Post by Jeff on Nov 2, 2005 13:29:53 GMT -5
Here is a question for the Christians on the board: How do you view the authority of the Bible, especially the New Testament? Here are three common views:
1. Inerrant –The Bible is free from error, i.e., correct in all factual assertions (including historical and scientific assertions).
2. Infallible –The Bible is fully trustworthy; its passages never deceive or mislead. Thus the Bible is correct in all matters of doctrine.
3. Authoritative —The Bible is binding on all people, thus it is correct in questions of practice and morality.
Could your view be understood in terms of the acceptance or denial of one or more of these claims?
I think things are probably much more complicated than these three views, but they allow me to get pretty close to my own opinion. I would say:
1. Scientific, historical, and archaeological investigations have shown that the Bible is not inerrant. Evolution is most likely the way organisms arose on the planet; the chronology of much of Genesis is suspect given modern techniques of dating the earth; and so on…
Still, the Bible is amazingly free of error. For example, the Bible asserts that Omri was the sixth king of the northern kingdom of Israel. This has been confirmed by the "Moabite stone," which states that "Omri, king of Israel, oppressed Moab many days and his sons after him." Thus the combination of the stone and the OT allow us to date the reign of Omri to about 886 to 875 B.C. Over and over again, where the Bible notes specific historical details, it has been proven to be substantially correct.
2. The Bible is not infallible. There are serious disagreements among careful interpreters of the Bible. If we take a firm literalist view, this means that some people are being misled by the Bible. If we take a liberal view, then those who interpret literally are being misled by the Bible. In either case, the Bible misleads some of those who seek to interpret it with utmost care.
For example, the folks at The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood ( www.cbmw.org/ ) believe that men and women should be restricted to very different roles within the family, church organizations, and the rest of society, while The Christians for Biblical Equality ( www.cbeinternational.org/new/index.shtml )teach that men and women were both created in the image of God, and that the Bible intends that they function in a full and equal partnership. Both groups are literalist, conservative Christian groups.
Still, the Bible is an amazingly trustworthy source for information about how to live and act. Proverbs stands up well against the Confucian Analects. And the Sermon on the Mount is probably the greatest piece of spiritual literature in the world. Interestingly, the Beatitudes from the Sermon share certain similarities with the Tao Te Ching. So, one possible way to adjust for the fallibility of the Bible is to compare its moral and social policies with those of other religions.
3. The Bible is not fully authoritative. Its teachings are compatible with slavery and the degradation of women, among other moral evils. Still, Jesus’ parables are wonderfully concise ways of expressing what I would regard as objective moral truths. One of the things that Jesus emphasizes is that we cannot get over having to think about morality for ourselves. I think this is a good thing.
So, my view is that the Bible isn’t inerrant, infallible, or authoritative in the sense that it is offers an exceptionless guarantee of its claims. On the other hand, I regard it as the world’s best example of a religious book. I would even go further: As a work of art, ethics, philosophy, mythology, theology, poetry, and perhaps even politics, the Bible is without serious competition. Those who don’t read it suffer for their ignorance.
The problem, it seems to me, lies in the need for a guarantee. God is not out to give us epistemological certainty--though the assurance of faith is another matter.
Jeff
1. Inerrant –The Bible is free from error, i.e., correct in all factual assertions (including historical and scientific assertions).
2. Infallible –The Bible is fully trustworthy; its passages never deceive or mislead. Thus the Bible is correct in all matters of doctrine.
3. Authoritative —The Bible is binding on all people, thus it is correct in questions of practice and morality.
Could your view be understood in terms of the acceptance or denial of one or more of these claims?
I think things are probably much more complicated than these three views, but they allow me to get pretty close to my own opinion. I would say:
1. Scientific, historical, and archaeological investigations have shown that the Bible is not inerrant. Evolution is most likely the way organisms arose on the planet; the chronology of much of Genesis is suspect given modern techniques of dating the earth; and so on…
Still, the Bible is amazingly free of error. For example, the Bible asserts that Omri was the sixth king of the northern kingdom of Israel. This has been confirmed by the "Moabite stone," which states that "Omri, king of Israel, oppressed Moab many days and his sons after him." Thus the combination of the stone and the OT allow us to date the reign of Omri to about 886 to 875 B.C. Over and over again, where the Bible notes specific historical details, it has been proven to be substantially correct.
2. The Bible is not infallible. There are serious disagreements among careful interpreters of the Bible. If we take a firm literalist view, this means that some people are being misled by the Bible. If we take a liberal view, then those who interpret literally are being misled by the Bible. In either case, the Bible misleads some of those who seek to interpret it with utmost care.
For example, the folks at The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood ( www.cbmw.org/ ) believe that men and women should be restricted to very different roles within the family, church organizations, and the rest of society, while The Christians for Biblical Equality ( www.cbeinternational.org/new/index.shtml )teach that men and women were both created in the image of God, and that the Bible intends that they function in a full and equal partnership. Both groups are literalist, conservative Christian groups.
Still, the Bible is an amazingly trustworthy source for information about how to live and act. Proverbs stands up well against the Confucian Analects. And the Sermon on the Mount is probably the greatest piece of spiritual literature in the world. Interestingly, the Beatitudes from the Sermon share certain similarities with the Tao Te Ching. So, one possible way to adjust for the fallibility of the Bible is to compare its moral and social policies with those of other religions.
3. The Bible is not fully authoritative. Its teachings are compatible with slavery and the degradation of women, among other moral evils. Still, Jesus’ parables are wonderfully concise ways of expressing what I would regard as objective moral truths. One of the things that Jesus emphasizes is that we cannot get over having to think about morality for ourselves. I think this is a good thing.
So, my view is that the Bible isn’t inerrant, infallible, or authoritative in the sense that it is offers an exceptionless guarantee of its claims. On the other hand, I regard it as the world’s best example of a religious book. I would even go further: As a work of art, ethics, philosophy, mythology, theology, poetry, and perhaps even politics, the Bible is without serious competition. Those who don’t read it suffer for their ignorance.
The problem, it seems to me, lies in the need for a guarantee. God is not out to give us epistemological certainty--though the assurance of faith is another matter.
Jeff
