On Interpretation of Scripture

[Guest shiloh357]

Why? Science doesn't provide us 100% certainty but you cannot argue with the results. My faith doesn't require me to hermeneutically know with 100% certainty what the correct interpretation of every spot in the Bible is, so you'll have to explain to me why yours seems to. 

 

 

God is all about us knowing the truth, not merely believing the truth.   You should read the New Testament and take note of the things it says we can know for 100% certainty.   God's purpose is not served by us never really being completely sure.  Truth is knowable according to Jesus and He doesn't qualify that by saying that we can know the truth up to a point.  In fact we are responsible for knowing the truth. 

 

Your faith isn't rooted in the Bible, as you have made abundantly clear, yet it is the Bible that tells us that we can trust it, because it comes from a God who cannot lie or or be in error.   I can't trust what I can't depend on 100%.

 

Speaking from the other thread about people getting into the minds of others...

 

 

Nope, I am going off what you have already revealed about your lack of faith in the Bible's unreliability and the fact that this thread is ultimately about the Bible being wrong about Genesis 1 and your silly attempt to justify putting no faith in the Bible's recollection of history.  I am not getting into your mind. You have made it very clear what you believe and I am simply working from that.

 

Objective does not mean 100% reliable for the sole reason that hermeneutics was devoloped and is practiced by imperfect humans. There is no POSSIBLE way that a method developed and utilized by infallible humans can provide 100% certainty on ANYTHING. Period.

 

 

I didn't say that is what objective meant.  I am juxtaposing objective against your subjective and selective approach to the Bible.

 

 

You mean other than the part about the talking snake, flaming swords, and God's Creation testifying against its historicity? Even if you could say with 100% certainty that the author intended his audience to take Genesis literally, how do you demonstrate that we should?

 

Okay, I will make the point again. It is a historical narrative because that is the genre of the text.  Claiming it is historical is not the same as claming it is true.  You are confusing things here.  I am making two points that are independent of each other.  Hermeneutically, it is an historical narrative.  Whether or not it is a TRUE history is a separate argument.   Hermeneutics doesn't establish the truthfulness of the text.  Hermeneutics tells me what the author intends me to take from the story.  It is clear from the text that the author intends Genesis 1-11 to understood as an historical narrative.

 

Whether or not I choose to believe the author's recollection of history opens up a completely new area of discussion.  Once we establish what the author intends, we can then discuss the truth value of the author's claims.  In this particular case, sense Genesis 1-3 occurs within the context of a supernatural environment, the presence of cheurvim with flaming swords, the serpent that spoke to Eve, are not unreasonable events.  So it really comes down to a matter of faith in God's word and whether it is reasonable to believe that the events happened as they were described?

 

Let me ask you this:  Do you believe that Adam and Eve "fell" in that when Adam ate of fruit, mankind was separated from God?  Do you believe that event to have even happened at all?  

 

 

There are obvious universal truths that cross time, such as the Shema, but they're obvious because they are spiritual in nature and the Bible is primarily a spiritual book serving a spiritual purpose. It's not a science book, and scientific knowledge changes over time, so I see no reason to presume that any scientific claim in it, such as a flat, immobile, young earth, should not be seen only as a reflection of the beliefs of the time.

The Bible makes no scientific claims.  The Bible exists pre-science. It makes observational terms, just like we do that are not scientifically accurate, but we don't accuse people of having a wrong cosmology.  It is a bit hyprocritical to hold the Bible to level of scientific precision that we don't use ourselves.

 

 

 Only some parts of the Bible have historical evidence for them. Some parts being historically accurate does not make all parts historically accurate, nor do some parts being historically inaccurate make other parts historically inaccurate. For example, there is no evidence for the Jewish Exodus from Egypt, so you cannot claim that the narrative of the Exodus is historically accurate whether it actually happened or not. There is no evidence for the historiocity of the much of anything in the book of Genesis.

 

LOL, did you get that off of some atheist website or Infidels.org?   I honestly feel like I am debating an atheist.  And by the way, you are wrong, but I think sitting here and discussing  the evidence for the Exodus like Tel Armana stele and the Mernepta stele would be wasted on someone like that is on a campaign to pretty much discredit the Bible at every turn.

