Can the Bible still be God-breathed even if it "contradicts" itself?

[T-Bone]

On 2/5/2016 at 7:46 PM, Steve Lortz said:

A couple of things have been influencing my recent thinking: first, a semester's worth of Hebrew, and second, contemplation of what words actually ARE, based on the hermeneutics class I took January 11-15, 2016.

Here are the two simple conclusions I am considering:

1. The Bible is not God's primary way of communicating with us. The primary way God communicates with us is through Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit.

2. Words, at least "words" the way WE think about them, are not the primary way that the Holy Spirit communicates with us. The primary way the Holy Spirit communicates with us is by means of "feelings" in our hearts. We articulate those feelings when we put them into words.

 

Great post, Steve ! 

I was looking through some old threads recently and came upon this one…your post touched on something I’ve wondered about for a long time…getting down to the nuts and bolts of HOW the Bible was ACTUALLY WRITTEN…I don’t mean history of the development of language or writing, or even oral history…ASSUMING God really did have a message to convey to human beings…I’ve never given it much thought as to HOW God did that...anyway...not sure if this relates to what you said - but I think it might...

In PFAL wierwille went into that a little bit. He referred to  II Timothy 3:16      “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” .  However, wierwille did not go into great detail on EXACTLY HOW God inspired the writers…I picked up a pretty nifty book at Half Price Books awhile back – thought I’d share some stuff from it…here it goes:

What role did the human authors play in the writing of The Bible? To what degree were they allowed to express the God-given message in a manner consistent with their own personalities? According to Bill Arnold & Bryan Beyer in their survey “Encountering the Old Testament”, scholars who have wrestled with these questions have proposed many theories. Four of the most common are:

1.    Neo-orthodoxy theory: conceived in the early 20th century, partly as a reaction to liberalism’s disregard for divine authority. Karl Barth and Emil Brunner are two of its leading proponents. Neo-orthodoxy holds that God is utterly transcendent – meaning God is absolutely different from us and far beyond our comprehension. Neo-orthodoxy differs from evangelicalism in that neo-orthodoxy asserts the Bible is a WITNESS to the Word of God or CONTAINS the Word of God – whereas evangelicalism holds that the Bible IS the Word of God. According to neo-orthodoxy the writers recorded their experiences with God the best they could – but being human, their writings sometimes contained paradoxes or errors.

2.    Dictation theory: suggests God simply dictated the Bible to human scribes – giving them the EXACT words God WANTED – writing ONLY what God dictated to them. This view generally doesn’t appear in print but has sometimes been suggested by some segments of Christianity – some conservative and fundamentalist groups.

3.    Limited inspiration theory: holds that God inspired the thoughts of the biblical writers, but not necessarily the words they chose. God guided the thoughts of the writers, but he gave them freedom to express those thoughts in their own style. Having that freedom, some historical errors as well as ancient and often erroneous concepts of physical sciences, life sciences, and Earth sciences may be found.

4.    Plenary verbal inspiration theory: like the other views plenary verbal inspiration asserts the Holy Spirit interacted with the writers to produce the Bible. “Plenary” means “full” or “complete”. “Plenary” inspiration asserts that God’s inspiration extends to ALL of Scripture – WHICH INCLUDES when the writers recorded any historical, physical science and life science details. “Verbal” refers to the WORDS of Scripture. “Verbal inspiration” means God’s inspiration extends to THE VERY WORDS the writers chose – but it is not the same as # 2 the dictation theory. The writers could have chosen other words, and God often allowed them the freedom to express their own personalities as they wrote – but the Holy Spirit still guided the process so that the finished product faithfully conveyed God’s message.

Notes are Encountering the Old Testament: A Christian Survey by Bill Arnold & Bryan Beyer, pages 24 to 26 

I’m of the opinion that the way one thinks the Bible was written will influence the way one interprets and applies the Bible.

