Re: NT inerrancy??

Blake,

I think that there is something else that should be said.

There are a lot of learned people on this list that have a deep
theological background. ASA, as I understand it, is comprised of members
who are scientists and Christians. While you theologians can contribute
a lot, I fail to agree that you can redefine the common usage of words
when speaking to a "plain vanilla" Christian. The words "true" and
"infallible", etc. should be those in common usage, not in some esoteric
fashion that someone like me does not understand.

I would also object to the notion that a number of texts _must_ be taken
in some sort of allegorical fashion as indicated by a school of thought
that applies to a particular theology of some members on this list.

Because of my background as a former Presbyterian elder, I happen to use
Tyndale Commentaries to find meaning. In general, these do not agree
with the posts on this list.

Having said all that, I want to be clear that I agree that the NT was
not in existence when the early church started. All the more reason why
I do NOT see the need for elevating them to some "infallible" level.
That simply strikes me as some sort of psychological need to venerate
and nearly worship the Biblical texts.

I respect the NT and get great value out of reading it --- and the OT as
well. I believe that they obviously were written by men who (although
inspired) were limited in understanding. Yes indeed, they might even
make an occasional error (horrors!). However the notion that some
stories that are presented as facts are allegories of some sort is not
universally accepted and there is no reason for me to reject the more
straightforward interpretations.

You call it "infallible" meaning one thing and Christian sects then use
the "infallible" concept to argue for Biblical literalism and anti
science stances.

Hence I object to that notion and say that it is false within the
normal usage of the word "infallible" by the Christians in the pew (of
which I am one).

IMO

Pig headed old Wally

"Dr. Blake Nelson" wrote:

