So he provides a link to a conservative Christian site.
Unbelievable.
Aesops Fables are god-beathed by the standard you're proposing here. Not literally true, but useful and meaningful, even if the authorship is in question.
So he provides a link to a conservative Christian site.
Unbelievable.
Aesops Fables are god-beathed by the standard you're proposing here. Not literally true, but useful and meaningful, even if the authorship is in question.
If they mix religion with politics then they are today's equivalent of the first century Scribes, Pharisees and Sanhedrin. And we know who opposed Jesus in the first century and who had him murdered. Yes, it was the Scribes, Pharisee and Sanhedrin and today's political equivalents are today tied in with the bankers. In the first century they were much less fiscal than they are today and were then called the money changers. Here is information that I have written on the money changers.
Jesus Christ was a very productive person before he started his ministry and was a carpenter as this was his natural family's business with his adopted father being a carpenter. He appreciated the productive capacity of individual people. In contrast, people making money using the equivalent of currency manipulation or using deceptive religion to increase their wealth, Jesus opposed strongly.
Matthew 21:12 states, "Jesus entered the Temple and began to drive out all the people buying and selling animals for sacrifice. He knocked over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves." New Living Translation
Who were the money changers during Jesus' natural life? They were bankers who exchanged one nation's currency, or one size of coin, for another. And with this charged a fee, which was often exorbitant. And what were the doves used for? As a family’s or person’s pet? To actually eat and for nourishment? No, for religious sacrifice with the sellers making a profit on religion
Regarding the actual biblical study that I attached a link to. I merely read it last night. It seemed OK or at least to be considered.
Intentional contradiction does not equate with something being God-Breathed. We find this technique being used frequently in modern writing, as well. We call it irony.
There is a LOT or irony in the Old Testament! The entire book of Jonah is ironic!
And why shouldn't God be able to breath out irony as well any modern writer breaths it out!?!
Could you expand upon that statement? Are you suggesting that the contradictions were a design feature of the Bible? I know one way we dealt with Biblical contradictions in TWI was to call them apparent contradictions and contort ourselves to harmonize the conflicting sections or verses. This does not seem like waht you are saying. (Other groups do the contorting as well, it wasn't unique to TWI)
Yes, there are lots of examples of contradictions being deliberately written into the Bible! One of the clearest to see and understand is the contradiction between 1 Samuel 16:14-23 and 1 Samuel 17:1-58, regarding how David originally came to Saul's attention. In chapter 16, Saul's servants sent for David to do music therapy on Saul when Saul was in a depressive mood swing. Chapter 17 is the famous story of David and Goliath, when David comes to Saul's attention for an entirely different reason. David begins as a complete stranger to Saul in both of these stories. They can't both be "true". Why would the writers of 1 Samuel put them both in their book, side by side?
There were probably occasional odd writers in Israel prior to the reign of Solomon, but it was only during his reign that the government became wealthy enough to establish an "industrial strength" scriptorium, where a full time staff was fed in order to crank out all sorts of material. It's almost certain that one of their first projects would be to produce a narrative confirming Solomon's legitimacy to the throne, hence 1 and 2 Samuel. The story of David and Goliath would be one of the cornerstones of that narrative, but there was only one problem. The time when David came to power was only a little over 40 years before the time Solomon's scriptorium began operating. The events of David's rise to power were still part of living memory, and Solomon's writers couldn't just throw all of that away. There were still plenty of people who could say "That just ain't the way it was!" So to compromise, the writers included the popular, glorious story of puny David's victory over the hulking Goliath... but they introduced it with the truth, about David coming to Saul to minister through music. And if that wasn't enough, the writers of the narrative revealed in 2 Samuel 21:19 that it wasn't David, but rather Elhanan who killed Goliath. Notice that the words the brother of in that verse are in italics. They aren't there in the Hebrew.
And if it isn't enough to look at just a few contradictions in Samuel, there also seems to be an irreconcilable error. 1 Samuel 13:1 (KJV) reads "Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel..." The verse literally reads "A son of one year was Saul when he became king, and two years he reigned over Israel" in the Hebrew. What does that mean? It makes for some interesting thinking!
The earliest characters in the Tanakh are counter-mythological, to attack the myths of the sixth-century BCE Babylonians, among whom the descendants of Solomon's scribes had been exiled. The poetic truths these characters reveal are truths about who the LORD God is, and how he works. Beginning with Abraham, I think, and proceeding through characters like Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Joshua, we have legendary characters. I think there were real people at the heart of these stories, but the characters took on exaggerated characteristics as the stories were told through generation after generation. It is very hard to read them as if they were the kind of people we know and are. But when we come to David, the writers can't get away with just foisting off the legends. They have to include the truth, too. From there, things become more and more concrete.
The theology of the Deuteronomist was that curses surely follow disobedience and blessings surely follow obedience. And that's not just in the book called Deuteronomy. The Deuteronomist's hand can be seen from Genesis to Second Kings, as well as in other places. And yet the Wisdom literature, particularly Ecclesiastes, contradicts the Deuteronomist. The book of Job contradicts EVERY SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY!
Why!?!
So that Wierwille could not turn God into a vending machine without doing obvious violence to the integrity of the Word of God.
