Scriptural inerrancy and literalism - is it true?

[polonius]

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."

[polonius]

[Replying to polonius.advice]


RESPONSE: So you overlook rather obvious contradictions such as between Matthew 21:2-7 and Mark 11:2-7. And argue that contextually two animals are the same as one animal?

That's not a contextual difference. 2 does not equal 1. That's a contradiction or error."

Just giving the refference is not enough.
You might have to quote the part of the text you want to point out.

RESPONSE: Giving the reference is more than sufficient. Please use your own bible or one of the many bibles on-line. I'd recommend the New Revised Standard Bible aka NRSV as perhaps being the most generally acceptable.

[Monta]

[Replying to polonius.advice]


Monta wrote:

[Replying to polonius.advice]


RESPONSE: So you overlook rather obvious contradictions such as between Matthew 21:2-7 and Mark 11:2-7. And argue that contextually two animals are the same as one animal?

That's not a contextual difference. 2 does not equal 1. That's a contradiction or error."

Just giving the refference is not enough.
You might have to quote the part of the text you want to point out.


RESPONSE: Giving the reference is more than sufficient. Please use your own bible or one of the many bibles on-line. I'd recommend the New Revised Standard Bible aka NRSV as perhaps being the most generally acceptable.//

I can do that but it still does not tell me what are YOU trying to say.
There's so much w/n Matt21:2-7 and Mark11:2-7

[JehovahsWitness]

QUESTION: Then how do you separate fact from fiction in the Bible?

Mostly I refer to context. Usually parables are presented by words such as "and Jesus began to teach using a parable" (paraphrasing). Otherwise I personally use common sense and my knowledge of how language works. I may also refer to biblical commentaries.

JW

RESPONSE: So you overlook rather obvious contradictions such as between Matthew 21:2-7 and Mark 11:2-7. And argue that contextually two animals are the same as one animal?

No because there is no contradiction if one uses common sense* and has a knowledge of how language works (see below).


JW

* Please note this is not an attack against to you as a poster, it is a general principle of analysis that is presented to support my methodology. No infraction of forum rules is intended

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 60 by Monta]


QUESTION: Are we to understand Jesus attempted to sit on two donkeys at the same time?

Matthew states that the disciples “brought the donkey and its colt, and they put upon these their outer garments, and he seated himself upon them.� Obviously Jesus didn't attempt to sit on both animals at the same time which would have involved Jesus spreading his legs starfish fashion at a 90° angle. It is reasonable to conclude that Jesus sat on only one (the colt) and that the other accompanied it.

# Can language legitimately accommodate two when only one is actually the object of a verb?

The including of two (or more) parties as the object or the subject of a verb when only one actually performs the action (or is the object) is not unusual even in English. Take for example the expression: "We drove from New York to Washington. In reality only one person was at the wheel and drove the others "rode". Another example: "John and Sarah came to dinner and we drank a red wine" when Jane said she had a headache and didn't actually have any alcohol at all. The "we" in this case was a generality inclusive of everyone that did drink, not to be understood as absolute (ie everyone present). And what of the modern phenonomen of a couple saying "we're pregnant" when only the woman is carrying the child, the man not being pregnant at all.

Language operates on many levels and inclusive expressions often exist that are not meant to literally mean that the verb in question applies to all possible objects. Thus there is no need to seek contorted explanations that involve Jesus swapping from one animal to another nor any need to suppose the writer of Matthew misunderstood the prophecy he himself applied to the event. It is equally absurd to conclude the writer of Matthew lacked a working knowledge of how donkey's worked*

CONCLUSION: In the light of what we know about the idiomatic use of language, the expression ("he rode them") can logically be understood as NOT being presented in an absolute sense.



* Donkeys were one of the most common means of transport for working people at the time and it is most implausible to conclude that the writer didn't know one can only sit on one animal at a time.

[polonius]

QUESTION: Then how do you separate fact from fiction in the Bible?

Mostly I refer to context. Usually parables are presented by words such as "and Jesus began to teach using a parable" (paraphrasing). Otherwise I personally use common sense and my knowledge of how language works. I may also refer to biblical commentaries.

JW

RESPONSE: So you overlook rather obvious contradictions such as between Matthew 21:2-7 and Mark 11:2-7. And argue that contextually two animals are the same as one animal?

JW posted:

No because there is no contradiction if one uses common sense* and has a knowledge of how language works (see below).

RESPONSE: It is a contradiction if one uses the plain meaning of words and recognizes the difference in singular and plural.

"It" is singular. "Them" is plural.

Mark, Luke, and John, have Jesus sending for and riding one animal ["it"].

Matthew has Jesus sending for and riding two animals ["them].

