He got the context stuff from Bullinger. He either didn't understand it or ignored its meaning in favor of his own interpretation. Otherwise, he never would have taught John 10:10 out of context in session one, thus distorting its intended message.
Tom, unfortunately Wierwille didn't always consistently abide by this rule as relates to context, sometimes yes, at other times no
No argument from me on that, Tom, but some examples would be worth looking at.
BTW, a verse that I found instructive on this topic is "Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." I take it that imperfect words are purified in context in the Word. Rather impressive!
In this short video Ravi Z explains a Christian perspective to the scriptures.....he juxtaposes this to the Muslim's belief about the Koran. As he points out, a Muslim believes that the Koran is "word for word" perfect and the exact revelation and representation of God himself. It is believed to have been given to Muhammad in dictation form, which he took down and relayed to others. Translation of the Koran is frowned upon because the words are meant to be perfect, exact and precise.
The bible on the other hand.....points us to the perfect person of Jesus Christ. That is not to belittle God's holy word, but as Ravi and many others have pointed out, one word might be just as good as another to convey meaning. There is nothing sacred in the words chosen. Language can be imperfect, but is the truth they convey imperfect because of that? I don't believe it is....
In TWI we practiced a form of bibliolatry, much closer to a Muslim's approach to the Koran rather than a Christian approach to the bible. Couple that with our attitude and certain beliefs about Jesus Christ, legalism, and a stringent adherence to hierarchy and I think in many ways we were closer in practice to fundamentalist Islam. TWI bears little resemblance to Christianity despite the sometimes familiar vernacular.
The video is short and from a series done at Illinois University. Ravi Zacharias is great to listen to when trying to gain some perspective on what is the Christian faith. That is in part, due to his ability to defend and articulate the faith. TWI, PFAL, VP, the attitudes and approaches we had spring from an attack on the Christian faith and Jesus Christ Himself IMO. If our desire is to learn the faith.....I think it is helpful to listen to some good apologists.
Geisha, I appreciate what you said. Wierwille who should have known better, accussed apologists for retracting previous statements and saying that they were wrong and made up excuses. Apology is not saying I am/was wrong but is a defense of previous statements by adding further comments supporting what you said logiclly, reasonable manner, not arguing/having an emotional break down hissy poo ranting and raving, throwing a temper tantrum like a spoiled brat, acting as a 2 or 3 year old. this also includes Martindale as well.
I applaud your vigilance in your studies... I hope to join you one day. I am looking at a few Universities to get my Masters in Biblical Studies.
I am learning greek on my own and enrolling in a Koine Greek class by a retired professor locally www.NTGreekGODEEP.com to get a head start.. I hope one day not to need a concordance. Not only to read the bible in its original but also apostolic fathers and be able to understand contemporary works of the day. That will happen one day God willing I can join you in further learning.
I have found it extremely valuable to understand not only the definitions but also flow of grammatical structure of the language. It has also helped in my reading of JCNG and other works of VPW when he tries to explain any verse in the greek...
Geisha
Dr. Ravi Z. is one of my favorite apologists and is the start of my inspiration in apologetics years ago... It hurts my heart to see the manipulation that the Way has on their followers... To never read the greats like him or C.S. Lewis and viewing their work as of Satan as I get from the conversation and literature of describing Apologists like them very sorrowful. To never respect someone like Ravi is heart breaking even some of his opponents highly respect him for his intelligence, heart and wisdom... That is one of the key elements of someone thinking for themselves is that they can respect someone else's view and regard them valuable.
I have tried to read all of the posts and try to make it short as I don't read extremely long posts well. In some ways I think it is an issue of literal vs figurative language. For example parables they are figurative but in conversations where propositional statements are used they are literal... I think it is common place to flip the two. Possibly to also ignore the main point of any sentence. In this way you can change the meaning of the text.
Geisha, I appreciate what you said. Wierwille who should have known better, accussed apologists for retracting previous statements and saying that they were wrong and made up excuses. Apology is not saying I am/was wrong but is a defense of previous statements by adding further comments supporting what you said logiclly, reasonable manner, not arguing/having an emotional break down hissy poo ranting and raving, throwing a temper tantrum like a spoiled brat, acting as a 2 or 3 year old. this also includes Martindale as well.
Any candidate for a Masters in Theology should be well aware that Apologetics has nothing to do
with "apologizing", but with forming and stating an "apologia." Rather than making excuses for
the Faith, and saying you're sorry for having it, the apologeticist puts forth that it is
logical and sensible to be of the Faith. vpw was a lousy Theology student. He probably
managed with lots of plagiarism. We do know he picked the "softest" option by studying
HOMILETICS and then pretending he knew about Bible History and Bible Languages and so on.