Systematic theologies are those in which a system for interpreting the text takes precedence over the text itself. Systematic theologies say "The few difficult verses must be understood in light of the many clear verses." But a genuine constructive theology says, "The few difficult verses are a sign to you that the many clear verses are not really as clear as your system would make them out to be. Constructive theology does not try to harmonize the difficult verses, the contradictions and the errors. Nor does constructive theology hide from them. Constructive theology asks "What can this teach us? What can we learn from this?"
There is a LOT or irony in the Old Testament! The entire book of Jonah is ironic!
And why shouldn't God be able to breath out irony as well any modern writer breaths it out!?!
Love,
Steve
I didn't say God shouldn't be able to use irony. What I did say is that there are plenty of examples of irony in secular writing. That means the Bible doesn't hold exclusive rights to irony or any other figure of speech.
"There were probably occasional odd writers in Israel prior to the reign of Solomon, but it was only during his reign that the government became wealthy enough to establish an "industrial strength" scriptorium, where a full time staff was fed in order to crank out all sorts of material. It's almost certain that one of their first projects would be to produce a narrative confirming Solomon's legitimacy to the throne, hence 1 and 2 Samuel. The story of David and Goliath would be one of the cornerstones of that narrative, but there was only one problem. The time when David came to power was only a little over 40 years before the time Solomon's scriptorium began operating. The events of David's rise to power were still part of living memory, and Solomon's writers couldn't just throw all of that away. There were still plenty of people who could say "That just ain't the way it was!" So to compromise, the writers included the popular, glorious story of puny David's victory over the hulking Goliath... but they introduced it with the truth, about David coming to Saul to minister through music. And if that wasn't enough, the writers of the narrative revealed in 2 Samuel 21:19 that it wasn't David, but rather Elhanan who killed Goliath. Notice that the words the brother of in that verse are in italics. They aren't there in the Hebrew.
And if it isn't enough to look at just a few contradictions in Samuel, there also seems to be an irreconcilable error. 1 Samuel 13:1 (KJV) reads "Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel..." The verse literally reads "A son of one year was Saul when he became king, and two years he reigned over Israel" in the Hebrew. What does that mean? It makes for some interesting thinking!
The earliest characters in the Tanakh are counter-mythological, to attack the myths of the sixth-century BCE Babylonians, among whom the descendants of Solomon's scribes had been exiled. The poetic truths these characters reveal are truths about who the LORD God is, and how he works. Beginning with Abraham, I think, and proceeding through characters like Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Joshua, we have legendary characters. I think there were real people at the heart of these stories, but the characters took on exaggerated characteristics as the stories were told through generation after generation. It is very hard to read them as if they were the kind of people we know and are. But when we come to David, the writers can't get away with just foisting off the legends. They have to include the truth, too. From there, things become more and more concrete."
Pardon me for saying so but you're not exactly strengthening your case for the pneuma hagion concept.
That all depends on what you mean by "the pneuma hagion concept", Earnest!
Love,
Steve
The pneuma hagion concept presented in PLAF (The Wonder Class) is that God had a purpose for everything He said, where He said it, to whom He said it, yada, yada, ad infinitum. This makes it look more like it was hammered out by a bunch of ad hoc committee members or reddit regular posters, one upping each other with comments about OP's mom.
.....................................
Edited because words are supposed to have spaces between them and stuff.
The pneuma hagion concept presented in PLAF (The Wonder Class) is that God had a purpose for everything He said, where He said it, to whom He said it, yada, yada, ad infinitum. This makes it look more like it was hammered out by a bunch of ad hoc committee members or reddit regular posters, one upping each other with comments about OP's mom.
.....................................
Edited because words are supposed to have spaces between them and stuff.
The "pneuma hagion concept" presented in PLAF (The Wonder Class) it technically known as plenary verbal inspiration. I don't think Wierwille plagiarized it because he didn't realize he needed to plagiarize it. It was what he learned in the church he grew up in. Like fish being unaware of water, etc. etc. etc.
Plenary verbal inspiration has only been around for about 150 years, and it is peculiar to fundamentalist/evangelical protestants.
Most Christians have never considered that the scriptures being God-breathed required plenary verbal inspiration.To reject the Bible and God and Jesus because the Bible doesn't live up to a recent cognitive distortion (that there are no contradictions or errors in the Bible) is to fall prey to the same cognitive distortion (that the whole Bible falls apart if there is even one single contradiction or error in it).
It also indicates a severe deficiency in understanding how to hear the Holy Spirit. That was something Wierwille seriously promoted, listening to him and ignoring the Spirit of God.
Clearly anyone who believes in plenary verbal inspiration is biased. You can tell because the evidence is to the contrary and the people arguing in favor of that position have a vested interest in it.
I had never heard the terminology "plenary verbal inspiration" so I took a quick peek online. To my layman's mind it pretty much conveys the same thing as "God had a purpose for everything He said, where, how, why and so on." Maybe I'm missing something.... It wouldn't be the first (or last) time.
From what you have posted, I deduce you:
1.) Accept the obvious reality that contradictions exist.
2.) Are of the opinion the contradictions don't negate the possibility of the scriptures being divinely inspired
Please correct me if I've misunderstood your position.
