TZ, how is claiming the bible is full of unresolvable contradictions any less arrogant than claiming it has no contradictions? It is still placing our understanding above all else. No? Is it me, or doesn't it still seem like an extreme conclusion? Possibly even one that avoids another conclusion?
I guess it would be arrogant if I had actually said that, but I didn't. At least not that I'm aware of.:)
One time, I pointed out that there are words printed on pages, but the real intent is communicated by the meanings behind the the Words. The prof slapped his forehead. He had been working on a knotty problem in canonization (studying doesn't end with the degree), and when I said that, he realized that the Christian canon doesn't really depend on the words on the page, but on the meanings behind the words. The idea that we canonize ideas, and not just words, gave him fresh insight to the problem he was working on.
Ideas can take on a life of their own and not necessarily the life that was intended by the author.
When I originally took History and Literature of the Old Testament forty some odd years ago, Dr. Strong, bless her memory, taught source criticism, but I couldn't make heads or tails of it. How could an editor make sense of "J","E", "P" and "D"? Whoever he was, it struck me that he must have been insane.
Since then, I had the opportunity to study a number of traditions as they made the transition from oral to written: the Trojan war material to Homer and Hesiod, the Sigurd and Gudrun material to the Nibelungenlied, Danish history into Beowulf, and Celtic tradition including the real life exploits of Eleanor of Aquitaine and William Marshal into L'Morte d'Arthur.
When I took History and Literature of the Old Testament this time around, I was already grounded in the differences between oral and written presentation, and the resulting differences in their expectations of consistency. When the author of our textbook, Encountering Ancient Voices by Corrine Carvalho, expounded on the Doomed History of the Deuteronomist, I, at my advanced age and with my jaded experience, was blown away again by the supernatural providence exhibited in the Bible, contradictions and all! All the contradictions of "J", "E", "P" and "D" fell into context in a greater theme, mightier than any theme expressed in human literature, because people wrote it with their LIVES, as they were obedient or otherwise to the will of our powerful and loving Creator God. To limit the living Word of God to dead ink, on dead paper, in dead languages, and to limit God's freedom to our peculiar, limited, LIMITING notions of perfection, is to do a great dis-service to people who seek to build an individual, personal relationship with the Father God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by way of the Holy Spirit!
Then again, I actually could examine myself, my approach, and my understanding. That might reveal something useful to me. No? Assume for a moment it is God's word....written by men and inspired by God. It is imperfect language that is going to cause issues and a million different ways to interpret what is said. Yikes! It is impossible right? What I take from it is wholly dependent on the standards I use to judge it. Basically, I am defining what is true....I become omniscient.
Is there another way could we can come at such a book that would not lead to confusion and frustration? Is there another result we can get from the bible, other than trying to prove something? Scripture tells us how to approach it. It reveals ourselves in it. It isn't an intellectual exercise, but it can require some serious self-examination to achieve the desired result...assuming a relationship built on trust and certainty with an transcendent God is the quest. There is a way we can approach the bible to get the right result. With a humble heart. Declaring it full of contradictions based on my limited knowledge doesn't seem like a humble approach to me....The result should not be how many were crucified....or how many denials either....it should be transformation.
Sure, if people are not seeking out God in scripture, but rather trying to prove something or bolster their preconceived ideas....it can be a mass of contradiction. Kind of like using the bible to prove it is full of contradictions. That might be the wrong approach and might result in a futile exercise. It can even lead to great swelling and prideful assumptions about God. Look at TWI or CES.
It can be more difficult to let it read us...but IMO far more satisfying, helpful and transforming. Unless we don't want that and just want to be proved right. The irony of STILL using the bible for this does not escape me.
As an aside, Paul and what his companions heard/understood in Acts, is one of the most easily resolved conflicts in scripture. It doesn't even show up in more than a few bible translations, but, it is in King James I am sure. It is a translation issue. In grand scheme of things does it matter? It matters, if one is using a particular and limited standard by which to judge and has decided this is thee ultimate standard. It is within these arbitrary limitations that those seeming contradictions can become unresolvable.
My opinion...no one has to agree.
Here again is the automatic tendency to judge those who disagree with us as being somehow less spiritual, less humble than we are. I don't have time at this moment to rebut your post point by point, but I find it annoying that you seem to presume that I am somehow arrogant, prideful, etc. simply because I recognize the fact that different verses disagree with each other. I chose the passage in Acts because it's a relatively simple one. There are many others like this throughout the Scripture that are in conflict.
The Bible says a great many things. Among these is the exhortation, "come, let us reason together.". If the Scripture invites us to approach it rationally, we cannot be summarily condemned for engaging our reason when we read it.
How does letting the Bible 'read you' resolve a factual conflict between what Luke wrote in chapter 9 versus what he later wrote in "chapter 22"? Nonsense.
I find it sadly ironic that someone who espouses humility automatically condemns those who disagree with her viewpoint. Are you the Anointed one through whom the Most High now speaks?
Here again is the automatic tendency to judge those who disagree with us as being somehow less spiritual, less humble than we are. I don't have time at this moment to rebut your post point by point, but I find it annoying that you seem to presume that I am somehow arrogant, prideful, etc. simply because I recognize the fact that different verses disagree with each other. I chose the passage in Acts because it's a relatively simple one. There are many others like this throughout the Scripture that are in conflict.
The Bible says a great many things. Among these is the exhortation, "come, let us reason together.". If the Scripture invites us to approach it rationally, we cannot be summarily condemned for engaging our reason when we read it.
How does letting the Bible 'read you' resolve a factual conflict between what Luke wrote in chapter 9 versus what he later wrote in "chapter 22"? Nonsense.
I find it sadly ironic that someone who espouses humility automatically condemns those who disagree with her viewpoint. Are you the Anointed one through whom the Most High now speaks?
