistic system of the Catholic Church.)

Based on ordinary reason, the bible is an elaborate rationalization of power; the monotheism at its core is distinguished less by philosophical subtlety – many other religious philosophies are just as coherent and interesting – than by its ready assimilation to political and social ends. Many elites through the centuries have used the bible to justify their power; many in oppressed classes have equally used the bible as a basis to demand change or revolution.

A reason-based view of the bible – as a human document no more divine or mystical than any other – can also be based on faith, but on a faith that doesn’t require beliefs. One can, for example, read the bible as part of a beneficial spiritual practice without ascribing to any conventional dogma.

However you read the bible, the bottom line was laid out by Jesus: by their fruits you shall know them.

Based on your thoughts noted above, how would you suggest a Muslim proceed with studying the Bible? (I happen to have a couple in mind who are searching).

v/r

Q

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

Good question.

The belief-based view of the bible is that it’s the story of God and His covenant with the human race as filtered through the Hebrew people (old testament) or the body of Christ (new testament). The belief-based view relies on faith, though it deploys “reason” strategically as needed, especially to appeal to certain mentalities. (One of the most imposing monuments to this process is the Aristotelian-Thomistic system of the Catholic Church.)

Based on ordinary reason, the bible is an elaborate rationalization of power; the monotheism at its core is distinguished less by philosophical subtlety – many other religious philosophies are just as coherent and interesting – than by its ready assimilation to political and social ends. Many elites through the centuries have used the bible to justify their power; many in oppressed classes have equally used the bible as a basis to demand change or revolution.

A reason-based view of the bible – as a human document no more divine or mystical than any other – can also be based on faith, but on a faith that doesn’t require beliefs. One can, for example, read the bible as part of a beneficial spiritual practice without ascribing to any conventional dogma.

However you read the bible, the bottom line was laid out by Jesus: by their fruits you shall know them.

a faith that does not require belief? hmmm
nothing in the Bible that speaks like that.

now the bible is mystical?
nothing in there that speaks like that either.

certain mentalities? reason based view. belief view. ordinary reason view.
wonder what mentality that is.
hmmmm

so in other words, it is just another book i take it.

you must be talking about a different bible than the one I know of.
so what view do you think Christians should all have Devadatta?

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Bandit

a faith that does not require belief? hmmm
nothing in the Bible that speaks like that.

now the bible is mystical?
nothing in there that speaks like that either.

certain mentalities? reason based view. belief view. ordinary reason view.
wonder what mentality that is.
hmmmm

so in other words, it is just another book i take it.

you must be talking about a different bible than the one I know of.
so what view do you think Christians should all have Devadatta?

I wouldn't prescribe what anyone's view of the bible should be. I was only laying out a very basic range of possibilities in response to the question, What's the point of the bible? Like you, I'm obviously biased in a certain direction, but it's not my intention to convert anyone to my point of view.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Based on your thoughts noted above, how would you suggest a Muslim proceed with studying the Bible? (I happen to have a couple in mind who are searching).

v/r

Q

I'm not an expert, but as I understand it Islamic tradition already has a firm handle on reading the bible. I'm sure you know, perhaps more thoroughly than I, that Muslims consider themselves as sons and daughters of Abraham with Christians and Jews, but descended through the line of Ishmael. Their contention is that the Divine Will was indeed initiated through the Hebrew people but that texts were corrupted along the way and the pure message somewhat garbled (or so I believe - this may not quite be accurate). They recognize Jesus as a prophet as well, but again consider that the gospels and tradition to some degree misrepresent Jesus, that he was not God, etc. So parallel in a way with secular scholars I see Muslims reading the bible critically, not through an enlightenment lens of course but through the lens of what they consider the more perfect and final revelation of God's plan through Mohammed.

[mansio]

Everybody is talking about the Bible, in the singular.
There are actually two Bibles, the Christian Bible (OT+NT) and the Jewish Bible (OT).

[Proph 1]

Actually dude,

There is only one Bible. The 66 books that are penned by 40 different guys prove to be an intergrated message system, that is also written outside of our time domine.

[InLove]

Hello, Peace to All Here--

Welcome to CR, Devadatta .

Originally Posted by Bandit

now the bible is mystical?
nothing in there that speaks like that either.

Hey, dear Bandit--I do think the Bible (the Christian Old and New Testament) can be seen as "mystical" in that one, in order to fully experience the "mysteries" therein must necessarily have the Spirit in which it is written dwelling within, as happens when one comes to Christ in faith like a child. Webster's defines "mysticism" as "the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)"

This does not mean that I exclude the literal interpretation of God's Word. It just means that the literal tells of the Spiritual, and so , for me, the two do not conflict.

Always interested in your thoughts--

(I may have to be away from CR for a few days, but I should be able to check in by the end of the week.)

InPeace,
InLove

[mee]

Actually God’s government is the Bible’s main theme.....daniel 2;44

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by InLove

Hello, Peace to All Here--


Hey, dear Bandit--I do think the Bible (the Christian Old and New Testament) can be seen as "mystical" in that one, in order to fully experience the "mysteries" therein must necessarily have the Spirit in which it is written dwelling within, as happens when one comes to Christ in faith like a child. Webster's defines "mysticism" as "the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)"

This does not mean that I exclude the literal interpretation of God's Word. It just means that the literal tells of the Spiritual, and so , for me, the two do not conflict.

Always interested in your thoughts--

(I may have to be away from CR for a few days, but I should be able to check in by the end of the week.)

InPeace,
InLove

i think i know what you are saying InLove, but I do not see you as mystical at all.
'mystic' can mean a LOT of things.
i am very cautious with that word & here is why.....

Mystery & Revelation? YES
Mystical? NO



There is a very fine line. Mysticism wanders too much for me, & I am not real crazy about some of the things that neighbor it.

Every 'mystic' I have ever met turns the bible into myth & fable. Adam, Abraham, Moses & the events become fiction, they discard the blood of Jesus, have issues with Paul etc.

If I thought for one second one word in the bible was nothing more than mystic, fable & fairy tales, I would have trashed it years ago. The bible is more than a jack & the bean stalk mother goose, god/goddesses … or some simple moral of the story is…

It is the way to eternal life & contains the wisdom of God for what He wants us to know about Him while on earth. I hear ther are seven levels of understanding to the bible & i dont see any way to get to them if we turn any of it into a myth.

Mysticism does nothing for me. But the power of the Holy Ghost, prayer, meditation & the written Word does. I think some could view me as a mystic because of some of my experiences, but I am not a mystic. It is a different trail for me & I don’t let my mind wander into it too much.

I do not see anything mystic about the bible.

any way, i guess that is about all. i see what you have said with 'mystical/mystery' & that particular definition <wink wink>- that is kind of how i see it also.