As to the matter of our current and most recent generation hearing/ignoring the Holy Spirit/Spirit of God: Though that is an interesting topic in an of itself, unless it relates to the broader topic at hand, I don't see the relevance. We're not talking about a divine connection in the present, we're talking about a divine connection from times that are long gone by.
edit: darn fingers don't want to cooperate tonight.
My interest in this thread is obviously academic, since I reject the concept of anything being God-breathed. I am able to participate because (a) the rules allow it and (b) I'm concerned with the statements of fact implied by the thread title. That is, there ARE errors and contradictions in the Bible.
Does that mean it's not God-breathed? My position is pointless.
However, IF the Bible is God-breathed, then God-breathed has to mean something.
And it has to mean something consistent with the facts.
That's where "plenary verbal inspiration" falls short. As I said earlier, I give fundamentalists credit for attaching a testable definition to "God-breathed," but the problem is that the Bible fails that test. It is not without error (Luke and the census provide us with as documentable an error as you're ever going to encounter). It is not without contradiction (again, the Nativity stories in Luke and Matthew cannot both be true; Acts and Galatians cannot both be correct about where Paul went after his conversion, etc). So whatever "God-breathed" means, it does not mean "verbal plenary inspiration."
Fine. So what DOES it mean?
I have no answer, but whatever answer YOU come up with must fit the facts.
I would offer another qualification. The answer you come up with must not only fit the facts, but should probably do so in a way that would be unique to the scriptures.
In other words, to say that "God-breathed" means "useful for teaching, reproving, rebuking and instructing in righteousness" would be insufficient UNLESS you are prepared to argue that a written work cannot be useful for those purposes without being God-breathed.
I can think of a lot of written works that are useful for teaching, reproving, rebuking and instructing in righteousness, yet are not God-breathed.
My suspicion is that you're not going to come up with a useful meaning of "God-breathed" if that's the criteria for a useful meaning.
My suspicion is that you're not going to come up with a useful meaning of "God-breathed" if that's the criteria for a useful meaning.
I could be wrong.
I've been giving this a lot of thought lately, even before I started this thread. And not just because of being involved with the Way decades ago, but from seeing how many young peoples' understandings of the Bible are screwed up today by the fundamentalist/evangelical protestant notions of plenary verbal inspiration, and that the whole Bible falls apart, becomes nothing more than a tissue of lies, if even one single contradiction or error is found in it. Because... as is obvious to even the most casual of observers... the Bible is FULL of contradictions and errors.
But it has been equally as obvious to me from the first time I ever went to Twig, that something about the Bible is "God-breathed." And that was even before I had heard the phrase "God-breathed,"
A lot of things started coming together for me on October 30th, the date of the first entry on this thread. Since then, I've been struggling how to articulate this sunesis. One of the things I've been doing from time to time is stopping in at a particular prof's office and chatting with him, because he's usually the only prof in his office before 8:00 am (when my Hebrew class starts). Our conversations are brief, but I recap my thinking to him, and he comments on it. I've never had him for a class, so it's like getting feedback from a fresh perspective. This morning I went to his office, primarily to bum a cup of coffee out of the pot he keeps there, but in the process, I was able to articulate some of the things I'm going to write below...
What does it mean for ANYTHING to be God-breathed? What does it mean for SCRIPTURE to be God-breathed? How does God breathe words?
Luke 6:45 says "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good: and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh."
Did Luke write those words? It doesn't really matter whether he or someone else did. Did Jesus say those words? NO!!! He couldn't have! He DIDN'T SPEAK ENGLISH! But he may well have expressed a sentiment similar to the one implied by those English words.
Are the words of Luke 6:45 literally "true"? No. What kind of "treasure" can there be in a literal heart? How could such a treasure be distinguished as "good" or "bad"? Doesn't the "abundance" or "overflow" of the heart literally consist of blood? Does blood usually spurt out of peoples' mouths?
The words of Luke 6:45 are metaphoric. They express poetic knowledge. Is the poetic knowledge expressed in the verse true? Yes it is. In modern language, Jesus is describing what we would call "Freudian slips" or in the realm of political speech, "gaffs".
Were those words God-breathed?
The mouth is like a sentinel valve for the heart. "Sentinel valves are simply small relief valves installed in some systems to warn of impending over pressurization." I have just re-stated the same poetic truth of Luke 6:45 in a simile, a different form of poetic expression conveying the same poetic truth.
Were the words I typed God-breathed? I cannot confirm as much, but neither can I deny it.
The last part of Romans 5:5 says "...the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us."
Our "hearts" are full of words. If we have conditioned our hearts with the proper words, by habitually thinking the things God would have us think, then the love of God can flow into our hearts, interact with the words with which we've filled our hearts, and flow out of our mouths to where other people can hear them. Other people can hear God talk to them through us, and KNOW that it's God talking to them. That's what it means in I Corinthians 14:24&25 where it says "25But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: 25And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth."
That's what it means for God to breath words. More about the implications this evening after I come back from mood management group.