These things certainly don't stop you from judging me do they? Whose claws actually come out when they are disagreed with? I thought I was rather kind myself, hoping to share something from my own personal relationship with the creator. Maybe that is reserved only for those who believe the bible "imperfect truth" and agree with you? Maybe you could just label me a "fundamentalist" now and get it over with. You know, similar to the way we used carnal Christian in TWI. Empties floating by. People we don't agree with....we can label and dismiss. Is fundamentalist the new word for those who think differently....the worst you can come up with?
What? I should have given my academic resume instead.
If I disagree....and offer a varying point I am judgmental? On what planet? Maybe in the world of TWI....but, not where I dwell.
What Christian hasn't heard that the bible reads us? That is hardly not some "new light". I DIDN'T MAKE IT UP!! What Christian doesn't know that reasoning the scriptures involves examination of their own thought process, approach, and mindset? Hardly shocking revelations. Hardly shocking in any discipline.
I think my point was....these ARE reasonable approaches....or is a reasonable approach what you determine it to be? I can't offer my opinion?
I am sorry to upset you, but the verses in Acts appear in only a few translations of the bible because it is easily resolved. You appear to still have an issue with it.
I was thinking of myself and my own experience when I posted as I did.....hoping to share something from my own life with TZ..... It didn't cross my mind you were arrogant when I was posting....It has now.
People do read things just the way they want to and bring their own preconceived ideas to things....you have just solidified that for me.
Enjoy your discussion...I don't need this... I am CRAZY to continue to subject myself to it if I don't have to. It is still so much like TWI....same tactics....same tunnel vision....same pride....same affront to Christianity. Some have just swung to another extreme. That IS my judgment.
Make sure and chase off the next poster who disagrees and then there can be two of you to chat!
The boundary between that which is objective and that which is subjective is the human mind. That which is subjective depends on the mind of the subject. That which is objective exists independently of the subject's mind, and can be observed by any dispassionate observer. In classical thinking, the touchstone of the truth of a proposition is how well it accords with criteria that are objective. That is why science is as powerful as it is.
Some people, like Plato, Hindus, Buddhists and Ralph Waldo Emerson, hold that what is objective is an illusion, and what is subjective is true.
I don't agree with that, and I don't think the writers of the Bible would either. I believe that what is objective is real because it has the same integrity as its Creator, that is to say, that objective reality is whole and persistent, while my subjective experience of it is limited to the range of my senses, and is discontinuous.
Deuteronomy 19:15b, Matthew 18:16b and II Corinthians 13:1b all say essentially the same thing in slightly different wording appropriate to the immediate context: in the mouth (singular) of two or three witnesses (plural) shall a matter be established. Where several witness agree, that is where we are to find the truth.
I believe the Bible, the written Word of God, is an objective witness to the truth God wants us to know. But... I also believe that the leading of the Holy Spirit is a subjective witness to the truth God wants us to know. It's not where the Bible agrees with itself that we find the truth. That could simply be a tautology. It's where the objective witness of the Bible AND the subjective witness of the Holy Spirit AGREE that we find truth.
If we focus on the Written Word and ignore the leading of the Holy Spirit, we fall into Pharisaic legalism, as did TWI. If we magnify the Spirit and ignore the Written Word, we fall into emotionalistic spiritualism, as did CES.
For the last couple of thousand years "official" Christianity has minimized the leading of the Holy Spirit and maximized our reliance on the Written Word alone, in order to solidify its control over us. That's why we have such objectively rediculous traditions as "the Bible contains no contraditions."
All for now. The latest episode of The Closer is coming on!
When I was a little kid, I went to Sunday school at The Brookside Missionary Baptist Church on Forestdale Ave. Like most kids, I suppose, I was somewhat baffled at the prospect of Noah cramming all those animals onto one boat, Jonah being swallowed by a whale (and living to tell about it), and so forth. But, I was kind of a shy kid so I kept my curiosity to my self. When I got a bit older and bolder, though, I asked the Sunday school teacher about my questions. She told me they were really just stories but that they had many great lessons we could apply to our own lives if we would be humble enough to accept what they were trying to teach us. I wish, now, that I had just left it at that and never heard of PFAL.
These things certainly don't stop you from judging me do they? Whose claws actually come out when they are disagreed with? I thought I was rather kind myself, hoping to share something from my own personal relationship with the creator.
Ah yes, how kind of you to insinuate that I am just not being humble enough? I'm catty, you're kind. But of course, why didn't I see that?
Maybe that is reserved only for those who believe the bible "imperfect truth" and agree with you? Maybe you could just label me a "fundamentalist" now and get it over with. You know, similar to the way we used carnal Christian in TWI. Empties floating by. People we don't agree with....we can label and dismiss. Is fundamentalist the new word for those who think differently....the worst you can come up with?
I don't judge people who disagree with me. Steve, CMan, and Todd all disagree with me on certain topics. I'm fine with that. What I find insulting is your assumption that I am in some way spiritually inferior because I disagree with you. Notice that I haven't taken any of them to task. They are able to express their opinions without insulting everyone else at the same time.
If I disagree....and offer a varying point I am judgmental? On what planet?
On this planet where you posted this just yesterday; emphasis added.
...there is a way we can approach the bible to get the right result. With a humble heart. Declaring it full of contradictions based on my limited knowledge doesn't seem like a humble approach to me...
So according to you there only one "right result" of reading the Bible. Your words clearly communicate that, if anyone disagrees with you, that person is not right because they are not humble. Call it kindness, if you will, but in my humble opinion that is an arrogant assumption on your part.
What Christian hasn't heard that the bible reads us? That is hardly not some "new light". I DIDN'T MAKE IT UP!!
I never said you made that up.
I think my point was....these ARE reasonable approaches....or is a reasonable approach what you determine it to be? I can't offer my opinion?