> Hopefully, I will have a chance to post a longer
> response to this in the future, but there are a couple
> of things that need to be clarified.
>
> The first big one is one that is endemic and the
> Eastern Orthodox would call it an evangelical heresy
> -- the idea that the Bible is the source of belief in
> Jesus of Nazareth. It is not. Jesus of Nazareth is
> the source of belief in Jesus as Christ and the Church
> witnessed to Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ before
> the penning of any of the NT documents. An Eastern
> Orthodox would say they believe the Bible because the
> Bible is a christian collection of documents, meaning
> it was composed by the christian community. An
> eastern Orthodox would *never* say (at least if they
> know orthodox theology) that they believe in Jesus
> *because* the Bible tells them so.
>
> IMHO, they have a hugely valid point. However, there
> are other issues that remain sort of simmering below
> the surface.
>
> --- wallyshoes <wallyshoes@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > George Murphy wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, this is the same issue that's been
> > debated with respect to Genesis 1 & 2
> > > &c. If those aren't accurate historical reports
> > of things that happened a few thousand
> > > years ago, are they "lies"? You are trying to
> > make the biblical writers conform to
> > > modern standards for historical & theological
> > writing, but their purpose needs to be
> > > assessed in terms of the standards of their own
> > culture. There's a little German
> > > jingle:
> > > Wer den Dichter will
> > verstehen,
> > > Muss in Dichters Lande
> > gehen.
> > > "Whoever wants to understand the poet must go into
> > the poet's country." & if you want
> > > to understand a 1st century Christian, you must to
> > some extent be willing to get into
> > > the frame of mind of a 1st centuryt Christian
>
> Absolutely. There are lots of texts that clearly mean
> something in context that they would not mean if we
> did not understand the context, e.g. the eye of the
> needle, or references to Gehenna -- which we would not
> understand the meaning at all unless we actually knew
> of the place called Gehenna and often it gets simply
> translated as hell which provides none of the context
> of what Ghenna actually was.
>
> > I chose the NT because it is a lot closer than
> > Moses' time.
>
> Yes, but it is still very different culturally and
> linguistically to our times. One cannot read 1st
> century literature and just assume that it means what
> we as moderns think it means. N.T. Wright is an
> excellent resources for discussions of the historical
> context of the writing of the New Testament documents.
> Take Daniel -- speaking of the Son of Man coming on a
> cloud. If NT Wright and hundreds of other scholars
> and thousands of Jewish rabbis are right, NO ONE in
> the first century, christian or Jew would take it to
> mean literally that a person was supported by a cloud,
> riding down from heaven. No one. If that makes it
> unreliable by Walt's definition, because it sure seems
> to read like it describes a guy coming down on a cloud
> from heaven, well, it's unreliable by that definition.
> Of course, the conception of how to read it is
> ignorant in the extreme, demanding that Daniel be
> written -- and translated -- in terms that make
> perfect sense to me 2000 years later in a vastly
> different cultural context, even though in our
> cultural context, there are plenty of turns of phrase
> which appear to be lies -- when I say my blood boils,
> I do not mean that it is hot enough to change from a
> liquid to a gas, when I see red, it does not mean that
> my vision has shifted to only allow me to see a narrow
> range of the visible spectrum, etc.
>
> >
> > But let's just step around the theology and talk
> > about the "real world" of today. By your
> > accounts, one cannot expect Matthew to be telling us
> > factual events. Instead he is saying things
> > that never happened for the sake of making a
> > theological point. As such, a theologian like you
> > can
> > read and understand it. People like me cannot. ----
>
> Who says that people like you (or me) cannot?
>
> There are a couple of issues tied up in this that have
> not been adequately addressed or even acknowledged:
>
> 1. What is the purpose of the particular document?
> a. If you think the purpose of any document in the NT
> is to report in an objective, detached, acontextual,
> factual manner that a modern would PRETEND to report
> (because there is no such thing as an objective,
> factual report of anything), then they and everything
> you have *ever* read is unreliable.
> b. If one starts with the proposition that the NT
> documents are witnesses to the experience of the
> church (i.e., the people who were in faith communities
> that were established by the evangelists and those who
> had first hand experience of jesus) of Jesus of
> Nazareth whom they came to recognize during His life
> as the Christ. They are completely reliable for
> relating *their* experiences.
> c. The question then becomes, in part, how did they
> relate those experiences and how are we to understand
> what they were saying about it.
>
> > so I have put the Gospel by matthew on the
> > shelf as something I cannot trust. What about Luke.
> > Do you think the same of him?
> >
> > I also raise the point about the difference of
> > opinion by Matthew and Luke as to the home town of
> > Joseph and mary. Do you think that Matthew is making
> > a theological point? If so, what could it be?
>
> 2. Baby and Bathwater syndromes -- the NT texts
> obviously contain different kinds of material, in the
> sense that sometimes Jesus is directly quoted,
> sometimes stories are told about Jesus in which he
> doesn't really do anything -- like the childhood
> narratives. What importance do each of these kinds of
> material have for what the purpose of the text is
> (which is to provide a witness to a particular
> community's experience of Jesus of Nazareth and convey
> what they think is important).
>
> a. Is it important to Jesus' ministry, His life, His
> death and His resurrection where the Holy Family went
> when? If hypothetically one evangelist reported they
> had orange juice for breakfast on October 15th and the
> other reported they had apple juice on October 15th,
> in direct contradiction of one another -- would we
> care?
>
> b. If everything agreed perfectly, wouldn't the
> skeptic say -- "ah hah! put up job", like they claim
> for Josephus' referral to Jesus as the so-called
> Christ?
>
> c. What makes something unreliable? As I suggested
> in no. 1 if the fact that it is told from a particular
> perspective, then EVERYTHING is unreliable and we
> can't read it so we might as well put it up on the
> shelf.
>
> d. Perhaps it makes sense to ask what the books say
> about Jesus and what is important about Jesus rather
> than do the books accurately reflect the same
> chronologies as one another. They clearly do not, but
> I fail to see how that really has an impact about
> whether they are reliable witnesses to THEIR
> EXPERIENCE of Jesus of Nazareth.
>
> 3. Sorting out Understanding -- One also has to
> realize that these various communities are sorting out
> their understandings of Jesus of Nazareth. Theology
> in the sense of first century christianity is not some
> airy-fairy intellectual pursuit, it is an attempt to
> understand the meaning of what they have experienced.
> Theology is, in that sense, important for every person
> and not solely the concern of some set of egg-head
> academics. It is trying to understand what Jesus
> means to you and me and there are different ways to
> convey that. It is clear that different communities
> had different emphases on their understandings, but,
> consonant with the baby and bathwater comment a moment
> ago, there is tremendous agreement about the nature
> and character of each community's experience of Jesus
> of Nazareth.
>
> > > First, what is meant by "infallibility"?
> > Is its primary meaning that the texts
> > > in question describe historical events infallibly,
> > or that they witness infallibly to
> > > the person & work of Christ?
> > > In saying that I am not trying to "save"
> > the word infallibility: I can live
> > > without it. But what does it mean? & if we're
> > going to use it, recognizing the kinds
> > > of historical questions you raise, what should it
> > mean?
> >
> > I always choose the dictionary definition. My
> > dictionary says:
>
> Dictionary definitions do not give technical
> definitions. The dictionary definitions of both
> infallibility and inerrancy have little to do with the
> technical definitions as the church has used them
> which is why these arguments get started. If you go
> by the current common usage of the terms (rather than
> their ACTUAL technical definitions) the NT texts are
> neither inerrant nor infallible. Of course, one is
> being massively ignorant to try to apply those
> definitions. So perhaps Howard is right for a
> different reason, we should not use the terms because
> the vast majority of the laity don't understand how
> they *really* mean.
>
> > "Incapable of error"
> > "Not liable to mislead, deceive or misrepresent"
> >
> > With those definitions, and your notion of Matthew,
> > that text is not infallible --- at least not
> > to modern man..
>
>
> > Walt
> >
>
> I guess that was not nearly as short as I thought it
> would be.... sorry. ;)
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
> http://search.yahoo.com/top2003

--
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================