Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bible's Flat Earth
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 256 of 473 (500803)
03-02-2009 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Granny Magda
03-02-2009 10:29 AM


Re: Inspired Scripture and Error
quote:
It is wrong though. You may have decided that God had good reason to describe the Earth this way, but it still doesn't make a claim like "the Earth is immovable" correct. That is just plain wrong, however you frame it. If it is not a mistake, it must be a lie, even if it is only a white lie. In practise, as long as people go on teaching Biblical literalism, they will be teaching errors straight out of the Bible. Non-literal interpretations are much less troublesome.
I generally agree with your statements, but to proclaim the Bible as "wrong" without qualifying this statement strikes me an unnecessarily provocative. There is a big difference between the Bible TEACHING error and the biblical authors having an erroneous view of the world.
quote:
An error mentioned in passing may not be the most serious of errors, but it is still a deathblow to Biblical inerrancy.
"Biblical inerrancy" is a technical, theological term primarily addressing the TEACHING or CLAIMS of Scripture, not the culturally-bound ways in which the writers expressed these claims. Hence, errors in the understanding of the biblical authors ARE consistent with most technical formulations of biblical inerrancy.
For example:
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy writes:
Article 13:
"WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations."
Exposition:
"We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of His penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.
"So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed."
(from Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Granny Magda, posted 03-02-2009 10:29 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Granny Magda, posted 03-02-2009 4:51 PM kbertsche has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 257 of 473 (500821)
03-02-2009 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by kbertsche
03-02-2009 6:54 AM


kbertsche writes:
Yes, according to orthodox Christian theology, the Bible is perfect, as Jesus is perfect. Jesus is both fully God and fully man. The Bible's origin is both fully divine and fully human. The Bible does not TEACH error; in this sense it is "perfect". But the Bible expresses divine truth in fallible, human, culturally limited language. In our cultural context, some of these expressions and assumptions may seem to be "wrong". But they are not being TAUGHT; they are just the cultural backdrop through which God revealed theological truth.
Sounds a lot like the saying the bible is never wrong except when it is wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by kbertsche, posted 03-02-2009 6:54 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 258 of 473 (500826)
03-02-2009 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by kbertsche
03-02-2009 3:35 PM


Re: Inspired Scripture and Error
quote:
I generally agree with your statements, but to proclaim the Bible as "wrong" without qualifying this statement strikes me an unnecessarily provocative.
I assure you that I am not trying to provoke you or anyone else. I am simply saying what I think.
quote:
"Biblical inerrancy" is a technical, theological term primarily addressing the TEACHING or CLAIMS of Scripture, not the culturally-bound ways in which the writers expressed these claims. Hence, errors in the understanding of the biblical authors ARE consistent with most technical formulations of biblical inerrancy.
I mentioned the immobility of the earth as an example of an error. Take another look at 1 Chronicles;
1 Chron. 16
8 Give thanks to the LORD, call on his name;
make known among the nations what he has done.
9 Sing to him, sing praise to him;
tell of all his wonderful acts.
And what acts are these?
30 Tremble before him, all the earth!
The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
This clearly amounts to a claim that the earth is fixed (thanks to God). How is this not a claim?
"Go forth! Spread word of the great deeds of the Lord! Of course we're not claiming that he actually did any of these deeds, they're just a sort of window dressing..."
Not terribly inspiring is it? Why glory God for deeds that never happened? The passage is very clearly a claim about God being made to glorify him. This amounts to a Biblical claim. Your re-defined inerrancy is compromised.
I am familiar with the Chicago Statement. The bible is inerrant, except where it errs. Only a believer could find this kind of double-think satisfying. It doesn't matter anyway. There are many claims within the Bible that simply wrong. Trying to refine the standards of inerrancy as the Chicago authors did is pointless.
Besides, that is not how inerrancy has been defined down the centuries nor is it the way that most practising fundamentalists seem to mean it. Look at this statement made only today, by new member Kelly;
Kelly writes:
In answer to your question, what would I do if macroevolution were proven true, would I compromise my faith? The answer is no. If macroevolution were true, I would have to abandon my faith in the God of the Bible. The way I see it, if God can't be accurate in what he has revealed historically or scientifically, I would have no reason to trust what he has said spiritually speaking either. I mean, if God doesn't know that the earth is not flat or that he did not create life instantly, then he doesn't know much of anything, right? How could I put my faith in His promise to raise me from the dead as He did Jesus Christ when the source of this truth is so filled with error?
This is, in my opinion, what most believers have in mind when they say that the Bible is inerrant. They really mean it. They mean that the Bible contains no errors. It is all or nothing for such people. It may be poor theology, but at least it is honest in its terminology. Calling oneself an "inerrantist" whilst accepting that the Bible contains errors is misleading and frankly, bullshit.
That's not an attempt to provoke you, it's just how I see it.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by kbertsche, posted 03-02-2009 3:35 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by kbertsche, posted 03-02-2009 8:42 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 259 of 473 (500883)
03-02-2009 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Granny Magda
03-02-2009 4:51 PM