From time to time, he made up some embarrassing explanations of words. One of the ones that made
me wince was the one for "mortify" in the King James Version. Anyone who knows what a "mortician"
is or who Morticia Addams was in the Addams Family should have looked it up in a dictionary. Anyone
who knows a touch of Latin could probably rattle off that "mortis" means "death".
So, the KJV word "mortify" would obviously mean "kill off." It came from the Greek word
"nekrosate" in the same verse. In the Greek, "necro" means "death." Doctors know that necrotic
tissue is dead, and many people know (most serious Bible students should know) that a "necromancer"
is someone who supposedly deals with the dead using occult methods.
So, what explanation was floated around twi? "Mortify- that means 'blow to smithereens.' "
As if it said to "use a mortar on", which would be peculiar since the mortar cannon was not
in use in 1611 when the KJV was produced. Anyone who sat through the Intermediate heard
Earl B say it there, and it came up here and there other places.
Besides that, the name of the type of artillery piece called a "mortar" doesn't come from the same Latin word we get "mortal" from. It comes from the Latin "mortarium" which was a vessel used, along with a pestle, to grind material. The cannon was called a "mortar" because its barrel was very short and very wide, causing it to resemble a mortarium.
This is another great explanation of the meaning of inerrancy......DA Carson did this for the ehrman project. I think it is appropriate for this topic.
That's a very good exposition of inerrancy, geisha! Unfortunately too many fundamentalists tend to view it much more narrowly. I took a basic Old Testament course last year, and some of the younger students from more conservative backgrounds had trouble reconciling the truth that the book of Job is fiction.
The hypothetical nature of the poetic section of Job allows the author (God) to state the essentials of the situation without being distracted by the accidentals.
I have gained a much deeper appreciation for the Old Testament than I had while in TWI, and I find "The Doomed History of the Deuteronomist" to be as epic and moving as any of the great themes of Mediterranean or Northern literature.
I agree Steve and also think the book of Job is fiction. However, in stating this I also do not think this discredits the book of Job in the least bit. In fact, I believe the book of Job is one of the main teachers of truth in the entire Old Testament. As an example, the book of Job is the only Old Testament book that I know of that states clearly the truth that the devil even exists. Because of this people often mixed up the work of God with the work of Satan. Other than the book of Job, it was only when Jesus Christ, the master teacher came to earth that this knowledge of Satan and his evil, lies, and deception was exposed clearly.
I agree Steve and also think the book of Job is fiction. However, in stating this I also do not think this discredits the book of Job in the least bit. In fact, I believe the book of Job is one of the main teachers of truth in the entire Old Testament. As an example, the book of Job is the only Old Testament book that I know of that states clearly the truth that the devil even exists. Because of this people often mixed up the work of God with the work of Satan. Other than the book of Job, it was only when Jesus Christ, the master teacher came to earth that this knowledge of Satan and his evil, lies, and deception was exposed clearly.
Lately, the idea that God is faithful seems to be showing up all over the place for me. We do this, do that, put up with stuff - all because God is faithful. Job held on to that. I guess it is all over the bible, duh, but it is certainly central to Job.
The underlying question, as I see it, is not whether God speaks truth. He does. But, since God chose to speak through people, in human languages, we must ask ourselves whether those people and those languages filtered the truth God gave them.
Weirwille brought this up then forgot about it, in the second session of PFAL. When he talked about how we got the Bible, he mentioned that the different writers used their vocabularies. You can't use the word "nincompoop" if it's not in your vocabulary. This is why, as I've stated before, TWI style word studies are inherently flawed.
Let's take that concept a step further. If the people to whom God gave revelation had limitations in their vocabularies that limited what God could communicate through them, isn't is possible that they also had limitations in their attitudes and comprehension that limited what they were capable of communicating?
Consider the example of Jonah. God gave him an explicit commandment. Jonah, a prophet of God, deliberately disobeyed and did the opposite. Why? Because his personal prejudices were at odds with God's will. And the fundamentalists will say, "But God eventually got him to where he was supposed to be, even though he had to revive him from death, so God's Word prevailed! True enough. But, according to a careful reading of the Scripture, this was not always the case.
Just before He was taken up into heaven, Jesus told his apostles to bear witness of him in Jerusalem, in Judaea, in Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth. That commandment was given to the Twelve (or Eleven if Judas was already gone). Reading the book of Acts reveals that the Apostles filled Jerusalem and Judea, but were not much interested in Samaria. Stephen is the one who went to Samaria and the Apostles only followed in his footsteps. Years later, Peter had to be hit on the head with triplicate revelation to remind him that He and the rest of The Twelve were not obeying The Great Commission.
Rise Peter Kill and Eat.
What was Peter's reply to divine revelation, given to him in a vision?
NOT SO LORD.
