Telcontar
Junior Member
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise...
Posts: 91
|
Post by Telcontar on Nov 30, 2007 18:14:45 GMT -5
Yea, I wasn't trying to project an opinion as being yours Scott, I was only trying to respond to the position you put forth.
As far as the Scripture references... They could apply to the OT of course, but not the NT (which doesn't really become involved in the creation discussion that we're focusing on). In order to take these NT verses as authoritative, we have to assume the NT is inspired which it makes no claim to be. This leaves us with a potentially uninspired claim that the OT is inspired. So really, we're working off of a presupposition to get to divine inspiration for the Bible. The OT doesn't claim inspiration for itself and neither does the NT. The only claim for inspiration comes in the NT about the OT. It is like a witness we know nothing about claiming something about another witness. If our opinions about the second witness only come from the first, the authority of the first witness is very important. If the first witness makes no claim to have authority, why should we believe them?
It is interesting about the Wesleyan Discipline that it says that 'so that whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man or woman that it should be believed as an article of faith.' Yet this position on infallibility and errancy in the Bible does not exist in the Bible itself.
|
|
|
Post by lordofthesquishies on Nov 30, 2007 19:38:10 GMT -5
I dunno about the NT not claiming to be inspired...
Galatians 1:11-12 "I want you to know brothers, that the message I preached to you is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."
Just a few verses before that, he says that "even if an angel should preach anything different than the gospel you have been taught, do not believe him. If anyone is preaching anything other than what was taught to you, let him be eternally condemned."
Dem's fightin' words!
Pretty much all the NT apostles claimed to be inspired by Jesus who, I'll admit, wasn't inspired by God... Him being God kinda rules that out as a possibility.
|
|
Telcontar
Junior Member
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise...
Posts: 91
|
Post by Telcontar on Dec 1, 2007 17:36:11 GMT -5
Maybe I'll give you inspiration for most of the NT, but that still doesn't say anything about the infallibility of it.
|
|
|
Post by lordofthesquishies on Dec 1, 2007 21:28:42 GMT -5
So there's a difference between God-inspired and infallible?
|
|
Telcontar
Junior Member
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise...
Posts: 91
|
Post by Telcontar on Dec 2, 2007 4:12:00 GMT -5
I can claim to be inspired to write a sermon or preach a message or paint a picture. Does that make me 'true' or infallible?
|
|
|
Post by lordofthesquishies on Dec 2, 2007 7:57:16 GMT -5
Only if your claim to inspiration is false. There's a difference between being inspired by something other than God, a fallible creation, as opposed to being inspired by God, the infallible creator. If God has a message to get a cross, he doesn't let it get fudged in transcription; He guides the pen and the mouth by his Spirit, and it comes exactly as he intended. The one who sent his own Son to earth to get the point across wouldn't fall short through his holy prophets, would he?
|
|
Telcontar
Junior Member
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise...
Posts: 91
|
Post by Telcontar on Dec 2, 2007 16:18:23 GMT -5
How do you critique my inspiration though? If I claim it comes from God, how can you say otherwise?
I can think of numerous examples where God used fallible people to achieve his means, Moses, David, Samson... Why would it be any different with the Bible?
|
|
|
Post by lordofthesquishies on Dec 2, 2007 20:42:02 GMT -5
Didn't his point always get through perfectly in the end? And if the Bible is fallible... How do we even know any of those people existed? If the Bible is fallible, how do we know Jesus was as holy as it claims? How do we know God even exists?
|
|
Telcontar
Junior Member
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise...
Posts: 91
|
Post by Telcontar on Dec 3, 2007 0:20:21 GMT -5
Did his point always get through perfectly... and even if it did, was it conveyed through a perfect messenger? Your questions are good ones. I think this is where we look for evidence of truth outside the Bible to see if what it says can be trusted or not. Obviously you wouldn't take me at my word without first checking to see if I've been truthful about other things or if have any credentials to talk about a particular subject. Why should it be any different for the Bible? This would bring us back to the beginning of this discussion where I would point to scientific evidence as an important source of information regarding the origins of life. Obviously scientists are not going to be perfect, but I would expect them to have at least as good of an understanding of physics and the universe as the ancients did. I'm not saying people were ignorant and stupid then, but they didn't have access to the technology we have today...