Matthew 21:2-7New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
2 saying to them, “Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me. 3 If anyone says anything to you, just say this, ‘The Lord needs them.’ And he will send them immediately.[a]� 4 This took place to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet, saying,
5 “Tell the daughter of Zion,
Look, your king is coming to you,
humble, and mounted on a donkey,
and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.�
6 The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; 7 they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them.


Mark 11:2-7New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
2 and said to them, “Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden; untie it and bring it. 3 If anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ just say this, ‘The Lord needs it and will send it back here immediately.’� 4 They went away and found a colt tied near a door, outside in the street. As they were untying it, 5 some of the bystanders said to them, “What are you doing, untying the colt?� 6 They told them what Jesus had said; and they allowed them to take it. 7 Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it; and he sat on it.


Your attempt to explain away the repeated contradiction is contrary to common sense and the plain meaning of words including singular and plurel.

[Monta]

[[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic

6 The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; 7 they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them.

Natural and spiritual have nothing in common, they communicate by correspondences. On a natural level many things in the Bible make no sense, on the spiritual level they are in perfect order.

The commucation with Heaven is by means of the Word, as Jesus said, my words are truth and they are life. This is not only for us earthlings, when we read the 'Word' the angels nearby must have sense of what we are reading and by it lead our affections towards the inner meaning; unless it has higher meaning a donkey or a cold or ten of them makes no difference.

The whole of creation is marriage of good and truth as when Lord God is used; Lord signifies Divine Good and God Divine Truth.
The higher truth is that a donkey signifies good and colt truth.
The gist of the story is that both were used for spiritual purpose.

The point is it does not have to fit the natural mind/reasoning and even
if it did it would be useless anyway.

[polonius]

[[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic

6 The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; 7 they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them.

Natural and spiritual have nothing in common, they communicate by correspondences. On a natural level many things in the Bible make no sense, on the spiritual level they are in perfect order.

RESPONSE: "On the common sense level many things in the Bible make no sense" Good insight! Why do you think that really is?

The commucation with Heaven is by means of the Word, as Jesus said, my words are truth and they are life. This is not only for us earthlings, when we read the 'Word' the angels nearby must have sense of what we are reading and by it lead our affections towards the inner meaning; unless it has higher meaning a donkey or a cold or ten of them makes no difference.

The whole of creation is marriage of good and truth as when Lord God is used; Lord signifies Divine Good and God Divine Truth.
The higher truth is that a donkey signifies good and colt truth.
The gist of the story is that both were used for spiritual purpose.

The point is it does not have to fit the natural mind/reasoning and even
if it did it would be useless anyway.

RESPONSE: Fiction "does not have to fit the natural mind/reasoning" either.

It's important to separate fact from fiction or one allows oneself to be deceived!

[Monta]

[Replying to post 67 by polonius.advice]


"RESPONSE: Fiction "does not have to fit the natural mind/reasoning" either.

It's important to separate fact from fiction or one allows oneself to be deceived!"

LIFE is not dictated by natural mind/reasoning/fiction.
We know hardly anything of why and how our mind functions
or how to heal our sick bodies (or the mind)
while our ego blinds us in grand deception that we are kings of all that is.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 65 by polonius.advice]

Here's my take on it (personal speculation, but seems to make sense):

The author of Matthew seems to have run into a translation issue him/herself. It seems translation issues are not just an issue today. This is what I see in the NIV translation:

Original prophesy:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Zechariah 9:9New International Version (NIV)
The Coming of Zion’s King

9
Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion!
Shout, Daughter Jerusalem!
See, your king comes to you,
righteous and victorious,
lowly and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Note carefully that the NIV translators did not say "on a donkey AND on a colt", but they say "on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey". In other words the translators of the NIV took the original prophesy to mean just riding on a colt. They say donkey and then specify what kind (i.e. a colt, not a mature animal) then explain what a colt is in case you are still lost.

It seems whatever text the author of Matthew had access to rendered the prophesy as riding on both a donkey and a colt. In order to fulfill the prophesy it's necessary to shoehorn the tale of Jesus exactly onto it, common sense be damned. From my perspective this is just another nail in the coffin for this tale.

The authors of the other gospels apparently had a different translation or they recognized the issue with their translations (or the gospel of Matthew if it came first) and decided to 'fix it' when penning their own tales.

Or if Matthew came after some of the other gospels then perhaps the author tried to 'fix' their version instead since they wanted to line up better with what they thought the actual prophesy was.

Either way, we have two gospel stories that don't line up. In fact we have one that appears to be willing to throw common sense out the window to line up with a possibly badly translated prophesy and another trying to make the tale plausible. Pick one I guess.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 67 by polonius.advice]


"RESPONSE: Fiction "does not have to fit the natural mind/reasoning" either.

It's important to separate fact from fiction or one allows oneself to be deceived!"

LIFE is not dictated by natural mind/reasoning/fiction.

CORRECTION: LIFE is dictated by the rational mind in most cases. Of course, there are exceptions.