Our "hearts" are full of words. If we have conditioned our hearts with the proper words, by habitually thinking the things God would have us think, then the love of God can flow into our hearts, interact with the words with which we've filled our hearts, and flow out of our mouths to where other people can hear them. Other people can hear God talk to them through us, and KNOW that it's God talking to them. That's what it means in I Corinthians 14:24&25 where it says "25But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: 25And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth."
That's what it means for God to breath words. More about the implications this evening after I come back from mood management group.
Love,
Steve
There is a fundamental problem with the logic of this. It first assumes that those "proper" words have been authored by God to begin with. That takes us back to square one.
I will no longer make an issue of the authorship of Luke ON THIS THREAD unless conclusions are drawn from it that are relevant to the thread topic. I'm not conceding the point. But I'm not going to post a qualifier every time you or I say "Luke wrote such and such." To do so would be tedious. For purposes of proceeding with the discussion, I will refer to the author of Luke as "Luke," with no quotation marks or qualifiers.
As to "God-breathed," I share Ehrman's doubt that Paul wrote the pastoral epistles, which leads to the inevitable question of whether we even NEED to explore the issue of whether the scripture is "God-breathed" by ANY definition.
I have paused in this discussion because of the place I am at in the hermeneutical cycle regarding John 6:36...
"It is the spirit that quickeneth [makes alive]; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."
I've been thinking about the questions "what are words?" and "how can they be considered to be breathed?" When I woke up this morning, the words of John 6:36 were on my mind. I couldn't remember if they were real, or just my imagining, so I looked the verse up in the Blue Letter Bible, and behold! they WERE real! Now all I have to do is figure out what they mean(t).
If I were practicing systematic theology the way Wierwille did, I would find a way to make John 6:36 mean what my system says it SHOULD mean, to support my system. The single difficult verse would have to be interpreted in light of the many clear verses. But I am not practicing systematic theology, I'm practicing constructive theology, so I resort to the hermeneutical cycle. The fact that I don't clearly understand John 6:36 means also that my understanding of the whole is not yet adequate.
Unfortunately, my morning meds are kicking in, and I'm too drowsy to continue right now. More later!
I just woke up from my nap, and I find my thought has progressed again. Before I went to sleep, my intent was to describe the hermeneutical cycle the way I learned it, which I still intend to do, but upon waking up, I realize I can also describe the hermeneutical cycle as a regulated purposeful flow. The significance of that will become plain as we go.
The hermeneutical cycle begins with analytic consideration of a part, in this case, John 6:36. The analytic questions are these; what is actually written? what did that mean to the person who originally wrote it? and what did it mean to the people who originally read it? The cycle then moves to integrative consideration; how does the new understanding of the part contribute to a new understanding of the whole? After that, then the cycle continues on to the next difficult verse.
What I realized when I just woke up is that the hermeneutical cycle itself can be described as a flow of thought purposefully oscillating between the modes of analytic and integrative. Since breath can be seen as a purposefully regulated flow, and life itself can be seen as purposefully regulated flow, the hermeneutical cycle can be seen as living thought, purposefully breathed.
I think that is a very concentrated dose, of what I've been trying to think through. What do you guys think? Is this screwed up in some way I haven't yet noticed?
Steve you are quoting from John 6:63. Below is a commentary from Barnes Notes, that seems fine. This is a quote from Jesus. Stated simply people can follow true thoughts or they can follow false thoughts. Jesus says following his words will give life, for example the nine fruits of the spirit one of which is love. And yes, Jesus did promote love. He said love God and love your neighbor as yourself.
John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
[it is the Spirit that quickeneth] These words have been understood in different ways. The word "Spirit," here, evidently does not refer to the Holy Spirit, for he adds, "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit." He refers here, probably, to the doctrine which he had been teaching in opposition to their notions and desires. "My doctrine is spiritual; it is fitted to quicken and nourish the soul. It is from heaven. Your doctrine or your views are earthly, and may be called flesh, or fleshly, as pertaining only to the support of the body. You place a great value on the doctrine that Moses fed the body; yet that did not permanently profit, for your fathers are dead. You seek also food from me, but your views and desires are gross and earthly."
[Quickeneth] Gives life. See the notes at John 5:21.
[The flesh] Your carnal views and desires, and the literal understanding of my doctrine. By this Jesus shows them that he did not intend that his words should be taken literally.
[Profiteth nothing] Would not avail to the real needs of man. The bread that Moses gave, the food which you seek, would not be of real value to man's highest wants.
[They are spirit] They are spiritual. They are not to be understood literally, as if you were really to eat my flesh, but they are to be understood as denoting the need of that provision for the soul which God has made by my coming into the world.
[Are life] Are fitted to produce or give life to the soul dead in sins.
And below is the context of the above quoted verse. The context is many disciples turning away. And yes sometimes we see this today and this includes this web site.
John 6:60-69 From the Living Standard Bible.
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
The first step in the hermeneutical cycle is to find out exactly what is written. I will probably translate the verse sometime before tomorrow afternoon.
The next step will be to examine what the verse meant to the person who originally wrote it. That's where questions about the authorship will arise, waysider. This step will also include looking at the verse in it's immediate context, which Mark has already started to do.
The third step is closely aligned with the second step, what might the passage have meant to the people who originally heard it? Many scholars think the Johannine community was in Asia minor, centered on Ephesus. That could get VERY interesting!