He got a divine directive and immediately, reflexively disobeyed it. He did this because the culture in which he'd been raised so permeated his thinking that it was inconceivable to him that God would have him do such a thing.
NOT SO LORD.
Because, despite the fact that Jesus had specifically told them to do so, they found it inconceivable that he would want them to preach the gospel to Gentiles. Even after Peter went to Cornelius' household, having gotten the triple revelation, after he had realized that what God had cleansed should not be called unclean, after he had breached the enormous wall of separation and set foot in the house of a Gentile, he still didn't understand why he was there.
Acts 10:29. Therefore came I [unto you] without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me?
That is an amazing testimony to how deeply seated his Judean prejudices were. One would think that, by this time, he would have remembered what Jesus had originally commanded them to do. Not yet. We all know that eventually Peter understood what God wanted, preached the gospel and marveled when those filthy dog Gentiles spoke in tongues, demonstrating spiritual equality with him and the other brethren.
But is important to realize that Peter's epiphany did not change the course of the larger Church in Jerusalem. He was challenged when he returned, and, according to later events recorded in Acts, the acceptance of the Gentiles as brethren and equals did not overcome the ages old cultural prejudices in the minds of the first Christians.
As we all know, Jesus recruited Saul of Tarsus and anointed him as an Apostle and sent him to fulfill his will. Paul went to the Gentiles and evangelized effectually. He did not have the full support of the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem because they did not understand God's will in this matter, and continued to reject it. The specific point of their rejection of the gospel is recorded in crystal clarity in the account of Paul's address to the gathered throng in Jerusalem. Paul told them of his previous persuasion, his persecution of the Church, his vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus, his blinding and healing..the entire story of his conversion. The listened attentively until they heard the "G" word.
Acts 22:21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.
22:22 And they gave him audience unto this word, and [then] lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a [fellow] from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live
As soon as Paul said that Jesus had sent him to the Gentiles, they called for his immediate execution. They didn't just say, "Oh, Paul we don't believe that." They wanted to kill him right then and there. This communicates a depth of passion that is hard for us to fathom.
So what does this have to do with the inerrancy of Scripture? Jesus, the incarnate Word of God, spoke a specific truth to his Chosen. He said,
Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
And ye shall be witnesses unto me, in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
That truth, given by the Son of God to the Apostles, was not only disobeyed, it was so completely forgotten that the Church in Jersulaem became actively passionately hostile to the very notion of it.
The basic lesson here is that Truth given by God to people is not always inerrantly delivered to other people.
That bears repeating. Truth, given by God--or Jesus the Word of God--to people--even the very best people-- does not always get inerrantly communicated to other people.
So as we read the Bible, we must be aware of the fact that the truths and principles communicated to us came through the filters buried deeply in the minds and souls of the men to whom God gave it. This may seem trivial, but it is vitally important to understand the history of the First Century Church, and the underlying tensions that run throughout the New Testament.
For example, Paul wrote in Romans and Galatians God's righteousness comes only by faith, not by the works of the Law. James wrote that righteousness comes by works and that faith without works is dead. Paul referred to the Old Testament law as "the ministration of death" and the Ministration of condemnation. James called it "the perfect law of liberty." These two treatises are obviously antithetical and contradictory. People struggle to rationalize away the apparent conflict because of a lack of understanding of how deeply rooted the law and its associated traditions had become, and how deeply hostile those roots became to the outreach of the gospel.
If the Bible were inerrant, as most Fundamentalists believe it to be, God's truth communicated to the Apostles would have been communicated to the Church. The Church in Jerusalem would not then have rejected an essential part of God's will; the evangelizing of the Gentiles. The resulting schism between Paul and James, between Paul and his followers, and James and his followers (Galatians 2:6-13) would never have occurred. If the Bible were inerrant, the contradictory doctrines about the Law and righteousness that grew out of that schism would not have been canonized in our New Testament. And we wouldn't still be arguing about whether salvation is by grace or works.
If the Bible were inerrant, as most Fundamentalists believe it to be, God's truth communicated to the Apostles would have been communicated to the Church. The Church in Jerusalem would not then have rejected an essential part of God's will; the evangelizing of the Gentiles. The resulting schism between Paul and James, between Paul and his followers, and James and his followers (Galatians 2:6-13) would never have occurred. If the Bible were inerrant, the contradictory doctrines about the Law and righteousness that grew out of that schism would not have been canonized in our New Testament. And we wouldn't still be arguing about whether salvation is by grace or works.
Aweful lot of words to add up to this, but it doesn't add up. What people do with a communication has no bearing on whether the communication is...really it just has no bearing on it.
Besides, every language is as able to communicate any thought ever thought as any other language. Some languages just take more words to do it. Pretty much the same with vocabulary. The word nincompoop may not be in someone's vocabulary, but I'll bet with a little work, anyone can get the idea across. Wierwille, faults notwithstanding, didn't forget that part.