Of course you can offer your opinion. I'm merely pointing out that the manner in which you offered it seems judgmental and arrogant.
I am sorry to upset you, but the verses in Acts appear in only a few translations of the bible because it is easily resolved. You appear to still have an issue with it.
Actually I don't. I chose that verse because it's a rather simple example of an apparent contradiction. Most of the others involve complex topics like grace vs works, or one "dispensation" vs another or one writer's perspective vs another writer's perspective. This one is pretty simple because it's the same writer discussing a simple, factual topic. It's one that can be discussed without being derailed by competing interpretations and dogmas. It's a simple matter of the factual account not squaring with itself. The truth that Paul was converted on the road to Damascus and became a powerful Apostle for Christ is not affected. That was the point.
People do read things just the way they want to and bring their own preconceived ideas to things....you have just solidified that for me.
Quite the contrary. I keep and open mind when I read and change it when I see things that contradict what I believed before. If you ask around or take some time and read some of the other things I've posted you'll see that my beliefs are rather fluid. That's not the mark of someone who approaches truth with hard coded preconceptions.
Enjoy your discussion...I don't need this... I am CRAZY to continue to subject myself to it if I don't have to. It is still so much like TWI....same tactics....same tunnel vision....same pride....same affront to Christianity. Some have just swung to another extreme. That IS my judgment.
So everyone who doesn't agree with you is an extremist whose beliefs are an affront to Christianity? I think Waysider would call that statement a false dichotomy.
If my beliefs had swung to the extreme, I'd be an atheist who says the Bible is completely devoid of truth. I'm simmply no longer convinced that the Scripture is perfect in every detail. To call that a prideful affront to Christianity is obviously judgmental and arrogant. But at least now you're being honest about it. :-)
Make sure and chase off the next poster who disagrees and then there can be two of you to chat!
I don't intend to chase you off. But if you can't engage in a mature exchange of ideas, perhaps you'll be happier elsewhere. Your call of course.
@ Steve. Well said my friend. The balance of the Spirit and the Bible is what keeps me rooted in Chrsitianity. If I didn't speak in tongues, the truth of the resurrection would be subject to doubt. Since I know by the spirit and my experience of God's love and salvation and power, I can see contradictions in the Scripture without jettisoning belief in God and Christ.
@ CMan. Quite right. It's the give and take of this august forum that allows us to grow together. Didn't someone once share here that Paul's method of teaching was a dialogue much like this?
I'd like to see if we aren't all saying variations of the same thing, after all.
So, let me take it from the top.
Are we all, to some degree, mulling over how an Infinite God conveys His Infinite-ness
and His Infinite Wisdom to finite people using finite words in a finite book/codex?
(The Bible's always presented to us, in the US in the 21st century, as one book,
but it's technically one codex- a book of books.)
I thought we were, WW until Geisha left in a huff. Now I'm not so sure.
There's another example from objective reality of God contradicting Himself in written material for His own purposes... DNA. I believe the information encoded in DNA was originally organized by our Creator God.
DNA contains the instructions necessary for every operation of every cell in our bodies, written in the genetic code that controls the production of chemical compounds. Every cell of an individual's body contains essentially identical genetic material.
HUGE steps have been taken during the last few decades in decyphering the human genome. The stretches of DNA that are active at any given time or cellular location in the body is relatively small. There are vast stretches that are redundant or contradictory. There are parts where the code controls obviously important functions. There are other parts that can be only be described as "playing around".
One example of contradictory sections of DNA are the parts that control the coagulation of blood. When there's a "hull breach," a section of DNA tells certain cells to start generating the chemicals that make blood coagulate. If this didn't happen, then an organism would most likely die of hemopilia. BUT... as soon as the breach is sealed, that section is shut down, and a contradictory section is brought into operation that tells certain cells to resume generating the chemicals that keep blood fluid. Otherwise, the organism's entire circulatory system would sieze up in a solid block. These contradictory sections of DNA are in EVERY cell of a person's body, even those that have NO ROLE in the coagulation of blood.
During the ovarian cycle, contradictory stretches of DNA are alternately switched on and off to control the production of estrogen and progesterone.
During cellular differentiation, contradictory stretches of DNA are selected for each cell so that it can perform the function it needs to perform in the individual organism's body.
Likewise, I believe the Holy Spirit can "switch on" or "switch off" contradictory sections of the objective Bible for each Christian, so that each one of us can perform the functions we are called upon to perform as members in particular of the Body of Christ.
Ah yes, how kind of you to insinuate that I am just not being humble enough? I'm catty, you're kind. But of course, why didn't I see that?
I'm fine with that. What I find insulting is your assumption that I am in some way spiritually inferior because I disagree with you.
I have to ask....
Where did I imply, intimate, or say in any way that you....Jerry Barrax is not being humble enough? What part of I, me, mine don't you understand? What part of "this is my opinion no one has to agree" eludes you?
Your pride is hurt because I mentioned the contradiction in Acts is easily resolvable. Pure and simple ego. That is what this is about. You have already mentioned how those you classify as "fundamentalists" bother you. They bother you because they look at the scriptures differently than you. Admit it.
Here, now I WILL actually say it because now I do actually believe it.....and you did ask me how letting the bible read us helps to resolve conflicts like those in Acts....if you had taken a moment to examine your approach to Acts, you could have easily resolved this for yourself . Instead, what is it you said?
"My studied opinion is that the Bible does indeed contradict itself. "
"Did they hear it or did they not? " .......It depends on whether you believe Luke's second hand account of the event (Acts 9:7) or Paul's firsthand recounting of it (22:7 - 9) .......Acknowledging that what Luke wrote in Acts chapter 9 contradicts what he wrote in chapter 22 has nothing to do with whether or not God is good and merciful.