Pursuing both the second and the third steps of the hermeneutical cycle will require me to go to the library and consult the commentaries, which I will do tomorrow afternoon and evening.
By Monday, I should be prepared to begin some preliminary integration!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
76
60
27
35
Popular Days
Nov 25
19
Jan 31
16
Jan 25
14
Jan 26
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 76 posts
Steve Lortz 60 posts
waysider 27 posts
TLC 35 posts
Popular Days
Nov 25 2015
19 posts
Jan 31 2016
16 posts
Jan 25 2016
14 posts
Jan 26 2016
14 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
I buried Paul. Sincerely, The Walrus
Steve Lortz
There is a thing we've been taught to do at Anderson University (all the way from freshman introductory Bible courses to grad school exegetical papers) called the hermeneutic or the exegetical circle.
Steve Lortz
I don't understand why you have a hang-up about the authorship of Luke-Acts. There are parts of the NT whose authorship is very much open to question, especially Paul's pastoral epistles, and serious
Raf
So he provides a link to a conservative Christian site.
Unbelievable.
Aesops Fables are god-beathed by the standard you're proposing here. Not literally true, but useful and meaningful, even if the authorship is in question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
If they mix religion with politics then they are today's equivalent of the first century Scribes, Pharisees and Sanhedrin. And we know who opposed Jesus in the first century and who had him murdered. Yes, it was the Scribes, Pharisee and Sanhedrin and today's political equivalents are today tied in with the bankers. In the first century they were much less fiscal than they are today and were then called the money changers. Here is information that I have written on the money changers.
Jesus Christ was a very productive person before he started his ministry and was a carpenter as this was his natural family's business with his adopted father being a carpenter. He appreciated the productive capacity of individual people. In contrast, people making money using the equivalent of currency manipulation or using deceptive religion to increase their wealth, Jesus opposed strongly.
Matthew 21:12 states, "Jesus entered the Temple and began to drive out all the people buying and selling animals for sacrifice. He knocked over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves." New Living Translation
Who were the money changers during Jesus' natural life? They were bankers who exchanged one nation's currency, or one size of coin, for another. And with this charged a fee, which was often exorbitant. And what were the doves used for? As a family’s or person’s pet? To actually eat and for nourishment? No, for religious sacrifice with the sellers making a profit on religion
Regarding the actual biblical study that I attached a link to. I merely read it last night. It seemed OK or at least to be considered.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
There is a LOT or irony in the Old Testament! The entire book of Jonah is ironic!
And why shouldn't God be able to breath out irony as well any modern writer breaths it out!?!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Yes, there are lots of examples of contradictions being deliberately written into the Bible! One of the clearest to see and understand is the contradiction between 1 Samuel 16:14-23 and 1 Samuel 17:1-58, regarding how David originally came to Saul's attention. In chapter 16, Saul's servants sent for David to do music therapy on Saul when Saul was in a depressive mood swing. Chapter 17 is the famous story of David and Goliath, when David comes to Saul's attention for an entirely different reason. David begins as a complete stranger to Saul in both of these stories. They can't both be "true". Why would the writers of 1 Samuel put them both in their book, side by side?
There were probably occasional odd writers in Israel prior to the reign of Solomon, but it was only during his reign that the government became wealthy enough to establish an "industrial strength" scriptorium, where a full time staff was fed in order to crank out all sorts of material. It's almost certain that one of their first projects would be to produce a narrative confirming Solomon's legitimacy to the throne, hence 1 and 2 Samuel. The story of David and Goliath would be one of the cornerstones of that narrative, but there was only one problem. The time when David came to power was only a little over 40 years before the time Solomon's scriptorium began operating. The events of David's rise to power were still part of living memory, and Solomon's writers couldn't just throw all of that away. There were still plenty of people who could say "That just ain't the way it was!" So to compromise, the writers included the popular, glorious story of puny David's victory over the hulking Goliath... but they introduced it with the truth, about David coming to Saul to minister through music. And if that wasn't enough, the writers of the narrative revealed in 2 Samuel 21:19 that it wasn't David, but rather Elhanan who killed Goliath. Notice that the words the brother of in that verse are in italics. They aren't there in the Hebrew.
And if it isn't enough to look at just a few contradictions in Samuel, there also seems to be an irreconcilable error. 1 Samuel 13:1 (KJV) reads "Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel..." The verse literally reads "A son of one year was Saul when he became king, and two years he reigned over Israel" in the Hebrew. What does that mean? It makes for some interesting thinking!
The earliest characters in the Tanakh are counter-mythological, to attack the myths of the sixth-century BCE Babylonians, among whom the descendants of Solomon's scribes had been exiled. The poetic truths these characters reveal are truths about who the LORD God is, and how he works. Beginning with Abraham, I think, and proceeding through characters like Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Joshua, we have legendary characters. I think there were real people at the heart of these stories, but the characters took on exaggerated characteristics as the stories were told through generation after generation. It is very hard to read them as if they were the kind of people we know and are. But when we come to David, the writers can't get away with just foisting off the legends. They have to include the truth, too. From there, things become more and more concrete.