There ARE a FEW accounts in Scripture that indicate God communicated a word-for-word message – but assuming God is also the creator of the cosmos – with superlative attributes like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.  - and the fact that we find historical errors as well as ancient and often erroneous concepts of physical sciences, life sciences, and Earth sciences rules out the dictation theory for me. Of course, that’s just my opinion. 

I find myself leaning toward a mix of # 1 neo-orthodoxy and # 3 limited inspiration theory. Again - that’s just my opinion…Though these theories of how the Bible was written seem simple enough to describe – the impact of which one or more of these we choose may be profound to our understanding.

I think a student of the Bible should be AWARE of the ASSUMPTIONS they hold and WHY, when reading, interpreting, and applying Scripture.

In an attempt to address this thread’s topic “Can the Bible still be God-breathed even if it "contradicts" itself?”, I wonder if “contradicts” is really the best word to describe the issue. “Contradict” means to assert the opposite, be in conflict with, oppose…perhaps contradictions are more a matter for a theological-philosophical debate…But if we ask, “Can the Bible still be God-breathed even if it contains historical and scientific errors?” – then we get into the extent or limitations of God’s inspiration - and that gets into THEORY - a supposition or system of IDEAS intended to EXPLAIN something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

Edited January 22, 2022 by T-Bone
typos and "oh no's"

[modcat5]

Hi T-Bone.

Steve passed away in 2017.

https://www.loosefuneralhomes.com/obituaries/Stephen-Lortz/

 

[T-Bone]

Oh, so sorry – thanks for letting me know - I must have missed that info or forgot about it…I certainly meant no disrespect.

My belated condolences to family and friends
 

[modcat5]

Of course. 

[Twinky]

I miss Steve's thoughtful posts, but as is common here, we can still debate the issue even though the original poster is long gone.

And what you say, T-Bone, is worthwhile and very interesting.  Just don't expect Steve to respond!

[Mark Sanguinetti]

I provide information on this topic or issue in the first chapter of my book titled: How the Bible Can Be Studied with Sources of Reference. This is the beginning of this chapter.

Quote

I appreciate all versions of the bible and can learn from them, but with the required translations from historical languages with many books, scriptures and words in the bible, 100% perfection is very challenging. The three languages of the original text used for bible versions are Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. None of the original manuscripts written by the original authors exist today. However useful copies have been made and passed down through the centuries and often the text of different copies agree with each other or are the same. Koine Greek biblical text for the New Testament was passed down to Greek understanding bible scholars from the first, second, third or later centuries for today’s English bible translations.

Translating the original biblical text languages to English has differences for biblical versions. For example, the work involved in the King James Version started in the year 1603 or thereafter and was finally completed for publishing in the year 1611. This was written by an estimate of 47 translators. In contrast, the individual writings of what were seen in the first century, for example the Apostle Paul's church epistles were likely originally written by the authors in Koine Greek. This was a common language that could be understood by the majority of people, in the years written, 50 to 100 AD.

For the translations from this original language to English this involves editing to be factual and accurate or in the case of bible versions to match the original writings. Accuracy of translations is important because the apostle Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16, "All Scriptures is given by inspiration of God..." (KJV). I appreciate all versions of the bible, but in English today all are not the original wording of the authors primarily because of different languages and editing for original truth and clarity should continue. For example, every time I write a biblical article or teaching after writing the original draft, I see improvement with additional editing. Some of the biblical versions quoted from in the chapters of this book, for example the King James Version, are not worded with 20th century English, but instead are worded with the English of the century that they were translated in. To help these versions increase in present day English clarity, I could add present day English words inside quoted scriptures in parenthesis after the older English words.

For example, from Galatians 5:22-23 22      But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering (or patience), gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance (or voluntary self-restraint): against such there is no law. (KJV)

This book can be purchased at a discount price from my Christian web site for only $20.14 and this includes the cost of shipping to your address. 

https://christianreconciliation.net/book-oursaviorjesuschrist.html

Edited January 29, 2022 by Mark Sanguinetti