Re: Inspired Scripture and Error
1 Chron 16:30 Tremble before him, all the earth!
The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
quote:
This clearly amounts to a claim that the earth is fixed (thanks to God). How is this not a claim?
Yes, this is a claim of something. But a claim of what? Here are some questions that need to be asked before we decide:
1) What did the words "firmly established" and "cannot be moved" mean to the author? E.g. are they speaking spatially or temporally?
2) How literally did the author intend this to be taken? It is clearly a poetic passage; a few verses later he has the sea, the fish, and the trees shouting for joy.
I haven't studied the passage, but I suspect it refers to the earth being solid and trustworthy. True, the author probably believed that the earth was fixed in space (except that he had no concept of "space"), but it doesn't seem that this is the point he's trying to teach here.
quote:
I am familiar with the Chicago Statement. The bible is inerrant, except where it errs. Only a believer could find this kind of double-think satisfying. It doesn't matter anyway. There are many claims within the Bible that simply wrong. Trying to refine the standards of inerrancy as the Chicago authors did is pointless.
Whether you like it or not, that's the way theology, philosophy, and many other fields of study are done. People are very careful to define terms and boundaries. Yes, to an outsider it may sound like double-speak, but it is necessary for the field of study.
quote:
Besides, that is not how inerrancy has been defined down the centuries
Are you sure? Can you provide some support for this claim?
I believe the term "inerrancy" is fairly recent, from around the turn of the 20th century. But the concept goes back many centuries, in a form fairly similar to that expressed by the ICBI in their Chicago Statement. For example, John Calvin held to this concept, but also taught that God had "accommodated" His message to the limited understanding of the people at the time.
quote:
nor is it the way that most practising fundamentalists seem to mean it.
This is, in my opinion, what most believers have in mind when they say that the Bible is inerrant. They really mean it. They mean that the Bible contains no errors. It is all or nothing for such people. It may be poor theology,
I agree with you here, especially regarding the folks who tend to post at online forums. Few have any theological training. Most are amateurs who do not use terms in the technically correct sense.
quote:
but at least it is honest in its terminology. Calling oneself an "inerrantist" whilst accepting that the Bible contains errors is misleading and frankly, bullshit.
Not so. "Biblical inerrancy" is a technical, theological term. You can define the term differently from the theologians if you wish, but then you are no longer talking about the same thing, and confusion ensues. The same thing would happen if you allowed the non-scientists on this board to define evolution, big bang, etc. any way they wish. You would soon be talking past each other and not communicating. It's better to allow the experts in each field to define their terms, and to use these definitions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Granny Magda, posted 03-02-2009 4:51 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2009 9:42 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied
 Message 261 by Granny Magda, posted 03-02-2009 10:11 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 266 by ICANT, posted 03-04-2009 12:03 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 260 of 473 (500894)
03-02-2009 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by kbertsche
03-02-2009 8:42 PM