Aweful lot of words to add up to this, but it doesn't add up. What people do with a communication has no bearing on whether the communication is...really it just has no bearing on it.
Besides, every language is as able to communicate any thought ever thought as any other language. Some languages just take more words to do it. Pretty much the same with vocabulary. The word nincompoop may not be in someone's vocabulary, but I'll bet with a little work, anyone can get the idea across. Wierwille, faults notwithstanding, didn't forget that part.
It's a matter of perspective Tom. If we get caught up on the details of a particular word in a passage we miss the forest for the proverbial trees.
And it has quite a lot of bearing when you look at the big picture. When we talk about the inerrancy of Scripture, we're talking about how accurately the Apostles and Prophets communicated what God told them via writing. We're talking about the fidelity of the message as it passed from the Author to the recipients through the medium of the human mind.
If we have historical evidence that these same men failed to communicate the truth to their followers by word of mouth in daily fellowship and teaching, why would we refuse to believe that they could fail to communicate it perfectly in writing?
One of the problems with building a theological distinction between Paul and James is that the whole of the early Church, from Gentile backgrounds as well as Jewish, didn't see such a distinction. Paul and James were regarded as equally valid for reading in the churches.
The great antagonism between proponents of grace and proponents of works didn't come into being until Luther published his ideas about Romans, and even then, the issue wasn't about salvation itself, but rather about how much time Christians would have to spend in purgatory before progressing on to heaven.
It seems to me that the real fallings away from the apostles' original teachings involve things that we don't even think of as controversial today, like, when and why did people no longer expect new converts to speak in tongues when they came up out of the baptismal water?
I do think it is imperative to have a very good clear definition and understanding of the words... If you can alter any definition you can scew any verse and derail it....
I find that a common situation. For example the word προς in john 1:1 as vpw defines it is very different from the scholars and teachers I know and read have defined it. You can change the whole dynamics of what is being said... Or my wife and I were visiting a church known for their use of Greek usage in sermons defined a word in the sermon to mean something of repentance and then My wife tells me immediately me that the defined that word in the opposite. I think having the exact definition is very important.
any religions scripture that can not be trusted to be from god can be manipulated in its form.
It's a matter of perspective Tom. If we get caught up on the details of a particular word in a passage we miss the forest for the proverbial trees.
And it has quite a lot of bearing when you look at the big picture. When we talk about the inerrancy of Scripture, we're talking about how accurately the Apostles and Prophets communicated what God told them via writing. We're talking about the fidelity of the message as it passed from the Author to the recipients through the medium of the human mind.
If we have historical evidence that these same men failed to communicate the truth to their followers by word of mouth in daily fellowship and teaching, why would we refuse to believe that they could fail to communicate it perfectly in writing?
It seems to me that the things I would leave out would be the things that paint me in a less than flattering light. Human nature being what it is....people do go to great lengths to hide things which portray them as less than perfect. There is an entire industry devoted to PR and spin. One of the amazing things about scripture is that at times it does include disobedience, confusion, misunderstanding, and a failure on the part of the Apostles. This actually adds to their credibility. If you were Peter wouldn't you want to do some serious editing? Yet, it is all there for us to see.
I see your point Jerry.....and it is a really good question, but you have to wonder why ...if they were going to fail to communicate something correctly......it is not the things that showed them to be inept, less than right and at times disobedient? When we look at the Apostles from a distance, especially Peter, one of the things we can see .....is transformation. It is not always immediate like VP portrayed it on the day of Pentecost, but we see Peter growing in his faith. We see a journey, warts and all. Peter struggled, he wrestled, and he did, at times, have failure in his life. We can see God teaching him, lifting him time and again, and setting him back on the correct course. This makes it all the more trust worthy as we can relate to this faith.....it is a roller coaster ride as any Christian can tell you. There are seasons and we see this communicated in Peter's life.
If they were going to edit.... it seems they would more than red line that Peter actually did tell the Lord of the universe NO......or that Jesus called him Satan(not Peter's best day) or that he denied the Lord or that he was so hot headed he cut off Roman's guards ear. How about going fishing after the resurrection? How about being cornered by Jesus and having Jesus quiz him on the veracity of his love? Not to mention refusing to eat with the gentiles after him being the one who got the shocking revelation that it was okay. But, we know all of this about Peter.
I think you are right, we have to look at the bigger picture and look at it in light of the human condition........if they were going to hold something back.....it seems that it would be the things that raise these questions. Looking at Peter in light of our own faith and journey answers some of these questions....I think so anyway.