Well, is it an either or issue? No. That is how you approach it. Does it depend on which account you believe? No. But, that is your flawed conclusion based on your approach. Do you have to choose between the two accounts? No. Must we acknowledge they conflict? Hell no.....It is a simple translation issue. Easily resolved.
Your approach stunted your ability to resolve this for yourself, but.that must have been your studied opinion. It couldn't possibly be your limited understanding...it just HAS to mean the accounts in Acts conflict.
Hmm, turns out there is something to what I said......how we approach scripture does matter. Who knew! Just about any Christian who reads the bible? Maybe?
I looked up Acts 9:3-7 and Acts 22:7-9 in Ricker-Berry's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, and there was no evidence of textual variations that could "resolve" the contradiction between the two passages by appeal to scribal error. On page 294 of James D. G. Dunn's The Acts of the Apostles, Dunn had this to say,
"22.9 This is the most glaring inconsistency between the first two accounts of Paul's conversion: in 9.7 those with him 'heard the voice but saw no one'; here 'they saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one speaking with me'. The inconsistency can be resolved (they heard the voice but could not make out the words). But it is more worthy of note that the same author could dictate both versions without any sense that such inconsistency was of any significance."
I can just feel the love in some of these posts...
Contradictions and inaccuracies or immaculate writings... I think we can at least agree the reception isn't immaculate, or else what's the point of all the infighting?!
But it is clear, there are inaccuracies.. Whether that be due to transmission, interpretation, etc.. Heck, just take the simple list of numbers in Nehemiah 7 vs Ezra 2 vs Esdras 5... All three lists are so far in disagreement, even our resident mathematician would consider it a failure. Ok, maybe not.. I shouldn't speak on a squirrel's behalf.
I'm just wondering why it should matter whether a brother or sister takes what Paul or Peter or Moses or others have written about the Creator as whether they were our Creator's exact precise accurate and immaculate words or not, when it is the relationship that is the key. Black and white ink, while great for a help and a guide, it certainly to me isn't worth the tearing down of one another over it. God still is. What He said is true, and whether or not I know all He said, well, He can tell me what I need, right?!
I just don't see the reason for idolizing the black and white, rather than being honest. It has inaccurate information! And if you say it doesn't.. Tell me again the number in each tribe of those who returned from exile(Ezra 2/Nehemiah 7/Esdras 5)?
A couple of considerations that liberated me from Wierwillian groupthink about the Bible was learning that most parts of the Bible were transmitted orally for long periods of time before they were committed to writing, and that the standards of consistency are different for oral cultures than they are for written cultures.
A short set of verses in the Bible that express one coherent thought is called a "pericope" (pronounced per-ICK-uh-pee, NOT like "periscope"). Most pericopes were in circulation orally long before before they were collected and written down. According to oral aesthetics, the information in a pericope is of two types, the "essential" and the "accidental".
The essential information is the one coherent thought that holds the pericope together. It is the punchline. An example of this is the pericope of Lazarus and the rich man that Luke included in chapter 16:19-31 of his gospel. The essential information is "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (verse 31). All the rest of the information was "accidental", that is, while it served mnemonic and rhetorical purposes for the speaker, it was not intended to be taken as seriously as the essential information.
There are many, many clear verses in the Bible that declare there is no consciousness in death. The pericope of Lazarus and the rich man contradicts those verses. It is a REAL contradiction. It is IN the Bible. It cannot be "resolved" using Wierwillian methods. But oral cultures did not consider the accidental material of a pericope to be controlling. Pericopes expressing the same essential truth often existed in forms where the accidental information varied, or even contradicted each other. They were still considered to be the same pericope, expressing the same truth.
Another example is the pericope of Jesus being crucified with the criminals. In one version (Matthew 27:44), both criminals "cast the same" in Jesus teeth; in the other (Luke 23:39-43) one of the criminals declared Jesus to be innocent. The essential information in both versions of this pericope is that Jesus, an innocent man, suffered the humiliation of being crucified among the guilty. In the version Luke chose to present, one of the criminals states the essential truth explicitly.
Whether both criminals took the same attitude toward Jesus as every one else (which seems more likely to me), or whether one criminal explicitly explained the pericope, this was considered to be part of the ACCIDENTAL information! If Luke had known of the version Matthew used, Luke WOULD NOT HAVE CARED that the two versions contradict each other. Just as Luke DID NOT CARE that the two versions of Saul's conversion he presented in Acts contradict each other. Accidental information CAN contradict without effecting the essential truth.
The problem then becomes, NOT to deny that real contradictions exist in the Bible, NOT to "resolve" contradictions that are only apparent, but to distinguish the essential from the accidental.
Next time I will explain why I DON'T CARE whether Geisha's explanation of "Jesus is Lord" is different from mine. No matter how we explain it, the essential truith is that we both have the same Lord.
Just to say, this is an interesting and entertaining discussion that I'm following even though not posting.
My contribution then: Remember it's all about heart (relationship). Don't magnify the words above the relationship. We see as through a glass darkly - one day we shall know it and understand it all. Till then - do what you know to do. Don't stress over the small stuff.
I think one of the biggest lies from TWI is that (if you like) the diary notes and "to do list" became more important than the One whose diary notes and "to do list" they are.
"I suggest you repeat the experiment of looking at you extended thumb, first through one eye, and then through the other. How can you draw the logical conclusion from these two images alone that your thumb is not actually in two different places?"
Hmmm....how I am able to do that is what makes them non-contradictory. The same ways I know I'm not not you or someone else, for that matter. When I look in a mirror, how do I know there aren't two of me? Or are there....? Sometimes that guy's a little leaner around the edges...he may be happier. It's hard to say. But I'm definitely not buying into the way he dresses. I dress snappier than that.
My purpose wasn't to go into a Webster-war, rather to observe my impression of what seemed to be how "contradiction" is being discussed here in context. That's a moving target too, as expected in discussions. And this is a good one, I'm enjoying the read. I'm sure there's also many nuanances to the meaning of that word, many many many.