Re: Inspired Scripture and Error
"Biblical inerrancy" is a technical, theological term. You can define the term differently from the theologians if you wish, but then you are no longer talking about the same thing, and confusion ensues.
The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod seems to be straight forward as to what inerrancy means to them.
Thus,we believe that the Bible is both incapable of
error (infallible) and free from error (inerrant).
Source
Now here is something I find very interesting based on the Chicago statement
Chicago Statement
We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of his penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.
There is nothing quite like leaving yourself an out big enough to drive a bus through. In other words, the bible is infallible and inerrant except for the parts that aren't. And who gets to make these determinations? I guess anyone that needs to be deluded so they believe their religion.
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by kbertsche, posted 03-02-2009 8:42 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-04-2009 9:20 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 261 of 473 (500896)
03-02-2009 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by kbertsche
03-02-2009 8:42 PM


Re: Inspired Scripture and Error
quote:
1) What did the words "firmly established" and "cannot be moved" mean to the author? E.g. are they speaking spatially or temporally?
Well call me crazy, but I'd say that it means that the earth cannot be moved. Do you have any specific reason to claim otherwise? Other than a general desire to explain away an error that is.
quote:
2) How literally did the author intend this to be taken? It is clearly a poetic passage; a few verses later he has the sea, the fish, and the trees shouting for joy.
I haven't studied the passage, but I suspect it refers to the earth being solid and trustworthy.
It makes little sense if it is not a claim of God's deeds. The claim is very clearly that God has fixed the earth. It explicitly says "It (the earth) cannot be moved". The only reason to read this statement in any way other than "it cannot be moved" is in a desperate attempt to explain away a false claim. If the author had intended to say "made the earth safe" he could have done so. He did not.
A claim is being made. It is false. That is contrary even to the version of inerrancy that you describe. It is no use taking an errant claim and saying "Ah well, that's not really a claim.". That is just dishonest. It's a wasted effort anyway. The Bible is littered with erroneous claims. You can't explain them all away, no matter how tenuously you define inerrancy.
quote:
Whether you like it or not, that's the way theology, philosophy, and many other fields of study are done. People are very careful to define terms and boundaries. Yes, to an outsider it may sound like double-speak, but it is necessary for the field of study.
The only thing it is necessary for is to cling on to an outdated attitude of uncritically believing what is written in the Bible. Inerrancy of any kind is a hollow claim. It is not honest to make such claims. In my opinion, claiming the kind of definition for inerrancy would be like my redefining Lamarckism until it matches modern evolutionary theory and then claiming "Lamarckism lives!". There is no point in using a term like inerrant when you acknowledge that there are errors. It is misleading and deliberately so in my view.
quote:
Are you sure? Can you provide some support for this claim?
Sure.
St Augustine writes:
Of the Authority of the Canonical Scriptures Composed by the Divine Spirit.
This Mediator, having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.
Source
St Augustine writes:
For Scripture, which proves the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, gives no false information;
Source
quote:
I agree with you here, especially regarding the folks who tend to post at online forums. Few have any theological training. Most are amateurs who do not use terms in the technically correct sense.
That's the problem isn't it though? To use the term inerrancy is to give a false impression. This is the impression that most fundamentalists have of inerrancy. To talk in these terms is to encourage this misunderstanding and to also encourage far too great a confidence in the Bible's authority. This is part of the widespread disconnect between what theologians say and what the laity believe.
Do you not worry that in using the term inerrant you are promoting a naive and literal inerrancy of a rather extreme kind? Shouldn't you at least be using the somewhat clearer term "limited inerrancy"?
quote:
Not so. "Biblical inerrancy" is a technical, theological term. You can define the term differently from the theologians if you wish, but then you are no longer talking about the same thing, and confusion ensues. The same thing would happen if you allowed the non-scientists on this board to define evolution, big bang, etc. any way they wish. You would soon be talking past each other and not communicating. It's better to allow the experts in each field to define their terms, and to use these definitions.
These particular "experts" have chosen to define their terminology in such a way as to make the term a dishonest one. That is what I consider to be bullshit. They are welcome to chose to define their terms however they wish, but it has not filtered down to the majority of fundamentalists, many of whom would find such an idea to be a compromise too far. I suspect that this is part of the appeal in such a definition; it allows fundamentalists to have their cake and eat it.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by kbertsche, posted 03-02-2009 8:42 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by kbertsche, posted 03-04-2009 12:25 AM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 272 by kbertsche, posted 03-04-2009 10:44 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 262 of 473 (501068)
03-04-2009 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Granny Magda
03-02-2009 10:11 PM