 

My "agenda" if it please you to use that word is accuracy: accuracy in reflecting the relative certainty of one's position, accuracy in representing others' positions, accuracy in representing what God's Creation reveals to us, and accuracy in all things.

 

You don't care about accuracy.  You care about promoting Evolution at the expense  of  the integrity of Scripture.

 

 

It is inaccurate to say there is 100% certainty in your position whether it is correct or not, for hermeneutics by its very design cannot provide 100% certainty.

 

My faith is not in hermeneutics and I never said that there was 100% certainty in my position, per se.  I am saying that my position is based on the 100% reliability of the Word of God because it comes from a God who cannot lie and who does't err.   I can trust every word He says.  That is where my certainty lies.

[HumbleThinker]

God is all about us knowing the truth, not merely believing the truth.   You should read the New Testament and take note of the things it says we can know for 100% certainty.   God's purpose is not served by us never really being completely sure.  Truth is knowable according to Jesus and He doesn't qualify that by saying that we can know the truth up to a point.  In fact we are responsible for knowing the truth. 

 

Your faith isn't rooted in the Bible, as you have made abundantly clear, yet it is the Bible that tells us that we can trust it, because it comes from a God who cannot lie or or be in error.   I can't trust what I can't depend on 100%.

Two points. First, you can be 100% confident in something without 100% certainty. I would hope you are 100% confident in how you view the Bible at least on some aspects. I know I am. I would also hope you are 100% confident in at least some decisions you make in life that you cannot possibly have 100% certainty on. Having absolute confidence in our decisions is how we are able to accept the consequences of them, learn from them, and persevere through any trouble that arises from our actions. Peter, for example, had 100% confidence that he could walk across the water to Christ and was doing it until he lost confidence. The certainty that a man could walk across the water was as low then as it is now and was not affected by his confidence or lack there of. The thing that changed was his confidence in the face of uncertainty. 100% confidence and the power of God allowed him to do the miraculous; doubt caused him to fail.

As for God leading us to the truth, he sure does. But He never said we would have 100% certainty through hermeneutics. I can tell you from experience that it isn't that easy. The problem with certainty is that we fallible beings are the ones who qualify something as 100% certain. And when we do so, we often do not doubt our ability to qualify something as 100% certain, so we fail to test what we receive, allowing us to be deceived. This is a huge reason for 1 John 4:1 that extols us to "test the spirits to see whether they are from God." All knowledge comes from God, but that doesn't negate the limitations of the methods we are using. Hermeneutics is no different in that respect than natural science; that it is aimed towards Scripture doesn't negate its limitations either.

 

I didn't say that is what objective meant.  I am juxtaposing objective against your subjective and selective approach to the Bible.

Your juxtaposition is inaccurate. You are overblowing a difference of perception into a structural difference in approach. We both utilize the same methods. The only thing different are a few of our assumptions (a few of them are the same) and our perception of the certainty given the methods. If my position is subjective, then so is yours. The only difference is that you have place absolute certainty in YOUR SINGULAR interpretation of Scripture while I place relatively high certainty in mine while still recognizing the possibility of other interpretations being correct but that are much less certain in comparison. Certainty does not make something subjective nor does arbitrarily limiting one's self to a singular possibility. Objective processes have methods for the user to correct himself, but inappropriately placing 100% certainty on one's conclusions fosters hubris that gets in the way of correction.

 

Okay, I will make the point again. It is a historical narrative because that is the genre of the text.

And that it one piece of evidence in favor of taking it as historical. But as I've shown, something written in the genre of historical narrative neither means with absolute certainty that it is intended to be taken as an historical narrative, nor does it demonstrate that another audience should. People used to believe in the historical narrative of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree and other tall tales, but that doesn't mean that we should, nor does it negate the underlying point of the story.

 

Claiming it is historical is not the same as claming it is true.  You are confusing things here.  I am making two points that are independent of each other.  Hermeneutically, it is an historical narrative.  Whether or not it is a TRUE history is a separate argument.   Hermeneutics doesn't establish the truthfulness of the text.  Hermeneutics tells me what the author intends me to take from the story.  It is clear from the text that the author intends Genesis 1-11 to understood as an historical narrative.