Labels?..... are pretty limiting, I try to draw the line there. "Fundamentalist" means nothing to me, I don't even know how to apply it. I probably should but I don't travel enough in these circles to use it or even hear it used, unless I'm around it's use, as in TV, media, etc. I suppose anyone who would call themselves by that term would know what it meant but to someone like me it would still reguire explanation. Most other labels too IMO. Although I always accept "Genius Love Diety" if it's forced upon me.
i like the way the thread spreads out...and how there is usually someone around who is good at keeping it attached to the main vein.
im personally devoted to some sense of a developed and developing body of fundamentals. i assume most everyone else is, too.
fundamentalism is also used to name a particular waves of christian, muslim and other religious experience.
imho, most of the time, in most circles, the word 'fundamentalism' is used mostly non-constructively. but it can be used and useful as a word to describe a large and valid aspect of all religious life and history.
That's why I do kinda prefer "Genius Love Diety", as I completely understand what it means and frankly can agree wholeheartedly any time it's applied to me. It's the only one like that though.
There used to be an animated show in TV - "Dinosaurs" - really funny, in the tradition of the characters and plot of The Flintstones and The Honeymooners from years ago.
The "family" had male and female parents, and three children including a Baby, named "Baby". The father had a name, "Earl" but whenever Baby would talk to the father he'd call him "Not the Momma". Which I thought was a really ingenious use of a name that was more than a label or reference, but a really cool view into Baby's understanding ot it's world.
What's this got to do with fundamental names and labels? Nothing. Or maybe............everything. Or maybe nuttin'.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
27
19
15
18
Popular Days
Jul 18
20
Jul 10
20
Jul 12
18
Jul 11
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Steve Lortz 27 posts
geisha779 19 posts
waysider 15 posts
Grace Valerie Claire 18 posts
Popular Days
Jul 18 2011
20 posts
Jul 10 2011
20 posts
Jul 12 2011
18 posts
Jul 11 2011
14 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
When I was a little kid, I went to Sunday school at The Brookside Missionary Baptist Church on Forestdale Ave. Like most kids, I suppose, I was somewhat baffled at the prospect of Noah cramming all th
Steve Lortz
The boundary between that which is objective and that which is subjective is the human mind. That which is subjective depends on the mind of the subject. That which is objective exists independently o
Tzaia
is IMO the notion that the bible doesn't contradict itself. Really?
Tzaia
I guess it would be arrogant if I had actually said that, but I didn't. At least not that I'm aware of.:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Ideas can take on a life of their own and not necessarily the life that was intended by the author.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
When I originally took History and Literature of the Old Testament forty some odd years ago, Dr. Strong, bless her memory, taught source criticism, but I couldn't make heads or tails of it. How could an editor make sense of "J","E", "P" and "D"? Whoever he was, it struck me that he must have been insane.
Since then, I had the opportunity to study a number of traditions as they made the transition from oral to written: the Trojan war material to Homer and Hesiod, the Sigurd and Gudrun material to the Nibelungenlied, Danish history into Beowulf, and Celtic tradition including the real life exploits of Eleanor of Aquitaine and William Marshal into L'Morte d'Arthur.
When I took History and Literature of the Old Testament this time around, I was already grounded in the differences between oral and written presentation, and the resulting differences in their expectations of consistency. When the author of our textbook, Encountering Ancient Voices by Corrine Carvalho, expounded on the Doomed History of the Deuteronomist, I, at my advanced age and with my jaded experience, was blown away again by the supernatural providence exhibited in the Bible, contradictions and all! All the contradictions of "J", "E", "P" and "D" fell into context in a greater theme, mightier than any theme expressed in human literature, because people wrote it with their LIVES, as they were obedient or otherwise to the will of our powerful and loving Creator God. To limit the living Word of God to dead ink, on dead paper, in dead languages, and to limit God's freedom to our peculiar, limited, LIMITING notions of perfection, is to do a great dis-service to people who seek to build an individual, personal relationship with the Father God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by way of the Holy Spirit!
All for now.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'd like to see if we aren't all saying variations of the same thing, after all.
So, let me take it from the top.
Are we all, to some degree, mulling over how an Infinite God conveys His Infinite-ness
and His Infinite Wisdom to finite people using finite words in a finite book/codex?
(The Bible's always presented to us, in the US in the 21st century, as one book,
but it's technically one codex- a book of books.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Here again is the automatic tendency to judge those who disagree with us as being somehow less spiritual, less humble than we are. I don't have time at this moment to rebut your post point by point, but I find it annoying that you seem to presume that I am somehow arrogant, prideful, etc. simply because I recognize the fact that different verses disagree with each other. I chose the passage in Acts because it's a relatively simple one. There are many others like this throughout the Scripture that are in conflict.
The Bible says a great many things. Among these is the exhortation, "come, let us reason together.". If the Scripture invites us to approach it rationally, we cannot be summarily condemned for engaging our reason when we read it.
How does letting the Bible 'read you' resolve a factual conflict between what Luke wrote in chapter 9 versus what he later wrote in "chapter 22"? Nonsense.
I find it sadly ironic that someone who espouses humility automatically condemns those who disagree with her viewpoint. Are you the Anointed one through whom the Most High now speaks?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
These things certainly don't stop you from judging me do they? Whose claws actually come out when they are disagreed with? I thought I was rather kind myself, hoping to share something from my own personal relationship with the creator. Maybe that is reserved only for those who believe the bible "imperfect truth" and agree with you? Maybe you could just label me a "fundamentalist" now and get it over with. You know, similar to the way we used carnal Christian in TWI. Empties floating by. People we don't agree with....we can label and dismiss. Is fundamentalist the new word for those who think differently....the worst you can come up with?