Re: Inspired Scripture and Error
quote:
Well call me crazy, but I'd say that it means that the earth cannot be moved. Do you have any specific reason to claim otherwise? Other than a general desire to explain away an error that is.
...
It makes little sense if it is not a claim of God's deeds. The claim is very clearly that God has fixed the earth. It explicitly says "It (the earth) cannot be moved". The only reason to read this statement in any way other than "it cannot be moved" is in a desperate attempt to explain away a false claim. If the author had intended to say "made the earth safe" he could have done so. He did not.
A claim is being made. It is false. That is contrary even to the version of inerrancy that you describe. It is no use taking an errant claim and saying "Ah well, that's not really a claim.". That is just dishonest. It's a wasted effort anyway. The Bible is littered with erroneous claims. You can't explain them all away, no matter how tenuously you define inerrancy.
OK, let's take a more detailed look at the passage in question:
1Chr. 16:29 Ascribe to the LORD the splendor he deserves!
Bring an offering and enter his presence!
Worship the LORD in holy attire!
1Chr. 16:30 Tremble before him, all the earth!
The world is established, it cannot be moved.
1Chr. 16:31 Let the heavens rejoice, and the earth be happy!
Let the nations say, ‘The LORD reigns!’
1Chr. 16:32 Let the sea and everything in it shout!
Let the fields and everything in them celebrate!
1Chr. 16:33 Then let the trees of the forest shout with joy before the LORD,
for he comes to judge the earth!
This is a poetic passage, part of an extended quotation from Psalm 96:
Psa. 96:8 Ascribe to the LORD the splendor he deserves!
Bring an offering and enter his courts!
Psa. 96:9 Worship the LORD in holy attire!
Tremble before him, all the earth!
Psa. 96:10 Say among the nations, The LORD reigns!
The world is established, it cannot be moved.
He judges the nations fairly.
Psa. 96:11 Let the sky rejoice, and the earth be happy!
Let the sea and everything in it shout!
Psa. 96:12 Let the fields and everything in them celebrate!
Then let the trees of the forest shout with joy
Psa. 96:13 before the LORD, for he comes!
For he comes to judge the earth!
He judges the world fairly,
and the nations in accordance with his justice.
A similar statement is found in Psalm 93:
Psa. 93:1 The LORD reigns!
He is robed in majesty,
the LORD is robed,
he wears strength around his waist.
Indeed, the world is established, it cannot be moved.
So what does it mean that "The world is established, it cannot be moved."? The question is not what you or I would LIKE it to mean, but what it actually DID mean to the author.
The best way to figure this out is to become a scholar of biblical Hebrew. Failing this, we can do a few things:
1) read the passage in context, noting how the passages fits into the broader context
2) study the Hebrew meanings of the key words
3) read the passage in a number of different translations
4) check a number of different textual commentaries
So let's try these steps:
1) The immediate context is given above. In the broader context, the main topic of Ps 96 is God's reign, and how all people should praise Him and rejoice due to this.
2) word meanings:
a) "world" is the Hebrew "tevel", which is a poetic word for "'eretz", the normal term for "earth" or "land".
b) "established" is "tikkon", the niphal imperfect of "khwn", meaning "be set up, established, fixed". It is used literally of houses, and figuratively of thrones, kings, and kingdoms.
c) "be moved" is "timmot", the niphal imperfect of "mwt", meaning "be shaken, moved, overthrown". It is an exclusively poetic word used of idols and of general disorder.
3) Various translations of the phrase from 1 Chron 16:30:
NET:
The world is established, it cannot be moved.
KJV:
the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
NASB:
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.
NIV:
The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
JPS (Tanakh):
The world stands firm; it cannot be shaken.
NKJV:
The world also is firmly established,
It shall not be moved.
ESV:
yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved.
4) Commentaries (many comment on the passage in Ps 96 rather than in 1 Chron 16):
Keil & Delitzsch, Ps 96:10
The watchword is Jahve is King, as in Isa. 52:7. ... The world below, hitherto shaken by war and anarchy, now stands upon foundations that cannot be shaken in time to come, under Jahve’s righteous and gentle sway.
Expositors' Bible Commentary, Ps 96:10
The proclamation the LORD reigns is characteristic of this type of psalm (cf. 93:1; 97:1; 99:1). He has established his rule on earth by the fact of his creation (the world is firmly established; cf. 93:1) and by the evidence of his rule with equity.
Expositors' Bible Commentary, Ps 93:1
He has established (tikkon) the world, and it will not reel and totter under the duress of hostile forces (10:6; 104:5), because Yahweh has established his rule over it. The nations may rage against his rule, but it will not fall (2:1-4; 46:6).
So let's put all of this together, the context, the word meanings, the translations, and the commentaries. What does it mean that "The world is established, it cannot be moved."?
"The world is established" most probably refers to the creation of the world. As Granny pointed out, the context refers to God's "deeds"; this probaby refers to His acts of creation. "Cannot be moved" probably means that the world will not break out into utter chaos, because God reigns and is in control. Thus the claim that "the world is established, it cannot be moved" provides assurance that God has been in control since the beginning and that He will continue to be in control forever.
I see no reason from the text to infer anything about cosmology. The text is not directed at cosmology, but at God's reign. The author does not seem to have cosmology in mind at all. I believe that Galileo's critics tried to use these or similar passages to argue against heliocentrism, but they were doing eisegesis instead of exegesis (reading their own ideas INTO the text, not reading the writer's ideas OUT of the text). Galileo had the right idea; "The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."
I believe there ARE biblical passages that have passing references to ancient near eastern cosmology, but 1 Chron 16:30 (and Ps 96:10 and Ps 93:1) does not seem to be one of them.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Granny Magda, posted 03-02-2009 10:11 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Granny Magda, posted 03-04-2009 5:07 PM kbertsche has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 263 of 473 (501079)
03-04-2009 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Granny Magda
03-02-2009 10:29 AM