|
|
|
Post by Pastor Scott on Dec 3, 2007 8:49:38 GMT -5
You all make some good points. (And great use of Scripture, JC.) I was going to point out that since Jesus words and life is primarily the message in the NT (and certainly wherever the term "gospel" is referred to), it certainly should count as inspired, but you beat me to it. I guess I will take it the next step then... Shouldn't the Messiah's words and actions be counted as infallible? After all He was God - you don't get much more inspiration than His own words. If they are inspired, then a logical place to look would be to the understanding of Scripture that Jesus had. Now this is just my oppinion... but if the Old Testament was not inspired and not infallible, I would think the Messiah would have pointed that out and used that as a major argument when dealing with the literal interpretation that the Pharisees and others had around him. This was the major contention that Jesus dealt with all the time, the understanding of the OT. Instead, we see Jesus Christ correct and complete the interpretation of the OT texts. I guess the real question here is... can God-inspired texts be fallible? Main Entry: in·fal·li·ble Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin infallibilis, from Latin in- + Late Latin fallibilis fallible Date: 15th century 1 : incapable of error : unerring 2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain 3 : incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/infallible) Let's try to understand these ancient texts by way of this 15th century Latin word, "infallible"... You can correct if I am wrong, but I am fairly certain that this word itself began around the description of Scripture in the 15th century and the whole debate over the Apocrypha. As texts were being debated as to their place in the canon, there was a need for new definitions with which to categorize these ancient texts. This is the first time we see the word infallible used - as it relates to the books of the Christian Bible which had removed the Apocryphal books that the Catholic Church later added themselves to their own canon. To characterize a piece of writing as infallible, there is another important question to consider... what is the intended purpose and subject material of the text? Let's take for instance the operational manual for the Optimus Prime figure (original ) sitting in my office. It's purpose is to explain the correct operation of the figure, so that you may correctly transform it without harm to the toy. To that purpose it is quite accurate and complete - I am not, however, going to understand the physical composition of the materials used in its production or how the universe was created for that matter. It also does not explain why the Autobots lived by such a strong moral code, especially as it dealt with their interaction with the human race. It merely tells me how to transform a toy that I grew up with to perfection. That is a good thing, because that was its purpose. The Bible also has a clear purpose - what is it? This is a very important question to ask. The Bible was never intended to be a science book. It was not written to explain "how" supernatural events occurred. It was not written to explain "how" the world began. Science, by its very definition, is trying to answer different questions than the Bible. It is trying to understand with a human mind, all things that are not supernatural. Likewise, science can never explain the supernatural, because by its very nature and definition - that is impossible. This doesn't mean that there are major contradictions between Biblical accounts and proven science. I contend that there are none. The only major contradictions are with scientific theories, which have changed many times in my life - and will no doubt change many hundreds of times more after my life. The Bible has one overriding message throughout and it (the message) has remained unchanged. As far as the infallibility of the Bible the Wesleyan Church contends, and I agree, that it presents its intended message and purpose without any error, deception, or misleading. You are not, however, going to unlock all the mysteries of science with it. --- To restate the relevant questions within this post: > What does it mean to be "infallible"? > Can God-inspired texts be "fallible"? > What was (and is) the intended purpose of the Biblical texts?
|
|
|
Post by lordofthesquishies on Dec 3, 2007 19:44:39 GMT -5
I think the issue is we really have nothing but conjectures on each side...
On one side, we have faith in an ancient, at times seemingly outdated text, founded in personal experience and what may be labeled fanaticism.
On the other, we have models based on discovered and recorded phenomenon, not proven but our best estimates, which may be labeled as true ignorance.
Even Job wasn't around at the creation of the leviathan, and sadly (or perhaps not) we have no in-depth record of the creation of the world. It seems to me that all creation theories are about as solid as the idea that the world is on the back of a turtle. I don't see any definitive proof for it anywhere... Just my faith.
|
|
|
Post by Pastor Scott on Dec 5, 2007 9:00:16 GMT -5
The Bible never has tried to explain "how" the supernatural works (which any Creation belief would fall under). Unfortunately many people have tried to use the Bible to explain things it wasn't meant to.
It is quite possible, likely in fact, that we could never understand how the world began in pen & ink even if it were written by God's own hand.
Our minds are limited to linear reasoning at worst and abstract creativity at best... it is a wonder that the human mind can ever grasp even the concept of the supernatural with any conviction at all. It is truly a work within us by something supernatural itself.
Someday maybe we will have the ability and the resources to answer the questions that sometimes enslave the human mind, but that will only happen after some kind of evolution... only after we are a "new creation" may the veil be lifted from our limited knowledge and understanding.
If you have experienced the life-changing reality of God for yourself and understand the incredible nature of His Word, then we are given insights beyond our own ability to figure out. The interesting thing is, however, that the answers to those science stumping questions are not the ones that God finds important to reveal to us.
Perhaps real progress is not in science but rather in morality. For hundreds of years, since the birth of the scientific method, man has tried to figure out the things seen. From that time until now, mankind has continued to spiral downward as it has failed to figure out the right questions. Science, in it's effort to find progress, has mostly just found new ways to enhance the sickness within us. Rather than discovering how to appreciate life and learn to interact with each other in a civilized way, science has given us new tools to exercise our barbarism against each other and to appease our own selfish desires.
In a new perfected body with the benefit of new perspective, what would you desire to have answered? When facing your Creator for the first time, what question would be on the tip of your tongue?
Answer that and it will tell you a lot about yourself...
|
|
|
Post by Pastor Scott on Dec 5, 2007 15:17:22 GMT -5
Here is a good resource someone sent me on the creationist world view. It deals with a lot of the tougher issues. There are several articles that you may be interested in reading, whether you agree or not. www.icr.org/
|
|
|
Post by lordofthesquishies on Dec 6, 2007 18:30:59 GMT -5
I checked out some articles on icr. Thanks for showing them to me. Are there any really specific examples of flaws with Darwinian theory?
Oh, it's funny you should mention about science and its advances. For one my classes we deal a lot with articles on current scientific studies. We looked over some things on global warming last year, and the one I was just given is probing "What Makes Us Moral" from a scientific (physiological) standpoint. It's got some interesting things in it, but I find it amusing that they haven't pinned it down to pure cause-effect or animalistic instincts. I find that a huge testament to creation: That we aren't so simple we can be boiled down to accident. Keep in mind this was in Time, so they of course didn't think that maybe we could be based on God instead of apes.
Oh and as far as questions go... I think Romans 9:28 (maybe 29, been awhile) would apply very well. "Groanings that words cannot express"
|
|
|
Post by lordofthesquishies on Dec 28, 2007 17:21:41 GMT -5
Alright, there was a link (as I mentioned earlier) to a very profane site blasting God... I clicked it. I found what looks like a very bitter person, but he's done some research... And I'd like to know how these questions are answered. Here's links to some articles. www.geocities.com/paulntobin/flood.htmlI can't combat the physics here... www.geocities.com/paulntobin/abraham.htmlI was just saying "Dur..." the whole time... I'm confused.
|
|