What? I should have given my academic resume instead.
If I disagree....and offer a varying point I am judgmental? On what planet? Maybe in the world of TWI....but, not where I dwell.
What Christian hasn't heard that the bible reads us? That is hardly not some "new light". I DIDN'T MAKE IT UP!! What Christian doesn't know that reasoning the scriptures involves examination of their own thought process, approach, and mindset? Hardly shocking revelations. Hardly shocking in any discipline.
I think my point was....these ARE reasonable approaches....or is a reasonable approach what you determine it to be? I can't offer my opinion?
I am sorry to upset you, but the verses in Acts appear in only a few translations of the bible because it is easily resolved. You appear to still have an issue with it.
I was thinking of myself and my own experience when I posted as I did.....hoping to share something from my own life with TZ..... It didn't cross my mind you were arrogant when I was posting....It has now.
People do read things just the way they want to and bring their own preconceived ideas to things....you have just solidified that for me.
Enjoy your discussion...I don't need this... I am CRAZY to continue to subject myself to it if I don't have to. It is still so much like TWI....same tactics....same tunnel vision....same pride....same affront to Christianity. Some have just swung to another extreme. That IS my judgment.
Make sure and chase off the next poster who disagrees and then there can be two of you to chat!
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The boundary between that which is objective and that which is subjective is the human mind. That which is subjective depends on the mind of the subject. That which is objective exists independently of the subject's mind, and can be observed by any dispassionate observer. In classical thinking, the touchstone of the truth of a proposition is how well it accords with criteria that are objective. That is why science is as powerful as it is.
Some people, like Plato, Hindus, Buddhists and Ralph Waldo Emerson, hold that what is objective is an illusion, and what is subjective is true.
I don't agree with that, and I don't think the writers of the Bible would either. I believe that what is objective is real because it has the same integrity as its Creator, that is to say, that objective reality is whole and persistent, while my subjective experience of it is limited to the range of my senses, and is discontinuous.
Deuteronomy 19:15b, Matthew 18:16b and II Corinthians 13:1b all say essentially the same thing in slightly different wording appropriate to the immediate context: in the mouth (singular) of two or three witnesses (plural) shall a matter be established. Where several witness agree, that is where we are to find the truth.
I believe the Bible, the written Word of God, is an objective witness to the truth God wants us to know. But... I also believe that the leading of the Holy Spirit is a subjective witness to the truth God wants us to know. It's not where the Bible agrees with itself that we find the truth. That could simply be a tautology. It's where the objective witness of the Bible AND the subjective witness of the Holy Spirit AGREE that we find truth.
If we focus on the Written Word and ignore the leading of the Holy Spirit, we fall into Pharisaic legalism, as did TWI. If we magnify the Spirit and ignore the Written Word, we fall into emotionalistic spiritualism, as did CES.
For the last couple of thousand years "official" Christianity has minimized the leading of the Holy Spirit and maximized our reliance on the Written Word alone, in order to solidify its control over us. That's why we have such objectively rediculous traditions as "the Bible contains no contraditions."
All for now. The latest episode of The Closer is coming on!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
When I was a little kid, I went to Sunday school at The Brookside Missionary Baptist Church on Forestdale Ave. Like most kids, I suppose, I was somewhat baffled at the prospect of Noah cramming all those animals onto one boat, Jonah being swallowed by a whale (and living to tell about it), and so forth. But, I was kind of a shy kid so I kept my curiosity to my self. When I got a bit older and bolder, though, I asked the Sunday school teacher about my questions. She told me they were really just stories but that they had many great lessons we could apply to our own lives if we would be humble enough to accept what they were trying to teach us. I wish, now, that I had just left it at that and never heard of PFAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Our own thought process, approach, and mindset should be looked into,
before and after any conclusions or determinations or posts, statements, whatever.
Both objectively and subjectively, or one gets stuck, hindered, trapping themselves,
in their own thought process.
So it's good to see others, objectively and subjectively, and the way they handle this.
Giving you more then you can do on your own, inspiring different
process, approach, and mindset, which could be different then seen initially.
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
these folks should view some of these threads here :)
http://bquot.com/1au
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Ah yes, how kind of you to insinuate that I am just not being humble enough? I'm catty, you're kind. But of course, why didn't I see that?
I don't judge people who disagree with me. Steve, CMan, and Todd all disagree with me on certain topics. I'm fine with that. What I find insulting is your assumption that I am in some way spiritually inferior because I disagree with you. Notice that I haven't taken any of them to task. They are able to express their opinions without insulting everyone else at the same time.
On this planet where you posted this just yesterday; emphasis added.
So according to you there only one "right result" of reading the Bible. Your words clearly communicate that, if anyone disagrees with you, that person is not right because they are not humble. Call it kindness, if you will, but in my humble opinion that is an arrogant assumption on your part.
I never said you made that up.
Of course you can offer your opinion. I'm merely pointing out that the manner in which you offered it seems judgmental and arrogant.
Actually I don't. I chose that verse because it's a rather simple example of an apparent contradiction. Most of the others involve complex topics like grace vs works, or one "dispensation" vs another or one writer's perspective vs another writer's perspective. This one is pretty simple because it's the same writer discussing a simple, factual topic. It's one that can be discussed without being derailed by competing interpretations and dogmas. It's a simple matter of the factual account not squaring with itself. The truth that Paul was converted on the road to Damascus and became a powerful Apostle for Christ is not affected. That was the point.
Quite the contrary. I keep and open mind when I read and change it when I see things that contradict what I believed before. If you ask around or take some time and read some of the other things I've posted you'll see that my beliefs are rather fluid. That's not the mark of someone who approaches truth with hard coded preconceptions.
So everyone who doesn't agree with you is an extremist whose beliefs are an affront to Christianity? I think Waysider would call that statement a false dichotomy.