Re: Inspired Scripture and Error
GM writes:
You may have decided that God had good reason to describe the Earth this way, but it still doesn't make a claim like "the Earth is immovable" correct. That is just plain wrong, however you frame it. If it is not a mistake, it must be a lie, even if it is only a white lie.
depends how you read the word 'immovable'
it could carry various meanings such as something solidly stuck as you are reading it
or as the online dictionary states
2. Impossible to alter: immovable plans.
3. Unyielding in principle, purpose, or adherence; steadfast.
4. Incapable of being moved emotionally.
5. Law Not liable to be removed; permanent: immovable property.
quote:
1Cor 15:58'Consequently, my beloved brothers, become steadfast, unmovable, always having plenty to do in the work of the Lord...'
Here Paul tells christians to become 'unmovable'... in this sense he meant for them to be solidly fixed in their faith...unmovable.
there is more to the meaning of the word then the way you've chosen to interpret it. In a sense, i can say that you are 'immovable' in your position in this instance
unless you want to accept that the word 'immovable' has more then one meaning.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Granny Magda, posted 03-02-2009 10:29 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Granny Magda, posted 03-04-2009 5:20 PM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 264 of 473 (501080)
03-04-2009 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by lyx2no
03-02-2009 12:31 PM


Re: Here Here
im sure we picked up on that without you needing to mention it...that kind of spoils the joke

