http://www.gty.org/resources/questions/ ... red-by-god
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
“Theologians speak of inspiration as the mysterious process by which God worked through the authors of Scripture to produce inerrant and divinely authoritative writings. Inspiration is a mystery because Scripture doesn't explain specifically how it occurred�.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran1.htm
Absolute inerrancy: If God controlled the writers' words directly or indirectly, then he would not have led them into error. Deceit and error are not normally attributes expected of God.
Limited inerrancy: the Bible is without error in certain matters such as faith, morals and the criteria for salvation. However, the Bible contains errors when describing other matters, such as scientific observations and historical events.
No inerrancy: They interpret it as containing much legend, myth, historical and scientific inaccuracies, religious propaganda, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism
The term "biblical literalism" is often used as a pejorative to describe or ridicule the interpretative approaches of fundamentalist or evangelical Christians. A 2011 Gallup survey reports, "Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God."
Scriptural inerrancy and literalism - is it true?
Moderator: Moderators
-
a better world
- Student
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 10:52 pm
Re: Scriptural inerrancy and literalism-is it true?
Post #21Tomas wrote:
<<<Wasn't Marcion declared a heretic by the church fathers in 140 AD?>>>
Yes, but that does not negate the force of his proposals. Marcion could accept Jesus as God, without having to see him as the Jewish messiah prophesied in the OT canon, which by that time (2nd century AD) had been closed for half a millenium.
Marcion's canon is Jesus' teaching: namely, the love of life is the love of God.
No need of mind-numbing concepts such as the incarnation, resurrection, etc. etc., instead Marcion allows the concept of a continually evolving -extra scriptural - human relationship to God, seen, inter alia, in landmarks of human development such as the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
<<<Wasn't Marcion declared a heretic by the church fathers in 140 AD?>>>
Yes, but that does not negate the force of his proposals. Marcion could accept Jesus as God, without having to see him as the Jewish messiah prophesied in the OT canon, which by that time (2nd century AD) had been closed for half a millenium.
Marcion's canon is Jesus' teaching: namely, the love of life is the love of God.
No need of mind-numbing concepts such as the incarnation, resurrection, etc. etc., instead Marcion allows the concept of a continually evolving -extra scriptural - human relationship to God, seen, inter alia, in landmarks of human development such as the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Re: Scriptural inerrancy and literalism-is it true?
Post #22[Replying to a better world]
Sorry, but that isn't completely accurate about Marcion. As I mentioned in a previous post, he was into Gnosticism. Christ really isn't God, the One, the top of the divine hierarchy, just a kind of lesser divine being, as was the inferior god of the OT and creator. Also, Christ was not fully human, not to Marcion. Christ was a divine being, a shape changer, who could appear in any form whatsoever. Although Marcion did not hold with the Incarnation, he probably was into reincarnation, a key concept in Gnosticism.
Sorry, but that isn't completely accurate about Marcion. As I mentioned in a previous post, he was into Gnosticism. Christ really isn't God, the One, the top of the divine hierarchy, just a kind of lesser divine being, as was the inferior god of the OT and creator. Also, Christ was not fully human, not to Marcion. Christ was a divine being, a shape changer, who could appear in any form whatsoever. Although Marcion did not hold with the Incarnation, he probably was into reincarnation, a key concept in Gnosticism.
Post #23
[Replying to post 4 by bjs]
[center]We don't literally have to take the word 'literally' literally
Part One
[/center]
Many people use the word "literal" to mean "true" and perhaps some use "figurative" to mean "false", or "open to interpretation".
____________
Question:
[center]We don't literally have to take the word 'literally' literally
Part One
[/center]
I can't agree more.bjs wrote:
Side note: Literal is a literary word. It refers to how a text was written. A written document can be literal but not inerrant. That is, it could record the event as literal but be inaccurate about the events. It can also be inerrant but not literal. That is, it could record a metaphor that conveys truth even though it is not a literal description of events.
Many people use the word "literal" to mean "true" and perhaps some use "figurative" to mean "false", or "open to interpretation".
____________
Question:
Some people take some parts of the Bible as true statements of facts, and other parts as poetry to be interpreted somehow. As there is no actual labeling of what is written intended for interpretation, and what is written as a true statement of fact, isn't deciding which is which ALSO a matter that is "open to interpretation"?
Post #24
[Replying to post 23 by Blastcat]
"Open to interpretation" theological processes is how we ended up with a Pope. Of course from what I've read that was because a Roman emperor decided enough was enough and wanted some order instituted. Romans were used to "official" state religions and the center of the universe was Rome.
"Open to interpretation" theological processes is how we ended up with a Pope. Of course from what I've read that was because a Roman emperor decided enough was enough and wanted some order instituted. Romans were used to "official" state religions and the center of the universe was Rome.
Post #25
[Replying to post 24 by Tomas]
There are, for example thousands of Christian denominations...