The theology of the Deuteronomist was that curses surely follow disobedience and blessings surely follow obedience. And that's not just in the book called Deuteronomy. The Deuteronomist's hand can be seen from Genesis to Second Kings, as well as in other places. And yet the Wisdom literature, particularly Ecclesiastes, contradicts the Deuteronomist. The book of Job contradicts EVERY SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY!
Why!?!
So that Wierwille could not turn God into a vending machine without doing obvious violence to the integrity of the Word of God.
Systematic theologies are those in which a system for interpreting the text takes precedence over the text itself. Systematic theologies say "The few difficult verses must be understood in light of the many clear verses." But a genuine constructive theology says, "The few difficult verses are a sign to you that the many clear verses are not really as clear as your system would make them out to be. Constructive theology does not try to harmonize the difficult verses, the contradictions and the errors. Nor does constructive theology hide from them. Constructive theology asks "What can this teach us? What can we learn from this?"
All for now... more later...
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I was just getting ready to go to bed when I saw your previous post...I should have time to look it over tomorrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I didn't say God shouldn't be able to use irony. What I did say is that there are plenty of examples of irony in secular writing. That means the Bible doesn't hold exclusive rights to irony or any other figure of speech.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"There were probably occasional odd writers in Israel prior to the reign of Solomon, but it was only during his reign that the government became wealthy enough to establish an "industrial strength" scriptorium, where a full time staff was fed in order to crank out all sorts of material. It's almost certain that one of their first projects would be to produce a narrative confirming Solomon's legitimacy to the throne, hence 1 and 2 Samuel. The story of David and Goliath would be one of the cornerstones of that narrative, but there was only one problem. The time when David came to power was only a little over 40 years before the time Solomon's scriptorium began operating. The events of David's rise to power were still part of living memory, and Solomon's writers couldn't just throw all of that away. There were still plenty of people who could say "That just ain't the way it was!" So to compromise, the writers included the popular, glorious story of puny David's victory over the hulking Goliath... but they introduced it with the truth, about David coming to Saul to minister through music. And if that wasn't enough, the writers of the narrative revealed in 2 Samuel 21:19 that it wasn't David, but rather Elhanan who killed Goliath. Notice that the words the brother of in that verse are in italics. They aren't there in the Hebrew.
And if it isn't enough to look at just a few contradictions in Samuel, there also seems to be an irreconcilable error. 1 Samuel 13:1 (KJV) reads "Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel..." The verse literally reads "A son of one year was Saul when he became king, and two years he reigned over Israel" in the Hebrew. What does that mean? It makes for some interesting thinking!
The earliest characters in the Tanakh are counter-mythological, to attack the myths of the sixth-century BCE Babylonians, among whom the descendants of Solomon's scribes had been exiled. The poetic truths these characters reveal are truths about who the LORD God is, and how he works. Beginning with Abraham, I think, and proceeding through characters like Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Joshua, we have legendary characters. I think there were real people at the heart of these stories, but the characters took on exaggerated characteristics as the stories were told through generation after generation. It is very hard to read them as if they were the kind of people we know and are. But when we come to David, the writers can't get away with just foisting off the legends. They have to include the truth, too. From there, things become more and more concrete."
Pardon me for saying so but you're not exactly strengthening your case for the pneuma hagion concept.
Ya know what I mean, Vern?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
That all depends on what you mean by "the pneuma hagion concept", Earnest!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The pneuma hagion concept presented in PLAF (The Wonder Class) is that God had a purpose for everything He said, where He said it, to whom He said it, yada, yada, ad infinitum. This makes it look more like it was hammered out by a bunch of ad hoc committee members or reddit regular posters, one upping each other with comments about OP's mom.
.....................................
Edited because words are supposed to have spaces between them and stuff.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Steve, your posts sound like you disagree with points you're not making because you actually don't agree with them. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The "pneuma hagion concept" presented in PLAF (The Wonder Class) it technically known as plenary verbal inspiration. I don't think Wierwille plagiarized it because he didn't realize he needed to plagiarize it. It was what he learned in the church he grew up in. Like fish being unaware of water, etc. etc. etc.
Plenary verbal inspiration has only been around for about 150 years, and it is peculiar to fundamentalist/evangelical protestants.
Most Christians have never considered that the scriptures being God-breathed required plenary verbal inspiration.To reject the Bible and God and Jesus because the Bible doesn't live up to a recent cognitive distortion (that there are no contradictions or errors in the Bible) is to fall prey to the same cognitive distortion (that the whole Bible falls apart if there is even one single contradiction or error in it).
It also indicates a severe deficiency in understanding how to hear the Holy Spirit. That was something Wierwille seriously promoted, listening to him and ignoring the Spirit of God.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Clearly anyone who believes in plenary verbal inspiration is biased. You can tell because the evidence is to the contrary and the people arguing in favor of that position have a vested interest in it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I had never heard the terminology "plenary verbal inspiration" so I took a quick peek online. To my layman's mind it pretty much conveys the same thing as "God had a purpose for everything He said, where, how, why and so on." Maybe I'm missing something.... It wouldn't be the first (or last) time.
From what you have posted, I deduce you:
1.) Accept the obvious reality that contradictions exist.
2.) Are of the opinion the contradictions don't negate the possibility of the scriptures being divinely inspired
Please correct me if I've misunderstood your position.