I agree with you in as far as Genesis is predominantly written in the style of an historical narrative but that it also contains poetic aspects as well. I also agree that something can be written in the historical narrative style without being true. I would also add, which you may or may not agree with, that it also does not necessarily mean it is intended to be taken as true and/or should be taken true by all audiences even if the author intended for the original audience to take it as true.

 

Whether or not I choose to believe the author's recollection of history opens up a completely new area of discussion.  Once we establish what the author intends, we can then discuss the truth value of the author's claims.  In this particular case, sense Genesis 1-3 occurs within the context of a supernatural environment, the presence of cheurvim with flaming swords, the serpent that spoke to Eve, are not unreasonable events.  So it really comes down to a matter of faith in God's word and whether it is reasonable to believe that the events happened as they were described?

I would also add to that final question, which I think is a good one, whether it is NECESSARY to believe that the events happened as they were described. I would venture to guess that you would see this question as a slippery slope. I do not, for the simple reason that I have not found it to affect my relationship with God in the slightest. In some cases, it has even gotten unnecessary mental conceptions out of the way between myself and God.

 

Let me ask you this:  Do you believe that Adam and Eve "fell" in that when Adam ate of fruit, mankind was separated from God?  Do you believe that event to have even happened at all?

  

 

 You're not going to like this answer, but for the agenda of accuracy, I can tell you that I believe that I don't know. I believe with 100% confidence that mankind is fallen in the sense of being separated from God in a way that requires God's grace to reconcile. That is at least the spiritual truth to be grasped from the Genesis account and explicit theological statements in the Bible (ie. men needing to be called first, being saved "by grace through faith," etc.) But I see no reason to necessarily believe or disbelieve in the existence of an Adam and Eve. What is clear from our very blood that contains our life is that the entire human race could not possibly have been descended from two people ~6000 years ago. Genetics would have to have worked completely differently back then, and it's times like these that some bring in miracles of God to explain a discrepancy. Not saying you have or are going to do this, but if you are, I'm just going to point out that there is no justification for it in Scripture, that it is solely to save your own interpretation, and then I'll tune that part of the discussion out.

 

 

The Bible makes no scientific claims.  The Bible exists pre-science. It makes observational terms, just like we do that are not scientifically accurate, but we don't accuse people of having a wrong cosmology.  It is a bit hyprocritical to hold the Bible to level of scientific precision that we don't use ourselves.

I'm glad we agree on that. I know some people try to make the Bible make specific scientific claims, and then deride science for not agreeing with them, so I figured I'd get that out there in the open. But if you don't mind me taking it one step further, do you believe that the Bible, for lack of better phrasing, implies certain scientific positions such as the age of the earth, it's place in the solar system/universe, etc.? My point in asking is that given the all encompassing nature of science solely within the natural realm, anything that happens in the Bible that is not 100% miraculous and that happens in the natural universe is going to leave an effect that it occurred in the natural universe. We have never observed a natural phenomenon that did not leave at least a millisecond of evidence for its occurring, so we can be 100 confident and infinitely close to 100% certain that events in the Bible, particularly major events, would leave certain evidences that may or may nor be currently observed or may or may not be contradicted by our current observations.

 

LOL, did you get that off of some atheist website or Infidels.org?   I honestly feel like I am debating an atheist.  And by the way, you are wrong, but I think sitting here and discussing  the evidence for the Exodus like Tel Armana stele and the Mernepta stele would be wasted on someone like that is on a campaign to pretty much discredit the Bible at every turn.

See, you can be 100% confident in something that is not 100% certain (given that you are using inductive reasoning to make your conclusions) and that is flatly wrong. Thank you for demonstrating my point. What I am, again, is a Christian who wishes to be accurate just like the many MANY Christians who searched for evidence of the Exodus and came up with nothing or came up with something that they later realized did not support their position. The twists of evidence and reason I have seen made to make the Exodus seem even remotely plausible, such as aligning the Exodus with the Hyksos exodus, echo the attempts people have made for centuries to reconcile the census in Luke with both Matthew and what we know of history. So you will forgive me if I am equally skeptical.