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by lyx2no, posted 03-02-2009 12:31 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 265 of 473 (501100)
03-04-2009 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Theodoric
03-02-2009 9:42 PM


Re: Inspired Scripture and Error
There is nothing quite like leaving yourself an out big enough to drive a bus through. In other words, the bible is infallible and inerrant except for the parts that aren't. And who gets to make these determinations? I guess anyone that needs to be deluded so they believe their religion.
You appear to have summarized non-fundamentalist (sophisticated? academic?) theology quite succinctly:
- Follow the contemporary moral zeitgeist of your society.
- Accept the reality of the physical world.
- Torture the living shit out of language in an effort to pretend that the Bible offers some unique insight (or compatibility) with regard to either of the previous two principles.
Capt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2009 9:42 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 266 of 473 (501113)
03-04-2009 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by kbertsche
03-02-2009 8:42 PM


Re: Inspired Scripture and Error
Hi kbertsche,
kbertsche writes:
Yes, this is a claim of something. But a claim of what?
When people are determined to prove their point they will take all means to do so.
Like cherry picking one verse out of a song of David I Chro. 6:8 through I Chro. 6:36 and making it to be talking about cosmology.
16:7 Then on that day David delivered first this psalm to thank the LORD into the hand of Asaph and his brethren.
Clearly the following words (verses did not exist then) is the psalm.
They are told to rejoice and seek the Lord.
They are told to remember His marvelous works (GM assums these are creation).
Like it would not have anything to do with God delivering them from Egypt and for fourty years providing food, water, and central air conditioning (cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night).
They are told to remember His wonders and His judgments.
God did judge them in the wilderness.
They are reminded they are the chosen ones.
They are reminded of His covenant, made with Abraham and the oath to Isaac.
They were reminded to sing unto the Lord and show forth His salvation.
They re told to declare His glory among the heathen.
They are reminded to praise the Lord who made the heavens above all the gods, idols created by man.
David reminds all to fear before Him all the earth.
Then in the same verse he says "the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."
The world not the earth shall be stable and not moved shaken.
The earth is what was created in Genesis 1:1, not the world .
Then David says "let the heavens be glad, the earth rejoice and men say The Lord reigneth. Let the sea roar and the fields rejoice, the trees sing.
Then he reminds them God cometh to judge the earth and that he is good and His mercy endureth for ever.
They were admonished to seek God for salvation and deliver Israel from the heathen.
He then ends with Blessed be the Lord God of Israel for ever and ever.
kbertsche writes:
Yes, this is a claim of something.
Yes he is claiming many things in this song. One is that God will establish Israel and take care of her as he has always because He has estabished her a chosen people.
Many empires have come and gone.
Little Israel still exists and are back in their land that God gave them and they shall not be moved.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by kbertsche, posted 03-02-2009 8:42 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-04-2009 12:59 PM ICANT has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 473 (501123)
03-04-2009 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by ICANT
03-04-2009 12:03 PM


Re: Inspired Scripture and Error
When people are determined to prove their point they will take all means to do so.
Like cherry picking one verse out of a song of David I Chro. 6:8 through I Chro. 6:36 and making it to be talking about cosmology.
That's exactly what you do with your crap on Gen 1&2.
What does hypocrisy taste like?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by ICANT, posted 03-04-2009 12:03 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 268 of 473 (501146)
03-04-2009 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by kbertsche
03-04-2009 12:25 AM