If you were going to write a book supposedly containing thee truth, the first thing you would want to do is to establish your credibility as the messenger.......ironically....the warts and all...do help to establish their credibility.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
11
18
8
Popular Days
Feb 10
10
Feb 9
7
Feb 3
7
Mar 11
6
Top Posters In This Topic
Jbarrax 8 posts
Steve Lortz 11 posts
Ham 18 posts
cman 8 posts
Popular Days
Feb 10 2012
10 posts
Feb 9 2012
7 posts
Feb 3 2012
7 posts
Mar 11 2012
6 posts
Popular Posts
Steve Lortz
I'm currently taking a first year Greek class, and we've finally gotten around to studying the use of participles in the Greek. While it can truly be said that Greek uses prepostions with a "mathemat
TrustAndObey
I can't say as far as Walter Cummins or Wayne Clap, since I never knew them, but I can say that the majority (and that even includes Mr. Schoenheit of STFI) have little clue about Koine Greek (Geer an
Rejoice
I tend to agree. After all, it says "We know in part, and we prophesy in part". I don't know if the Bible is intentionally ambiguous, but then again, we got it delivered through imperfect men. I'm
waysider
He got the context stuff from Bullinger. He either didn't understand it or ignored its meaning in favor of his own interpretation. Otherwise, he never would have taught John 10:10 out of context in session one, thus distorting its intended message.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
No argument from me on that, Tom, but some examples would be worth looking at.
BTW, a verse that I found instructive on this topic is "Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." I take it that imperfect words are purified in context in the Word. Rather impressive!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Interesting bit about 'house'.
Since it refers to us, imo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
In this short video Ravi Z explains a Christian perspective to the scriptures.....he juxtaposes this to the Muslim's belief about the Koran. As he points out, a Muslim believes that the Koran is "word for word" perfect and the exact revelation and representation of God himself. It is believed to have been given to Muhammad in dictation form, which he took down and relayed to others. Translation of the Koran is frowned upon because the words are meant to be perfect, exact and precise.
The bible on the other hand.....points us to the perfect person of Jesus Christ. That is not to belittle God's holy word, but as Ravi and many others have pointed out, one word might be just as good as another to convey meaning. There is nothing sacred in the words chosen. Language can be imperfect, but is the truth they convey imperfect because of that? I don't believe it is....
In TWI we practiced a form of bibliolatry, much closer to a Muslim's approach to the Koran rather than a Christian approach to the bible. Couple that with our attitude and certain beliefs about Jesus Christ, legalism, and a stringent adherence to hierarchy and I think in many ways we were closer in practice to fundamentalist Islam. TWI bears little resemblance to Christianity despite the sometimes familiar vernacular.
The video is short and from a series done at Illinois University. Ravi Zacharias is great to listen to when trying to gain some perspective on what is the Christian faith. That is in part, due to his ability to defend and articulate the faith. TWI, PFAL, VP, the attitudes and approaches we had spring from an attack on the Christian faith and Jesus Christ Himself IMO. If our desire is to learn the faith.....I think it is helpful to listen to some good apologists.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pHRP0I2SrVs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Geisha, I appreciate what you said. Wierwille who should have known better, accussed apologists for retracting previous statements and saying that they were wrong and made up excuses. Apology is not saying I am/was wrong but is a defense of previous statements by adding further comments supporting what you said logiclly, reasonable manner, not arguing/having an emotional break down hissy poo ranting and raving, throwing a temper tantrum like a spoiled brat, acting as a 2 or 3 year old. this also includes Martindale as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
Steve...
I applaud your vigilance in your studies... I hope to join you one day. I am looking at a few Universities to get my Masters in Biblical Studies.
I am learning greek on my own and enrolling in a Koine Greek class by a retired professor locally www.NTGreekGODEEP.com to get a head start.. I hope one day not to need a concordance. Not only to read the bible in its original but also apostolic fathers and be able to understand contemporary works of the day. That will happen one day God willing I can join you in further learning.
I have found it extremely valuable to understand not only the definitions but also flow of grammatical structure of the language. It has also helped in my reading of JCNG and other works of VPW when he tries to explain any verse in the greek...
Geisha
Dr. Ravi Z. is one of my favorite apologists and is the start of my inspiration in apologetics years ago... It hurts my heart to see the manipulation that the Way has on their followers... To never read the greats like him or C.S. Lewis and viewing their work as of Satan as I get from the conversation and literature of describing Apologists like them very sorrowful. To never respect someone like Ravi is heart breaking even some of his opponents highly respect him for his intelligence, heart and wisdom... That is one of the key elements of someone thinking for themselves is that they can respect someone else's view and regard them valuable.
I have tried to read all of the posts and try to make it short as I don't read extremely long posts well. In some ways I think it is an issue of literal vs figurative language. For example parables they are figurative but in conversations where propositional statements are used they are literal... I think it is common place to flip the two. Possibly to also ignore the main point of any sentence. In this way you can change the meaning of the text.