As to the matter of our current and most recent generation hearing/ignoring the Holy Spirit/Spirit of God: Though that is an interesting topic in an of itself, unless it relates to the broader topic at hand, I don't see the relevance. We're not talking about a divine connection in the present, we're talking about a divine connection from times that are long gone by.
edit: darn fingers don't want to cooperate tonight.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
My interest in this thread is obviously academic, since I reject the concept of anything being God-breathed. I am able to participate because (a) the rules allow it and (b) I'm concerned with the statements of fact implied by the thread title. That is, there ARE errors and contradictions in the Bible.
Does that mean it's not God-breathed? My position is pointless.
However, IF the Bible is God-breathed, then God-breathed has to mean something.
And it has to mean something consistent with the facts.
That's where "plenary verbal inspiration" falls short. As I said earlier, I give fundamentalists credit for attaching a testable definition to "God-breathed," but the problem is that the Bible fails that test. It is not without error (Luke and the census provide us with as documentable an error as you're ever going to encounter). It is not without contradiction (again, the Nativity stories in Luke and Matthew cannot both be true; Acts and Galatians cannot both be correct about where Paul went after his conversion, etc). So whatever "God-breathed" means, it does not mean "verbal plenary inspiration."
Fine. So what DOES it mean?
I have no answer, but whatever answer YOU come up with must fit the facts.
I would offer another qualification. The answer you come up with must not only fit the facts, but should probably do so in a way that would be unique to the scriptures.
In other words, to say that "God-breathed" means "useful for teaching, reproving, rebuking and instructing in righteousness" would be insufficient UNLESS you are prepared to argue that a written work cannot be useful for those purposes without being God-breathed.
I can think of a lot of written works that are useful for teaching, reproving, rebuking and instructing in righteousness, yet are not God-breathed.
My suspicion is that you're not going to come up with a useful meaning of "God-breathed" if that's the criteria for a useful meaning.
I could be wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I've been giving this a lot of thought lately, even before I started this thread. And not just because of being involved with the Way decades ago, but from seeing how many young peoples' understandings of the Bible are screwed up today by the fundamentalist/evangelical protestant notions of plenary verbal inspiration, and that the whole Bible falls apart, becomes nothing more than a tissue of lies, if even one single contradiction or error is found in it. Because... as is obvious to even the most casual of observers... the Bible is FULL of contradictions and errors.
But it has been equally as obvious to me from the first time I ever went to Twig, that something about the Bible is "God-breathed." And that was even before I had heard the phrase "God-breathed,"
A lot of things started coming together for me on October 30th, the date of the first entry on this thread. Since then, I've been struggling how to articulate this sunesis. One of the things I've been doing from time to time is stopping in at a particular prof's office and chatting with him, because he's usually the only prof in his office before 8:00 am (when my Hebrew class starts). Our conversations are brief, but I recap my thinking to him, and he comments on it. I've never had him for a class, so it's like getting feedback from a fresh perspective. This morning I went to his office, primarily to bum a cup of coffee out of the pot he keeps there, but in the process, I was able to articulate some of the things I'm going to write below...
What does it mean for ANYTHING to be God-breathed? What does it mean for SCRIPTURE to be God-breathed? How does God breathe words?
Luke 6:45 says "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good: and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh."
Did Luke write those words? It doesn't really matter whether he or someone else did. Did Jesus say those words? NO!!! He couldn't have! He DIDN'T SPEAK ENGLISH! But he may well have expressed a sentiment similar to the one implied by those English words.
Are the words of Luke 6:45 literally "true"? No. What kind of "treasure" can there be in a literal heart? How could such a treasure be distinguished as "good" or "bad"? Doesn't the "abundance" or "overflow" of the heart literally consist of blood? Does blood usually spurt out of peoples' mouths?
The words of Luke 6:45 are metaphoric. They express poetic knowledge. Is the poetic knowledge expressed in the verse true? Yes it is. In modern language, Jesus is describing what we would call "Freudian slips" or in the realm of political speech, "gaffs".
Were those words God-breathed?
The mouth is like a sentinel valve for the heart. "Sentinel valves are simply small relief valves installed in some systems to warn of impending over pressurization." I have just re-stated the same poetic truth of Luke 6:45 in a simile, a different form of poetic expression conveying the same poetic truth.
Were the words I typed God-breathed? I cannot confirm as much, but neither can I deny it.
The last part of Romans 5:5 says "...the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us."
Our "hearts" are full of words. If we have conditioned our hearts with the proper words, by habitually thinking the things God would have us think, then the love of God can flow into our hearts, interact with the words with which we've filled our hearts, and flow out of our mouths to where other people can hear them. Other people can hear God talk to them through us, and KNOW that it's God talking to them. That's what it means in I Corinthians 14:24&25 where it says "25But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: 25And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth."
That's what it means for God to breath words. More about the implications this evening after I come back from mood management group.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
There is a fundamental problem with the logic of this. It first assumes that those "proper" words have been authored by God to begin with. That takes us back to square one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
For the record: TRUCE
I will no longer make an issue of the authorship of Luke ON THIS THREAD unless conclusions are drawn from it that are relevant to the thread topic. I'm not conceding the point. But I'm not going to post a qualifier every time you or I say "Luke wrote such and such." To do so would be tedious. For purposes of proceeding with the discussion, I will refer to the author of Luke as "Luke," with no quotation marks or qualifiers.