Re: Inspired Scripture and Error
quote:
So what does it mean that "The world is established, it cannot be moved."? The question is not what you or I would LIKE it to mean, but what it actually DID mean to the author.
A question that, as I think we can both agree, can never be answered with absolute confidence. Let's go through your analysis though.
quote:
1) The immediate context is given above. In the broader context, the main topic of Ps 96 is God's reign, and how all people should praise Him and rejoice due to this.
Exactly, and i have already addressed this point. The passage is telling us to worship God because of his greatness, which is evidenced by his achievements. This is entirely consistent with my reading. Further, if you like context, how about reading it in the context of all the passages I have been quoting? Those passages add up to a cosmology in which statements about a fixed earth would have made obvious literal sense. They would have been wrong, but they still made sense.
quote:
2) word meanings:
a) "world" is the Hebrew "tevel", which is a poetic word for "'eretz", the normal term for "earth" or "land".
b) "established" is "tikkon", the niphal imperfect of "khwn", meaning "be set up, established, fixed". It is used literally of houses, and figuratively of thrones, kings, and kingdoms.
c) "be moved" is "timmot", the niphal imperfect of "mwt", meaning "be shaken, moved, overthrown". It is a poetic word used of idols and of general disorder.
In each case you seem very keen to emphasise the poetic implications. This seems a bit of a stretch. The author of 1 Chr. has just metioned that "the LORD made the heavens. ", is this meant to be poetic? You are picking out secondary potential meanings for every word here. Occam's Razor suggests that you are wrong. The most obvious meaning of each of these terms is the literal one.
quote:
3) Various translations of the phrase from 1 Chron 16:30:
All of which use terminology explicitely connected with movement or the lack thereof. No translation mentions security or dependability. I rather fancy that the author could have used clear terminology to express this idea if he had so wished. He did not.
quote:
4) Commentaries (many comment on the passage in Ps 96 rather than in 1 Chron 16):
Commentaries are merely commentaries. they are opinions, nothing more. Plus, from what I have seen of theology, I have little trust in the motivations of such comments. They are too often an attempt to do what you are doing; explaining why a mistake is not really a mistake in a misguided effort to maintain Biblical authority.
quote:
"The world is established" most probably refers to the creation of the world.
So the beginning bit is literal? Yet it suddenly changes tack halfway through a sentence? Forgive me if I find that unlikely.
quote:
"Cannot be moved" probably means that the world will not break out into utter chaos, because God reigns and is in control.
Now it is poetic. That was a sharp turnabout.
You have still not provided any reason why we should take this interpretation. It is just about possible, but you have done nothing to support it except to say that it is possible. The only other reason to take your reading is because we don't want the bible to be in error.
Anyway, it's still wrong. The world has broken out into chaos. A couple of things known as "World Wars" would fall neatly under that category. Nations are not stable, anything but in fact. A thousand have fallen since this passage was written, so it is still just wrong.
Also, it says "cannot" not "will not". It is perfectly possible for the Earth to be destroyed entirely by a sufficiently large comet or something of that ilk. The passage is wrong, even if we take your translation. The Earth is not stable or fixed. It is precarious, as recent concerns over climate change demonstrate. It is a temporary feature and one day, it will be swallowed by the sun. That is not my idea of stability.
In a world that understood the earth to be literally fixed, immobile and at the centre of things, verse 30 is an extremely silly way to pass on the message "God has brought stability to the nations". The verse would have seemed obvious in meaning to someone who already believed in a fixed earth. If I said "He has made the Earth move", you would not suppose that I meant to say that he has made the earth an exciting place. That is because you know that the Earth actually does move. The plain meaning of the phrase would have found instant recognition in a fixed earth culture. It's literal meaning would have been so plain as to completely obscure the somewhat tenuous interpretation you have provided. It seems like a big mistake to phrase it this way and the problem would have been immediately obvious to the author. If you're reading is correct, it is a terrible attempt at getting a point across. I do not think that the Bible authors were that stupid.
quote:
I see no reason from the text to infer anything about cosmology. The text is not directed at cosmology, but at God's reign. The author does not seem to have cosmology in mind at all.
Patently wrong.
26 But the LORD made the heavens.
I am not inferring anything. I am simply reading the text. You are the one who is engaged in inference.
quote:
I believe that Galileo's critics tried to use these or similar passages to argue against heliocentrism, but they were doing eisegesis instead of exegesis (reading their own ideas INTO the text, not reading the writer's ideas OUT of the text).
They were merely doing what Augustine suggested; interpreting the Bible as true until proven otherwise. Of course, the Bible must still be true, right? So when we find that it is wrong, we must find another truth that we can shoehorn the passage into. If sucj people were engaged in reading whatever they wanted into the text, perhaps you can provide an example of someone taking your interpretation before Galileo's day...
quote:
Galileo had the right idea; "The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."
I'm sorry, but whilst he has a point, Galileo was wrong. The Bible does make cosmological claims that defy what we would now call science. The whole of Genesis 1 does just this. Implying that the Bible does not make dogmatic claims about the universe we live in is simply dishonest.The truth is that when we find out new knowledge, we must reject former mistakes, not try to re-analyse them into truth. Science does this admirably. One of religion's greatest failings is its refusal to do this.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by kbertsche, posted 03-04-2009 12:25 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by kbertsche, posted 03-04-2009 6:31 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 269 of 473 (501150)
03-04-2009 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Peg
03-04-2009 2:17 AM