That being said, by all means bring up Tel Armana stele and Mernepta stele. In the discussions I have had with others about the historicity of Exodus, none have brought up the former, and only one brought up the later in passing but never went anywhere with it. Though we may want to move it to another thread as our posts (mostly mine) are starting to bloat.

 

You don't care about accuracy.  You care about promoting Evolution at the expense  of  the integrity of Scripture.

And you care about promoting your interpretation over accuracy. Now, did that make you feel better to get that out of your system? And did my empty words accomplish about as much as yours?

 

My faith is not in hermeneutics and I never said that there was 100% certainty in my position, per se.  I am saying that my position is based on the 100% reliability of the Word of God because it comes from a God who cannot lie and who does't err.   I can trust every word He says.  That is where my certainty lies.

And this is your own musings. The Bible does not say that the Bible is 100% accurate, only that it serves its purpose, which it certainly does. You may need to Bible to be 100% reliable in all possible matters for your faith and to make God neither a liar or error, but don't presume that others do. That, again, is not found in the Bible. To do otherwise would be to presume the 100% certainty of your position, which will blind you to any contrary information or position, making it look like an attack either on you, the Bible, or God. My confidence 100% lies in God. I personally find no need for 100% certainty. If you do, fine. I won't try to change the way you live out your faith, and I would appreciate it if you did not try to change mine because to me your position makes God out to be a liar through His Creation completely unnecessarily.

What I will try to change or at least point out is anything you inaccurately represent because it will only serve to hurt your faith and get in the way of anything you try to do that requires you to use this inaccurate representation. It will also help me become more accurate by discussing with you. So I will point out things that by definition cannot provide 100% certainty when you present them as such. Your claims about my position being subjective and that there is only one interpretation, from my perspective, has been telling me for the last few posts that you believe that hermeneutics can lead to a 100% certain conclusion about the understanding of Scripture. But you've twice in this post shifted to talking about God in connection with truth. So do you agree that hermeneutics cannot provide 100% certain results for what "the interpretation" of Scripture is?

Edited December 8, 2013 by HumbleThinker

[Guest shiloh357]

Two points. First, you can be 100% confident in something without 100% certainty.

 

When it comes to the truth of God's word, I have 100% certainty and 100% confidence because the Bible comes from a God who cannot lie and doesn't make errors.  So I have 100% certainty and 100% confidence in what He says.  I can rest on what the Bible says with full assurance of faith and no doubts or reservations. 

 

You're not going to like this answer, but for the agenda of accuracy, I can tell you that I believe that I don't know. I believe with 100% confidence that mankind is fallen in the sense of being separated from God in a way that requires God's grace to reconcile.

 

The bottom line is that you really can't bring yourself to believe what the Bible says, so you will simply sit on the fence and neither believe or disbelieve. 

 

 

As for God leading us to the truth, he sure does. But He never said we would have 100% certainty through hermeneutics.

 

Once again, I never said that hermeneutics bring certainty.  You clearly  don'tunderstand much about hermeneutics as your posts continually indicate.  Hermeneutics are not for the purpose of determining the truthfulness of the passage.  Hermeneutics only lead us to understanding the kind of text and the intent of the author, not the truthfulnes sof the author. 

 

The Bible does not say that the Bible is 100% accurate, only that it serves its purpose, which it certainly does.

 

The Bible is 100% accurate and reliable wherein it relates history and doctrine (descriptive and prescriptive scripture).  That does not rule out minor scribal errors, but the point behind inerrancy is that if the Bible says it happened, it happened. 

 

Inerrancy is rooted in the doctrine of inspiration and the character, nature of God.  The Bible is God's book.  He is the author, ulimately.  So He is responsible for everything the book contains, because the Bible says in II Tim. 3:16 that all Scripture is God breathed and in Paul's day that referred to the entire Old Testametn including Genesis 1. 

 

In addition, the Bible says that God cannot lie.  God doesn't goof or make errors with facts, so what the Bible says, coming from God must be 100% factual and true because cannot produce errors.    So when modern science and God disagree, science the product of fallible little men takes a backseat to the word of an all-knowing God who doesn't lie and can't be wrong.

 

You can blather on and on about how i can't possibly know the Bible is 100% true and correct, but the difference between you and me is that I have a real relationship with my Creator, and I know Him far better than you do and I know Him well enough that I can be 100% certain in everything He says.   You dont have that kind of assurance.  Your faith, ultimately, is in science not in God.