If my beliefs had swung to the extreme, I'd be an atheist who says the Bible is completely devoid of truth. I'm simmply no longer convinced that the Scripture is perfect in every detail. To call that a prideful affront to Christianity is obviously judgmental and arrogant. But at least now you're being honest about it. :-)
I don't intend to chase you off. But if you can't engage in a mature exchange of ideas, perhaps you'll be happier elsewhere. Your call of course.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
@ Steve. Well said my friend. The balance of the Spirit and the Bible is what keeps me rooted in Chrsitianity. If I didn't speak in tongues, the truth of the resurrection would be subject to doubt. Since I know by the spirit and my experience of God's love and salvation and power, I can see contradictions in the Scripture without jettisoning belief in God and Christ.
@ CMan. Quite right. It's the give and take of this august forum that allows us to grow together. Didn't someone once share here that Paul's method of teaching was a dialogue much like this?
I thought we were, WW until Geisha left in a huff. Now I'm not so sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"I think Waysider would call that statement a false dichotomy."
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
There's another example from objective reality of God contradicting Himself in written material for His own purposes... DNA. I believe the information encoded in DNA was originally organized by our Creator God.
DNA contains the instructions necessary for every operation of every cell in our bodies, written in the genetic code that controls the production of chemical compounds. Every cell of an individual's body contains essentially identical genetic material.
HUGE steps have been taken during the last few decades in decyphering the human genome. The stretches of DNA that are active at any given time or cellular location in the body is relatively small. There are vast stretches that are redundant or contradictory. There are parts where the code controls obviously important functions. There are other parts that can be only be described as "playing around".
One example of contradictory sections of DNA are the parts that control the coagulation of blood. When there's a "hull breach," a section of DNA tells certain cells to start generating the chemicals that make blood coagulate. If this didn't happen, then an organism would most likely die of hemopilia. BUT... as soon as the breach is sealed, that section is shut down, and a contradictory section is brought into operation that tells certain cells to resume generating the chemicals that keep blood fluid. Otherwise, the organism's entire circulatory system would sieze up in a solid block. These contradictory sections of DNA are in EVERY cell of a person's body, even those that have NO ROLE in the coagulation of blood.
During the ovarian cycle, contradictory stretches of DNA are alternately switched on and off to control the production of estrogen and progesterone.
During cellular differentiation, contradictory stretches of DNA are selected for each cell so that it can perform the function it needs to perform in the individual organism's body.
Likewise, I believe the Holy Spirit can "switch on" or "switch off" contradictory sections of the objective Bible for each Christian, so that each one of us can perform the functions we are called upon to perform as members in particular of the Body of Christ.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I have to ask....
Where did I imply, intimate, or say in any way that you....Jerry Barrax is not being humble enough? What part of I, me, mine don't you understand? What part of "this is my opinion no one has to agree" eludes you?
Your pride is hurt because I mentioned the contradiction in Acts is easily resolvable. Pure and simple ego. That is what this is about. You have already mentioned how those you classify as "fundamentalists" bother you. They bother you because they look at the scriptures differently than you. Admit it.
Here, now I WILL actually say it because now I do actually believe it.....and you did ask me how letting the bible read us helps to resolve conflicts like those in Acts....if you had taken a moment to examine your approach to Acts, you could have easily resolved this for yourself . Instead, what is it you said?
"My studied opinion is that the Bible does indeed contradict itself. "
"Did they hear it or did they not? " .......It depends on whether you believe Luke's second hand account of the event (Acts 9:7) or Paul's firsthand recounting of it (22:7 - 9) .......Acknowledging that what Luke wrote in Acts chapter 9 contradicts what he wrote in chapter 22 has nothing to do with whether or not God is good and merciful.
Well, is it an either or issue? No. That is how you approach it. Does it depend on which account you believe? No. But, that is your flawed conclusion based on your approach. Do you have to choose between the two accounts? No. Must we acknowledge they conflict? Hell no.....It is a simple translation issue. Easily resolved.
Your approach stunted your ability to resolve this for yourself, but.that must have been your studied opinion. It couldn't possibly be your limited understanding...it just HAS to mean the accounts in Acts conflict.
Hmm, turns out there is something to what I said......how we approach scripture does matter. Who knew! Just about any Christian who reads the bible? Maybe?
BTW.....This can definitely be termed a huff.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I looked up Acts 9:3-7 and Acts 22:7-9 in Ricker-Berry's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, and there was no evidence of textual variations that could "resolve" the contradiction between the two passages by appeal to scribal error. On page 294 of James D. G. Dunn's The Acts of the Apostles, Dunn had this to say,
"22.9 This is the most glaring inconsistency between the first two accounts of Paul's conversion: in 9.7 those with him 'heard the voice but saw no one'; here 'they saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one speaking with me'. The inconsistency can be resolved (they heard the voice but could not make out the words). But it is more worthy of note that the same author could dictate both versions without any sense that such inconsistency was of any significance."
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The account in Acts 9 is a "this is what happened" account.
The account in Acts 22 is a "this is how Paul recounted it" account.
They say MOSTLY the same thing.
Is it possible Paul's recounting might have been off?
Is it possible we can move on?
I'm still wondering if we all were beginning with the same premise,
but expressing it in radically different ways.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
I can just feel the love in some of these posts...
Contradictions and inaccuracies or immaculate writings... I think we can at least agree the reception isn't immaculate, or else what's the point of all the infighting?!
But it is clear, there are inaccuracies.. Whether that be due to transmission, interpretation, etc.. Heck, just take the simple list of numbers in Nehemiah 7 vs Ezra 2 vs Esdras 5... All three lists are so far in disagreement, even our resident mathematician would consider it a failure. Ok, maybe not.. I shouldn't speak on a squirrel's behalf.