Re: Inspired Scripture and Error
quote:
depends how you read the word 'immovable'
I'm taking it to mean "immovable". I'm eccentric like that.
2. Impossible to alter: immovable plans.
Still wrong though. The Earth is not immpossible to alter. It has changed enormously during its history and it will continue to do so long after it becomes uninhabitable.
3. Unyielding in principle, purpose, or adherence; steadfast.
So it might mean that the Earth is a sentient being, capable of having moral principles? I think not. The authors did not think the earth to be sentient. the stars on the other hand...
4. Incapable of being moved emotionally.
The earth is certainly incapable of this. So is a rock. Normally, one does not need to point this out. Boasting about how God has made the earth incapable of emotion just seems a little unimpressive to me. Also a bit mental.
5. Law Not liable to be removed; permanent: immovable property.
Again, the Earth is not permanent. I would have thought that God might know that. The human author might have thought the earth to be permanent, but if he did, he was wrong.
All of those meanings would still leave the passage in error.
quote:
there is more to the meaning of the word then the way you've chosen to interpret it. In a sense, i can say that you are 'immovable' in your position in this instance
unless you want to accept that the word 'immovable' has more then one meaning.
I never said that it had only one meaning. I'm just of the opinion that it is the literal and obvious meaning that is meant, for reasons outlined above. It is no use claiming that it could mean something different; you have not provided any argument that it does.
The obvious interpretation is the one that fits with the large number of passages that I have quoted. they thought that the earth was immovable and they would continue to do so for centuries.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Peg, posted 03-04-2009 2:17 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Peg, posted 03-05-2009 6:26 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 270 of 473 (501158)
03-04-2009 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Granny Magda
03-04-2009 5:07 PM


Re: Inspired Scripture and Error
kbertsche writes:
2) word meanings:
a) "world" is the Hebrew "tevel", which is a poetic word for "'eretz", the normal term for "earth" or "land".
b) "established" is "tikkon", the niphal imperfect of "khwn", meaning "be set up, established, fixed". It is used literally of houses, and figuratively of thrones, kings, and kingdoms.
c) "be moved" is "timmot", the niphal imperfect of "mwt", meaning "be shaken, moved, overthrown". It is a poetic word used of idols and of general disorder.
quote:
In each case you seem very keen to emphasise the poetic implications. This seems a bit of a stretch. The author of 1 Chr. has just metioned that "the LORD made the heavens. ", is this meant to be poetic? You are picking out secondary potential meanings for every word here. Occam's Razor suggests that you are wrong. The most obvious meaning of each of these terms is the literal one.
The first word, "tevel", is either exclusively poetic, or almost exclusively so. The synonymous word "'eretz" is used in non-poetic contexts. The third word, "timmot", is exclusively poetic.
I'm getting this information, including poetic implications, from BDB (Brown-Driver-Briggs), the standard biblical Hebrew lexicon. Are you using a different lexicon or some other objective criterion? Or do you just dislike the implications of the words that the author chose?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Granny Magda, posted 03-04-2009 5:07 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Granny Magda, posted 03-04-2009 9:39 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024