 

My confidence and certainty doesn't rely on hermeneutics, but in the inspired, inerrant and immutable Word of God.

[HumbleThinker]

When it comes to the truth of God's word, I have 100% certainty and 100% confidence because the Bible comes from a God who cannot lie and doesn't make errors.  So I have 100% certainty and 100% confidence in what He says.  I can rest on what the Bible says with full assurance of faith and no doubts or reservations.

And if that works for you, keep on doing it, though it's not something to boast about, which from my perspective is what you are doing and is what is leading you to compare our two styles of faith that are focused on the same point. Trying to compare them misses the point entirely and pretends that either of us has room to boast about our faith as if it or our salvation can be attributed to us.

 

The bottom line is that you really can't bring yourself to believe what the Bible says, so you will simply sit on the fence and neither believe or disbelieve.

I cannot bring myself to believe your interpretation of the Bible. This is what I was talking about when I said your words give the perception that you think hermeneutics gives a 100% certain interpretation. I can not imagine that one could possibly continually make the mistake of conflating their interpretation with the Bible itself if they thought otherwise. I also cannot image that one could not accept the nuances of another's position unless he thought that way. Only seeing someone else's position through your own bias lens is not a way to accurately understand or represent their position.

 

The Bible is 100% accurate and reliable wherein it relates history and doctrine (descriptive and prescriptive scripture).  That does not rule out minor scribal errors, but the point behind inerrancy is that if the Bible says it happened, it happened.

Where does the Bible say that?

 

Inerrancy is rooted in the doctrine of inspiration and the character, nature of God.  The Bible is God's book.  He is the author, ulimately.  So He is responsible for everything the book contains, because the Bible says in II Tim. 3:16 that all Scripture is God breathed and in Paul's day that referred to the entire Old Testametn including Genesis 1.

Certain forms of inerrancy are. Others aren't. I'd venture to say that most aren't. All the Bible has to do is accomplish its purpose, which is solely spiritual. And we are assured that it does this because the authors' were inspired by God, which the Bible explicitly states. Now we're Christians, so of course we ignore the circular reasoning of that argument, but that is neither here or there. The point is that all else is the musings of man who want to claim that this or that are logically required for the Bible to retain its status as "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." Nowhere in the Bible does it say it needs to be historically or scientifically accurate to be this. My relationship with God has not been mired one bit by understanding the high probability of the Bible having multiple inaccuracies if one insists on interpreting it as needing to be understood as giving a true history in all its sections.

 

In addition, the Bible says that God cannot lie.

Indeed it does. This includes not lying through his Creation. 

 

God doesn't goof or make errors with facts, so what the Bible says, coming from God must be 100% factual and true because cannot produce errors.    So when modern science and God disagree, science the product of fallible little men takes a backseat to the word of an all-knowing God who doesn't lie and can't be wrong.

And another spot where I can see no other interpretation of your words than that you take hermeneutics to give 100% certain results. Just as science is don't by "fallible little men," hermenutics, the manner of interpreting the Bible, is done by "fallible little men." To make hermeneutics or your interpretation into God or the Bible, which is what you are doing when you equate disagreeing with your interpretation as disagreeing with God or the Bible, is wrong. It is also the same fallacy that AiG uses that implies, whether intentionally or unintentionally, that Christians or certain groups of Christians are magically infallible when interpreting Scripture.

 

You can blather on and on about how i can't possibly know the Bible is 100% true and correct, but the difference between you and me is that I have a real relationship with my Creator, and I know Him far better than you do and I know Him well enough that I can be 100% certain in everything He says.   You dont have that kind of assurance.  Your faith, ultimately, is in science not in God.

And again we are talking past each other. The Bible is true in as far as that it is never false when making a truth claim. It is certain people's interpretations of the Bible that make it make truth claims that it is not explicitly making, and these are almost exclusively scientific/historical in nature despite the fact that the Bible is a spiritual book. So if the bible is only intended to be taken by me as a reflection of the scientific or historic beliefs of a certain people at a certain time, then it's 100% faithfully portraying it. But if it is construed to intend for me to think that the Earth is 6000 years old or that the Exodus actually happened, then it is false on those points.