Good to see everyone
Nate
Edited by Naten00Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I wonder why.....
What does that have to with anyone at all?
Not saying it doesn't, just proposing the question for thought.
Cause I think it points to places to be discovered.
No matter, christian, muslim, or whatever, or no religion specified.
I also think that everything we see in nature, shouts about what we are.
So, not only do the scriptures declare Christ, but the farthest star smiles back.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I think if we look more to interpretation and not definition, we could see more.
An interpretor does not define words, but uses words you already know to communicate the meaning of what is said.
Interpretation that we can hear, anyone understand what I'm trying to say?
I'm not against defining words, it helps a little, if it's not limited to one.
More after what is meant for me to hear and see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
I hear ya CMAN. :-)
Empirical approaches to truth are inherently flawed because they presuppose that we fully understand the terms of the discussion. That's not so
For now we see through a glass darkly...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Any candidate for a Masters in Theology should be well aware that Apologetics has nothing to do
with "apologizing", but with forming and stating an "apologia." Rather than making excuses for
the Faith, and saying you're sorry for having it, the apologeticist puts forth that it is
logical and sensible to be of the Faith. vpw was a lousy Theology student. He probably
managed with lots of plagiarism. We do know he picked the "softest" option by studying
HOMILETICS and then pretending he knew about Bible History and Bible Languages and so on.
From time to time, he made up some embarrassing explanations of words. One of the ones that made
me wince was the one for "mortify" in the King James Version. Anyone who knows what a "mortician"
is or who Morticia Addams was in the Addams Family should have looked it up in a dictionary. Anyone
who knows a touch of Latin could probably rattle off that "mortis" means "death".
So, the KJV word "mortify" would obviously mean "kill off." It came from the Greek word
"nekrosate" in the same verse. In the Greek, "necro" means "death." Doctors know that necrotic
tissue is dead, and many people know (most serious Bible students should know) that a "necromancer"
is someone who supposedly deals with the dead using occult methods.
So, what explanation was floated around twi? "Mortify- that means 'blow to smithereens.' "
As if it said to "use a mortar on", which would be peculiar since the mortar cannon was not
in use in 1611 when the KJV was produced. Anyone who sat through the Intermediate heard
Earl B say it there, and it came up here and there other places.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Besides that, the name of the type of artillery piece called a "mortar" doesn't come from the same Latin word we get "mortal" from. It comes from the Latin "mortarium" which was a vessel used, along with a pestle, to grind material. The cannon was called a "mortar" because its barrel was very short and very wide, causing it to resemble a mortarium.
TWI = Teaching While Ignorant
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
This is another great explanation of the meaning of inerrancy......DA Carson did this for the ehrman project. I think it is appropriate for this topic.
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/i6zudFtjI4U" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
I am familar with Don Carson from the DVD series Open Home, Open Bible with Richard Bewes and Paul Blackman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
That's a very good exposition of inerrancy, geisha! Unfortunately too many fundamentalists tend to view it much more narrowly. I took a basic Old Testament course last year, and some of the younger students from more conservative backgrounds had trouble reconciling the truth that the book of Job is fiction.
The hypothetical nature of the poetic section of Job allows the author (God) to state the essentials of the situation without being distracted by the accidentals.
I have gained a much deeper appreciation for the Old Testament than I had while in TWI, and I find "The Doomed History of the Deuteronomist" to be as epic and moving as any of the great themes of Mediterranean or Northern literature.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
I agree Steve and also think the book of Job is fiction. However, in stating this I also do not think this discredits the book of Job in the least bit. In fact, I believe the book of Job is one of the main teachers of truth in the entire Old Testament. As an example, the book of Job is the only Old Testament book that I know of that states clearly the truth that the devil even exists. Because of this people often mixed up the work of God with the work of Satan. Other than the book of Job, it was only when Jesus Christ, the master teacher came to earth that this knowledge of Satan and his evil, lies, and deception was exposed clearly.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Lately, the idea that God is faithful seems to be showing up all over the place for me. We do this, do that, put up with stuff - all because God is faithful. Job held on to that. I guess it is all over the bible, duh, but it is certainly central to Job.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
The underlying question, as I see it, is not whether God speaks truth. He does. But, since God chose to speak through people, in human languages, we must ask ourselves whether those people and those languages filtered the truth God gave them.
Weirwille brought this up then forgot about it, in the second session of PFAL. When he talked about how we got the Bible, he mentioned that the different writers used their vocabularies. You can't use the word "nincompoop" if it's not in your vocabulary. This is why, as I've stated before, TWI style word studies are inherently flawed.