I'm just wondering why it should matter whether a brother or sister takes what Paul or Peter or Moses or others have written about the Creator as whether they were our Creator's exact precise accurate and immaculate words or not, when it is the relationship that is the key. Black and white ink, while great for a help and a guide, it certainly to me isn't worth the tearing down of one another over it. God still is. What He said is true, and whether or not I know all He said, well, He can tell me what I need, right?!
I just don't see the reason for idolizing the black and white, rather than being honest. It has inaccurate information! And if you say it doesn't.. Tell me again the number in each tribe of those who returned from exile(Ezra 2/Nehemiah 7/Esdras 5)?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
A couple of considerations that liberated me from Wierwillian groupthink about the Bible was learning that most parts of the Bible were transmitted orally for long periods of time before they were committed to writing, and that the standards of consistency are different for oral cultures than they are for written cultures.
A short set of verses in the Bible that express one coherent thought is called a "pericope" (pronounced per-ICK-uh-pee, NOT like "periscope"). Most pericopes were in circulation orally long before before they were collected and written down. According to oral aesthetics, the information in a pericope is of two types, the "essential" and the "accidental".
The essential information is the one coherent thought that holds the pericope together. It is the punchline. An example of this is the pericope of Lazarus and the rich man that Luke included in chapter 16:19-31 of his gospel. The essential information is "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (verse 31). All the rest of the information was "accidental", that is, while it served mnemonic and rhetorical purposes for the speaker, it was not intended to be taken as seriously as the essential information.
There are many, many clear verses in the Bible that declare there is no consciousness in death. The pericope of Lazarus and the rich man contradicts those verses. It is a REAL contradiction. It is IN the Bible. It cannot be "resolved" using Wierwillian methods. But oral cultures did not consider the accidental material of a pericope to be controlling. Pericopes expressing the same essential truth often existed in forms where the accidental information varied, or even contradicted each other. They were still considered to be the same pericope, expressing the same truth.
Another example is the pericope of Jesus being crucified with the criminals. In one version (Matthew 27:44), both criminals "cast the same" in Jesus teeth; in the other (Luke 23:39-43) one of the criminals declared Jesus to be innocent. The essential information in both versions of this pericope is that Jesus, an innocent man, suffered the humiliation of being crucified among the guilty. In the version Luke chose to present, one of the criminals states the essential truth explicitly.
Whether both criminals took the same attitude toward Jesus as every one else (which seems more likely to me), or whether one criminal explicitly explained the pericope, this was considered to be part of the ACCIDENTAL information! If Luke had known of the version Matthew used, Luke WOULD NOT HAVE CARED that the two versions contradict each other. Just as Luke DID NOT CARE that the two versions of Saul's conversion he presented in Acts contradict each other. Accidental information CAN contradict without effecting the essential truth.
The problem then becomes, NOT to deny that real contradictions exist in the Bible, NOT to "resolve" contradictions that are only apparent, but to distinguish the essential from the accidental.
Next time I will explain why I DON'T CARE whether Geisha's explanation of "Jesus is Lord" is different from mine. No matter how we explain it, the essential truith is that we both have the same Lord.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Just to say, this is an interesting and entertaining discussion that I'm following even though not posting.
My contribution then: Remember it's all about heart (relationship). Don't magnify the words above the relationship. We see as through a glass darkly - one day we shall know it and understand it all. Till then - do what you know to do. Don't stress over the small stuff.
I think one of the biggest lies from TWI is that (if you like) the diary notes and "to do list" became more important than the One whose diary notes and "to do list" they are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
"I suggest you repeat the experiment of looking at you extended thumb, first through one eye, and then through the other. How can you draw the logical conclusion from these two images alone that your thumb is not actually in two different places?"
Hmmm....how I am able to do that is what makes them non-contradictory. The same ways I know I'm not not you or someone else, for that matter. When I look in a mirror, how do I know there aren't two of me? Or are there....? Sometimes that guy's a little leaner around the edges...he may be happier. It's hard to say. But I'm definitely not buying into the way he dresses. I dress snappier than that.
My purpose wasn't to go into a Webster-war, rather to observe my impression of what seemed to be how "contradiction" is being discussed here in context. That's a moving target too, as expected in discussions. And this is a good one, I'm enjoying the read. I'm sure there's also many nuanances to the meaning of that word, many many many.
Labels?..... are pretty limiting, I try to draw the line there. "Fundamentalist" means nothing to me, I don't even know how to apply it. I probably should but I don't travel enough in these circles to use it or even hear it used, unless I'm around it's use, as in TV, media, etc. I suppose anyone who would call themselves by that term would know what it meant but to someone like me it would still reguire explanation. Most other labels too IMO. Although I always accept "Genius Love Diety" if it's forced upon me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
i like the way the thread spreads out...and how there is usually someone around who is good at keeping it attached to the main vein.
im personally devoted to some sense of a developed and developing body of fundamentals. i assume most everyone else is, too.
fundamentalism is also used to name a particular waves of christian, muslim and other religious experience.
imho, most of the time, in most circles, the word 'fundamentalism' is used mostly non-constructively. but it can be used and useful as a word to describe a large and valid aspect of all religious life and history.
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
That's why I do kinda prefer "Genius Love Diety", as I completely understand what it means and frankly can agree wholeheartedly any time it's applied to me. It's the only one like that though.
There used to be an animated show in TV - "Dinosaurs" - really funny, in the tradition of the characters and plot of The Flintstones and The Honeymooners from years ago.
The "family" had male and female parents, and three children including a Baby, named "Baby". The father had a name, "Earl" but whenever Baby would talk to the father he'd call him "Not the Momma". Which I thought was a really ingenious use of a name that was more than a label or reference, but a really cool view into Baby's understanding ot it's world.
What's this got to do with fundamental names and labels? Nothing. Or maybe............everything. Or maybe nuttin'.
Or maybe everything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
twinky really nice post above thanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.