You statement that my faith is in science is just as inaccurate as if I said your faith was in hermeneutics. God's Creation has precedence in matters of the natural world because that is what it is designed to reveal to us. All knowledge comes from God, therefore we cannot know anything that God has not granted to us. But JUST LIKE HERMENEUTICS, God does not always poof knowledge into our brains but has ordained methods by which we can arrive at knowledge that still has Him as its source. Just like Paul planted the seed, Apollos watered it, and God caused it to grow, humans do the science and hermeneutics, and God causes knowledge to spring forth.

As Thomas Aquinas stated: "In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." If one of the greatest Christian theologians of all time can see this, it's good enough for me.

Edited December 9, 2013 by HumbleThinker

[HumbleThinker]

Since the people who God breathed His words through, whose minds were opened to the scriptures by Jesus Christ, understood conclusion “A” absolutely soundly (the original intrerpretation)…they all (Paul, Peter, John, etc.) taught it to those they themselves trained and appointed to places of leadership, and they also taught the same conclusion they had been taught (Conclusion A)….people like Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, and even Mark when he was sent to Alexandria all knew conclusion A because there was no other alternative conclusion. They all held all these conclusions (the same doctrine) in common no matter what Apostle trained them (this is a loud witness to the truth).

The same universally accepted conclusion A continued for generation after generation of leadership for 100s of years. Conclusion B, c, and so on, came after many centuries. Though A preceded B…now today we host the entire alphabet of conclusions...embrace the doctrinal understanding the Apostles taught that the scriptures mean.

 

Now I believe the Bible to be THE word of God and the truth upon which all our doctrines are to be based, just as the early church fathers did (shall I supply many quotes). I find their witness 100% more reliable as to how to interpret and as to what these things mean as theirs was the interpretation given them from the Apostles themselves, or from those who the Apostles themselves taught and appointed.

 

As for faulty translations that is a lark. They read the originals and direct copies of the originals in their own native tongue. This reality can hardly be compared to the hodge-podge of differing versions we now must bear. What I found fascinating is that many passages the bibles based on the so-called critical text exclude or play down are actually quoted by some of the fathers hundreds of years before these heavily edited discarded texts were found.

 

As for relying on scriptures, as I set out some time ago to capture the quotations used by the fathers I found NO doctrine or belief they espoused for 200 years (and more) not founded therein. For example, in Iranaeus Against Heresies, for this purpose only just having finished book four , I have over 12 pages of NT quotations from Mat, Mk, Lk, John, Acts, Rom, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Gal, Philip, Col, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, James, and Rev, and I haven’t even cracked book 5…and the OT quotes are just as many…so please accept no more lies about how they allegedly did not follow, know, or rely on the scriptures for their doctrinal understandings and positions …they simply disagree with some of the more modern splinter groups and denominations on some things, but I think they got it right and we just refuse to accept what the Apostles taught them the scriptures mean.

 

Just my $,02

In His love

Paul

I agree with you that "the interpretation" that we look for when interpreting the Bible is the author's intent, who, because they were inspired, we can be sure was also God's intent. And because God's intentions are spiritual, Jesus came to make fishers of men after all, we know that the Bible is a spiritual book and that the author's intents were spiritual. Now those who directly talked with or even were taught by the author's of the books of the Bible almost assuredly can be said to have been given their intent, though I'm not confident enough to say that they gave the intent of all possible verses in their writings but I guess it is certainly possible.

My only nuance on that would be that there are secondary intents applied to the original audience that we cannot be sure is the same intent God had in mind for us. It's purely my way of poorly articulating what I see in Scripture and how I think reconciles the conflicts between the literal interpretation of some parts of Scripture and reality, not something that is explicitly derived from Scripture. So instead of rambling, I'll just give you an example of what I mean from John Calvin's commentary on Genesis 1:16: "Nor did Moses truly wish to withdraw us from this pursuit in omitting such things as are peculiar to the art [of astronomy]; but because he was ordained a teacher as well of the unlearned and rude as of the learned, he could not otherwise fulfill his office than by descending to this grosser method of instruction. (emphasis mine)”

The Early Church Fathers were certainly amazing, and there is so much more of their stuff that I would love to read, but of course you know they were hardly monolithic on much of any point besides the absolute core beliefs. One of the biggest points they were monolithic on, as you said, was the absolute importance of Scripture. But even they interpreted Scripture. Their writings do not simply consist of "And John said thusly..." or "Luke taught that X verse means Y." Their writings consist of them appealing to Scripture and reason to draw out meaning. Additionally, they also saw the natural world as a revelation of God and His works, so they did not solely rely on the Bible and their learning about authorial intent from the actual authors.