Let's take that concept a step further. If the people to whom God gave revelation had limitations in their vocabularies that limited what God could communicate through them, isn't is possible that they also had limitations in their attitudes and comprehension that limited what they were capable of communicating?
Consider the example of Jonah. God gave him an explicit commandment. Jonah, a prophet of God, deliberately disobeyed and did the opposite. Why? Because his personal prejudices were at odds with God's will. And the fundamentalists will say, "But God eventually got him to where he was supposed to be, even though he had to revive him from death, so God's Word prevailed! True enough. But, according to a careful reading of the Scripture, this was not always the case.
Just before He was taken up into heaven, Jesus told his apostles to bear witness of him in Jerusalem, in Judaea, in Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth. That commandment was given to the Twelve (or Eleven if Judas was already gone). Reading the book of Acts reveals that the Apostles filled Jerusalem and Judea, but were not much interested in Samaria. Stephen is the one who went to Samaria and the Apostles only followed in his footsteps. Years later, Peter had to be hit on the head with triplicate revelation to remind him that He and the rest of The Twelve were not obeying The Great Commission.
Rise Peter Kill and Eat.
What was Peter's reply to divine revelation, given to him in a vision?
NOT SO LORD.
He got a divine directive and immediately, reflexively disobeyed it. He did this because the culture in which he'd been raised so permeated his thinking that it was inconceivable to him that God would have him do such a thing.
NOT SO LORD.
Because, despite the fact that Jesus had specifically told them to do so, they found it inconceivable that he would want them to preach the gospel to Gentiles. Even after Peter went to Cornelius' household, having gotten the triple revelation, after he had realized that what God had cleansed should not be called unclean, after he had breached the enormous wall of separation and set foot in the house of a Gentile, he still didn't understand why he was there.
Acts 10:29. Therefore came I [unto you] without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me?
That is an amazing testimony to how deeply seated his Judean prejudices were. One would think that, by this time, he would have remembered what Jesus had originally commanded them to do. Not yet. We all know that eventually Peter understood what God wanted, preached the gospel and marveled when those filthy dog Gentiles spoke in tongues, demonstrating spiritual equality with him and the other brethren.
But is important to realize that Peter's epiphany did not change the course of the larger Church in Jerusalem. He was challenged when he returned, and, according to later events recorded in Acts, the acceptance of the Gentiles as brethren and equals did not overcome the ages old cultural prejudices in the minds of the first Christians.
As we all know, Jesus recruited Saul of Tarsus and anointed him as an Apostle and sent him to fulfill his will. Paul went to the Gentiles and evangelized effectually. He did not have the full support of the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem because they did not understand God's will in this matter, and continued to reject it. The specific point of their rejection of the gospel is recorded in crystal clarity in the account of Paul's address to the gathered throng in Jerusalem. Paul told them of his previous persuasion, his persecution of the Church, his vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus, his blinding and healing..the entire story of his conversion. The listened attentively until they heard the "G" word.
Acts 22:21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.
22:22 And they gave him audience unto this word, and [then] lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a [fellow] from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live
As soon as Paul said that Jesus had sent him to the Gentiles, they called for his immediate execution. They didn't just say, "Oh, Paul we don't believe that." They wanted to kill him right then and there. This communicates a depth of passion that is hard for us to fathom.
So what does this have to do with the inerrancy of Scripture? Jesus, the incarnate Word of God, spoke a specific truth to his Chosen. He said,
Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
And ye shall be witnesses unto me, in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
That truth, given by the Son of God to the Apostles, was not only disobeyed, it was so completely forgotten that the Church in Jersulaem became actively passionately hostile to the very notion of it.
The basic lesson here is that Truth given by God to people is not always inerrantly delivered to other people.
That bears repeating. Truth, given by God--or Jesus the Word of God--to people--even the very best people-- does not always get inerrantly communicated to other people.
So as we read the Bible, we must be aware of the fact that the truths and principles communicated to us came through the filters buried deeply in the minds and souls of the men to whom God gave it. This may seem trivial, but it is vitally important to understand the history of the First Century Church, and the underlying tensions that run throughout the New Testament.
For example, Paul wrote in Romans and Galatians God's righteousness comes only by faith, not by the works of the Law. James wrote that righteousness comes by works and that faith without works is dead. Paul referred to the Old Testament law as "the ministration of death" and the Ministration of condemnation. James called it "the perfect law of liberty." These two treatises are obviously antithetical and contradictory. People struggle to rationalize away the apparent conflict because of a lack of understanding of how deeply rooted the law and its associated traditions had become, and how deeply hostile those roots became to the outreach of the gospel.