As to "God-breathed," I share Ehrman's doubt that Paul wrote the pastoral epistles, which leads to the inevitable question of whether we even NEED to explore the issue of whether the scripture is "God-breathed" by ANY definition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I have paused in this discussion because of the place I am at in the hermeneutical cycle regarding John 6:36...
"It is the spirit that quickeneth [makes alive]; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."
I've been thinking about the questions "what are words?" and "how can they be considered to be breathed?" When I woke up this morning, the words of John 6:36 were on my mind. I couldn't remember if they were real, or just my imagining, so I looked the verse up in the Blue Letter Bible, and behold! they WERE real! Now all I have to do is figure out what they mean(t).
If I were practicing systematic theology the way Wierwille did, I would find a way to make John 6:36 mean what my system says it SHOULD mean, to support my system. The single difficult verse would have to be interpreted in light of the many clear verses. But I am not practicing systematic theology, I'm practicing constructive theology, so I resort to the hermeneutical cycle. The fact that I don't clearly understand John 6:36 means also that my understanding of the whole is not yet adequate.
Unfortunately, my morning meds are kicking in, and I'm too drowsy to continue right now. More later!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I just woke up from my nap, and I find my thought has progressed again. Before I went to sleep, my intent was to describe the hermeneutical cycle the way I learned it, which I still intend to do, but upon waking up, I realize I can also describe the hermeneutical cycle as a regulated purposeful flow. The significance of that will become plain as we go.
The hermeneutical cycle begins with analytic consideration of a part, in this case, John 6:36. The analytic questions are these; what is actually written? what did that mean to the person who originally wrote it? and what did it mean to the people who originally read it? The cycle then moves to integrative consideration; how does the new understanding of the part contribute to a new understanding of the whole? After that, then the cycle continues on to the next difficult verse.
What I realized when I just woke up is that the hermeneutical cycle itself can be described as a flow of thought purposefully oscillating between the modes of analytic and integrative. Since breath can be seen as a purposefully regulated flow, and life itself can be seen as purposefully regulated flow, the hermeneutical cycle can be seen as living thought, purposefully breathed.
I think that is a very concentrated dose, of what I've been trying to think through. What do you guys think? Is this screwed up in some way I haven't yet noticed?
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"What do you guys think? Is this screwed up in some way I haven't yet noticed?"
Yes, it fails to question the author's credibility .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Steve you are quoting from John 6:63. Below is a commentary from Barnes Notes, that seems fine. This is a quote from Jesus. Stated simply people can follow true thoughts or they can follow false thoughts. Jesus says following his words will give life, for example the nine fruits of the spirit one of which is love. And yes, Jesus did promote love. He said love God and love your neighbor as yourself.
John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
[it is the Spirit that quickeneth] These words have been understood in different ways. The word "Spirit," here, evidently does not refer to the Holy Spirit, for he adds, "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit." He refers here, probably, to the doctrine which he had been teaching in opposition to their notions and desires. "My doctrine is spiritual; it is fitted to quicken and nourish the soul. It is from heaven. Your doctrine or your views are earthly, and may be called flesh, or fleshly, as pertaining only to the support of the body. You place a great value on the doctrine that Moses fed the body; yet that did not permanently profit, for your fathers are dead. You seek also food from me, but your views and desires are gross and earthly."
[Quickeneth] Gives life. See the notes at John 5:21.
[The flesh] Your carnal views and desires, and the literal understanding of my doctrine. By this Jesus shows them that he did not intend that his words should be taken literally.
[Profiteth nothing] Would not avail to the real needs of man. The bread that Moses gave, the food which you seek, would not be of real value to man's highest wants.
[They are spirit] They are spiritual. They are not to be understood literally, as if you were really to eat my flesh, but they are to be understood as denoting the need of that provision for the soul which God has made by my coming into the world.
[Are life] Are fitted to produce or give life to the soul dead in sins.
(from Barnes' Notes, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1997 by Biblesoft)
And below is the context of the above quoted verse. The context is many disciples turning away. And yes sometimes we see this today and this includes this web site.
John 6:60-69 From the Living Standard Bible.
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Thanks, waysider and Mark!
The first step in the hermeneutical cycle is to find out exactly what is written. I will probably translate the verse sometime before tomorrow afternoon.
The next step will be to examine what the verse meant to the person who originally wrote it. That's where questions about the authorship will arise, waysider. This step will also include looking at the verse in it's immediate context, which Mark has already started to do.
The third step is closely aligned with the second step, what might the passage have meant to the people who originally heard it? Many scholars think the Johannine community was in Asia minor, centered on Ephesus. That could get VERY interesting!
Pursuing both the second and the third steps of the hermeneutical cycle will require me to go to the library and consult the commentaries, which I will do tomorrow afternoon and evening.
By Monday, I should be prepared to begin some preliminary integration!
Thanks, all!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It's a good thing I don't get charged rent for the room I occupy in some people's minds.
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.