Unless I am mistaken, of course.
I don't know when Christianity itself became the "official" state religion of the Romans. Do you?
Was it just the Pope we got by interpreting the Bible, or all Abrahamic religions?
There are, for example thousands of Christian denominations...
I don't think we have any way of knowing the ACTUAL motivations behind Emperor Constantine's patronizing of the Christian faith. But he certainly made it legal for Christians to profess their faith, that's for sure. Why, we don't know.Tomas wrote:
Of course from what I've read that was because a Roman emperor decided enough was enough and wanted some order instituted.
Unless I am mistaken, of course.
They stopped persecuting Christians during Constantine's reign.Tomas wrote:
Romans were used to "official" state religions and the center of the universe was Rome.
I don't know when Christianity itself became the "official" state religion of the Romans. Do you?
Post #26
[Replying to post 25 by Blastcat]
Constantine has a mystical experience right before his crucial, big battle at the Mulvanian bridge, to deicide who would be emperor. He saw the Cross, upon which it was written, "In hoc signo, vinces," meaning, "In this sign, you will conquer." He did.
By the Edict of Milan, 313 AD, all religions were allowable in Roman territory.
Constantine has a mystical experience right before his crucial, big battle at the Mulvanian bridge, to deicide who would be emperor. He saw the Cross, upon which it was written, "In hoc signo, vinces," meaning, "In this sign, you will conquer." He did.
By the Edict of Milan, 313 AD, all religions were allowable in Roman territory.
Post #27
hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to post 25 by Blastcat]
Constantine has a mystical experience right before his crucial, big battle at the Mulvanian bridge, to deicide who would be emperor. He saw the Cross, upon which it was written, "In hoc signo, vinces," meaning, "In this sign, you will conquer." He did.
By the Edict of Milan, 313 AD, all religions were allowable in Roman territory.
Cool. Maybe inbreeding caused him to have epilepsy...or psychotic episodes.
In any case... we don't know what was REALLY in his HISTORICAL mind.
Even then, it would take a bunch a shrinks to figure it out.. and still... would we be sure ?
All we know is that is the story.. yeah.. Thanks for reminding us of it.
Post #28
[Replying to post 27 by Blastcat]
Actually, there are two different accounts of the vision or experience he had. So no, we can't be sure here. If he had a psychotic break of some sort, it sure didn't interfere with his leadership and success, which makes me wonder if he did have a psychotic episode, as oppose to a genuine mystical experience. But no, we'll never know for sure. History, as Oscar Wilde, once remarked, is merely gossip and full of incredible accounts that may or my not be true. I could go on all day about some pretty fantastic claims made in American history. But that is another story.
Actually, there are two different accounts of the vision or experience he had. So no, we can't be sure here. If he had a psychotic break of some sort, it sure didn't interfere with his leadership and success, which makes me wonder if he did have a psychotic episode, as oppose to a genuine mystical experience. But no, we'll never know for sure. History, as Oscar Wilde, once remarked, is merely gossip and full of incredible accounts that may or my not be true. I could go on all day about some pretty fantastic claims made in American history. But that is another story.
Post #29
[Replying to hoghead1]
Unless you are blessed with "faith" in anything, one ends up sitting in the "open to interpretation" mode indefinitely, it seems. A sort of Babel scenario with instead of language being the problem, but interpretation. Like what we are doing here. Ha!
I just finished a book that was almost scary in its profound summation of humanity and its current state: Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari. Here's a quote I thought apt for the situation:
"In 1620 Francis Bacon published a scientific manifesto titled The New Instrument. In it he argued that ‘knowledge is power’. The real test of ‘knowledge’ is not whether it is true, but whether it empowers us. Scientists usually assume that no theory is 100 per cent correct. Consequently, truth is a poor test for knowledge. The real test is utility. A theory that enables us to do new things constitutes knowledge.
Science can explain what exists in the world, how things work, and what might be in the future. By definition, it has no pretensions to knowing what should be in the future. Only religions and ideologies seek to answer such questions."
Unless you are blessed with "faith" in anything, one ends up sitting in the "open to interpretation" mode indefinitely, it seems. A sort of Babel scenario with instead of language being the problem, but interpretation. Like what we are doing here. Ha!
I just finished a book that was almost scary in its profound summation of humanity and its current state: Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari. Here's a quote I thought apt for the situation:
"In 1620 Francis Bacon published a scientific manifesto titled The New Instrument. In it he argued that ‘knowledge is power’. The real test of ‘knowledge’ is not whether it is true, but whether it empowers us. Scientists usually assume that no theory is 100 per cent correct. Consequently, truth is a poor test for knowledge. The real test is utility. A theory that enables us to do new things constitutes knowledge.
Science can explain what exists in the world, how things work, and what might be in the future. By definition, it has no pretensions to knowing what should be in the future. Only religions and ideologies seek to answer such questions."