If the Bible were inerrant, as most Fundamentalists believe it to be, God's truth communicated to the Apostles would have been communicated to the Church. The Church in Jerusalem would not then have rejected an essential part of God's will; the evangelizing of the Gentiles. The resulting schism between Paul and James, between Paul and his followers, and James and his followers (Galatians 2:6-13) would never have occurred. If the Bible were inerrant, the contradictory doctrines about the Law and righteousness that grew out of that schism would not have been canonized in our New Testament. And we wouldn't still be arguing about whether salvation is by grace or works.
Edited by JbarraxLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Aweful lot of words to add up to this, but it doesn't add up. What people do with a communication has no bearing on whether the communication is...really it just has no bearing on it.
Besides, every language is as able to communicate any thought ever thought as any other language. Some languages just take more words to do it. Pretty much the same with vocabulary. The word nincompoop may not be in someone's vocabulary, but I'll bet with a little work, anyone can get the idea across. Wierwille, faults notwithstanding, didn't forget that part.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
It's a matter of perspective Tom. If we get caught up on the details of a particular word in a passage we miss the forest for the proverbial trees.
And it has quite a lot of bearing when you look at the big picture. When we talk about the inerrancy of Scripture, we're talking about how accurately the Apostles and Prophets communicated what God told them via writing. We're talking about the fidelity of the message as it passed from the Author to the recipients through the medium of the human mind.
If we have historical evidence that these same men failed to communicate the truth to their followers by word of mouth in daily fellowship and teaching, why would we refuse to believe that they could fail to communicate it perfectly in writing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
One of the problems with building a theological distinction between Paul and James is that the whole of the early Church, from Gentile backgrounds as well as Jewish, didn't see such a distinction. Paul and James were regarded as equally valid for reading in the churches.
The great antagonism between proponents of grace and proponents of works didn't come into being until Luther published his ideas about Romans, and even then, the issue wasn't about salvation itself, but rather about how much time Christians would have to spend in purgatory before progressing on to heaven.
It seems to me that the real fallings away from the apostles' original teachings involve things that we don't even think of as controversial today, like, when and why did people no longer expect new converts to speak in tongues when they came up out of the baptismal water?
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
I do think it is imperative to have a very good clear definition and understanding of the words... If you can alter any definition you can scew any verse and derail it....
I find that a common situation. For example the word προς in john 1:1 as vpw defines it is very different from the scholars and teachers I know and read have defined it. You can change the whole dynamics of what is being said... Or my wife and I were visiting a church known for their use of Greek usage in sermons defined a word in the sermon to mean something of repentance and then My wife tells me immediately me that the defined that word in the opposite. I think having the exact definition is very important.
any religions scripture that can not be trusted to be from god can be manipulated in its form.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
It seems to me that the things I would leave out would be the things that paint me in a less than flattering light. Human nature being what it is....people do go to great lengths to hide things which portray them as less than perfect. There is an entire industry devoted to PR and spin. One of the amazing things about scripture is that at times it does include disobedience, confusion, misunderstanding, and a failure on the part of the Apostles. This actually adds to their credibility. If you were Peter wouldn't you want to do some serious editing? Yet, it is all there for us to see.
I see your point Jerry.....and it is a really good question, but you have to wonder why ...if they were going to fail to communicate something correctly......it is not the things that showed them to be inept, less than right and at times disobedient? When we look at the Apostles from a distance, especially Peter, one of the things we can see .....is transformation. It is not always immediate like VP portrayed it on the day of Pentecost, but we see Peter growing in his faith. We see a journey, warts and all. Peter struggled, he wrestled, and he did, at times, have failure in his life. We can see God teaching him, lifting him time and again, and setting him back on the correct course. This makes it all the more trust worthy as we can relate to this faith.....it is a roller coaster ride as any Christian can tell you. There are seasons and we see this communicated in Peter's life.
If they were going to edit.... it seems they would more than red line that Peter actually did tell the Lord of the universe NO......or that Jesus called him Satan(not Peter's best day) or that he denied the Lord or that he was so hot headed he cut off Roman's guards ear. How about going fishing after the resurrection? How about being cornered by Jesus and having Jesus quiz him on the veracity of his love? Not to mention refusing to eat with the gentiles after him being the one who got the shocking revelation that it was okay. But, we know all of this about Peter.
I think you are right, we have to look at the bigger picture and look at it in light of the human condition........if they were going to hold something back.....it seems that it would be the things that raise these questions. Looking at Peter in light of our own faith and journey answers some of these questions....I think so anyway.
If you were going to write a book supposedly containing thee truth, the first thing you would want to do is to establish your credibility as the messenger.......ironically....the warts and all...do help to establish their credibility.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I agree with geisha. And the same thing goes for David in the OT. We don't have such an unflattering portrait of any other ancient ruler!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
In real life, math isn't truly exact and science isn't unfailingly precise.
There...... I said it.
Heh!
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.