|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Because The Bible Tells Me So | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Nothing in your quotes shows any claim of inerrancy or the Roman Government declaring any scripture as inerrant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Phat writes:
Here is a copy with explanation by Norman Geisler, which may help explain how they arrive at some of their positions.
I think I already understand your position on it. I'm more interested in their position and how they arrived at it.Let me get my ducks in a row and then I'll make a post here in a day or so. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
This part jumped out at me:
quote: In a way, they have collectively pardoned scripture itself from criticism. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Oh, it’s more than that. They have declared that they have authority over and above scripture. It’s a fundamental contradiction in their claims and one which points to intellectual dishonesty, at the least.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Phat writes:
I don't think so. Your quote basically says that we should try to interpret the writings as the original authors and audience would have understood them. It seems to me that this is the only honest way to do it. Otherwise we are reading ancient writings anachronistically and making the authors say things that they never meant.
In a way, they have collectively pardoned scripture itself from criticism.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK writes:
How so? It seems the opposite to me. Inerrantists accept the authority of all of Scripture, whereas non-inerrantists set themselves up as an authority over Scripture, deciding which parts are true and which are not. They have declared that they have authority over and above scripture. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
delete broken link
Edited by Phat, : delete broken postChance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: It’s right there in the first sentence. Interpretation is subject to their assumed inerrancy. Which means twisting the text to cover up contradictions and errors which can’t be explained away.
quote: That is hardly fair. If there is a contradiction it is honest to the text to point out the contradiction - without any need to decide which is true. And if scripture contradicts established fact - that isn’t something non-inerrantists just arbitrarily make up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
PaulK writes: Really? Where does it say that? They have declared that they have authority over and above scripture. Lets gather these links together for reference as we discuss this Inerrancy conference.
The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham.
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition Or #1
The ICBI disbanded in 1988 after producing three major statements: one on biblical inerrancy in 1978, one on biblical hermeneutics in 1982, and one on biblical application in 1986. Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneuticsor #2 Chicago Statement on Biblical Application or #3. I'm reading this stuff right now as I gather material to present on this topic. And basically, the issue is whether humans have a right and/or responsibility to interpret scripture as it was written or whether the authority of the scriptures and Canons is untouchable. Mind you, I'm not in unanimous agreement with these Chicago Statements, but I wanted to bring the discussion of Chicago to this thread rather than getting distracted in my Sproul thread.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
PaulK writes: I see your point but do you see theirs? If there is no consensus on what is and is not authoritative, one may as well throw the book away and start from scratch...which is kinda what we do here. That is hardly fair. If there is a contradiction it is honest to the text to point out the contradiction - without any need to decide which is true. And if scripture contradicts established fact - that isn’t something non-inerrantists just arbitrarily make up. Basically what they are doing is establishing scripture as the authority over themselves just as Rome established a Pope. Scripture is their Pope. Declaring this stuff gives them authority to thus extrapolate on what has been written. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Authority doesn’t require inerrancy. You don’t have to insist that the creation stories are literally true for the Bible to be authoritative on what matters. Nor do you have to paper over the cracks in the nativity stories or the accounts of Judas’ death. But they wouldn’t allow you to accept the contradictions with reality nor between different stories. And what worth is authority based on a lie ? Because that is what they are selling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I can see that they are all selling something. I went to Geislers website and was solicited. Sproul sells a lot of stuff too, but he also has a lot of free stuff that is easily accessible.
One thing that has been revealed is that this group from Chicago that affirmed these positions is the heart and soul of Biblical Christianity. Would you say that all of them are Calvinists or can be defined as such? What are some scholarly groups who steer around Calvinism without digressing into Universalism or feel good positive affirmations, such as Joel Osteen teaches?Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I think you should use scare quotes because it isn’t as Biblical or as Christian as they would have you believe.
quote: It’s certainly possible, but it isn’t a matter I’ve investigated or found especially important.
quote: Again, it’s not a matter I’ve considered important to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I have presented this to you before but maybe it is worth reading again. Here is a Pastoral Letter (a Pastoral Letter is one sent by the Bishop of a Diocese to be read to EVERY congregation) written over thirty years ago. It presents a different view of the authority of the Bible.
Note it points out that the Bible does contain two mutually exclusive and contradictory creation stories, that belief in the historical actuality or factual nature of the stories is NOT an article of the faith and that reality must override the stories. It's interesting to note that this Pastoral Letter was just three years after the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was issued and so for practical purposes the two were contemporary positions. Also note that it is not a decree but rather a consensus showing 100% support from all the congregations represented in the annual meeting. While it affirms religious beliefs it also says that reality is the final authority, not stories written by humans and even coming from different religious cultures as is the case with both the Creation stories and the two Flood tales.
Phat writes: Would you say that all of them are Calvinists or can be defined as such? Most are certainly Calvinist in the messages they market. But the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy does not address any of the basics of Calvinism as summed up by TULIP. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK writes:
Sometimes it IS something that they make up.
And if scripture contradicts established fact - that isn’t something non-inerrantists just arbitrarily make up. Scripture must be interpreted. It says nothing on its own, apart from interpretation. Often biblical critics interpret Scripture very naively and anachronistically (Richard Dawkins is a prime example), making it say things that the original authors never intended."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024