Irenaeus said, ‘He is to Us in This Life Invisible and Incomprehensible, Nevertheless He is Not Unknown; Inasmuch as His Works Do Declare Him.’

Tertullian, a personal favorite of mine even though he was a total jerk: ‘He, as I suppose, who from the beginning of all things has given to man, as primary witnesses for the knowledge of Himself, nature in her (manifold) works’,

There is a long line of great Christian theologians who recognized that God's Creation is another revelation. And if we accept this and we accept that God is not a liar, then these revelations will not conflict when properly understood. The question is, when we perceive that they do (ie. on the matter of the age of the Earth), what yields? The first is obviously us since we are the most fallible kinks in the chain so to speak. But after that, how would you reconcile a perceived conflict between God's Creation and God's Scripture? Both are interpreted by fallible humans with no guarantee of infallibility when interpreting either, so how would you decide?

[Guest shiloh357]

And if that works for you, keep on doing it, though it's not something to boast about, which from my perspective is what you are doing and is what is leading you to compare our two styles of faith that are focused on the same point. Trying to compare them misses the point entirely and pretends that either of us has room to boast about our faith as if it or our salvation can be attributed to us.

 

 

I am not boasting in my confidence or certainty.  I  am saying that my faith rests on a God who doesn't lie and who doesn't make mistakes and so I can have 100% certainty that every historical event recorded in the Bible is true and correct.   Thus I am not comparing two styles of faith.  I am comparing my complete faith in God's ability to trasnmit His word and your complete and utter lack of faith in God's ability to correctly transmit His Word to us.  You don't have a "style" of faith, because faith doesn't exist in styles or varieties.  You either have faith or you don't.  In our situation here, I have faith and you don't.  Nothing you have said up to this point would convince me that you are even a genuine follower of Jesus.  You may be religionist to some extent, but so far, as I have said before, you have presented the atheist camp's arguments like a seasoned professional. 

 

I cannot bring myself to believe your interpretation of the Bible

 

 

It isn't "my" interpretation of the Bible.   Furthermore, what is really at stake here is that you can't bring yourself to believe the biblical account as written.  The Bible says that Adam and Eve ate of a fruit that God had forbidden them, and they did so as a result of Eve being tempted and decieved by satan who took the form of a serpent in the Garden of Eden.  As a result of that sin, they were banned from the Garden so that they would not eat from the tree of life.  The way to that tree was guarded by cherubim with flaming swords.  

 

That is not an interpretation, that is the historical account that is what you dont believe.   That isn't really something that can be "interpreted."   Historical accounts are simply statements of what happened.  They are not teachings requriing insight or 'interpretation.'   Hermeneutics simply tells me what kind of literature I am reading and what the author is saying.   Hermeneutics doesn't speak to the truthfulness of what is presented.   In this case, you don't accept that this story has any real truth value, that it is nota true historical account.

 

 

This is what I was talking about when I said your words give the perception that you think hermeneutics gives a 100% certain interpretation.

 

You are confusing interpretating a text with determining the truth value of the text.   Hermeneutics tells me with 100% certainty that Genesis 1 is an historical narrative.  The chapter reads like a sequence of events just like any other historical narrative.   Hermeneutics does NOT give me 100% certainty that the story is TRUE.   The truth value I assign to the story is rooted in my faith in an all-knowing God.

 

 

The Bible is 100% accurate and reliable wherein it relates history and doctrine (descriptive and prescriptive scripture).  That does not rule out minor scribal errors, but the point behind inerrancy is that if the Bible says it happened, it happened.

Where does the Bible say that?

 

 

The Bible makes its claim of reliability on the faithfulness of God and His character.  The Bible claims to be wholly inspired by a God who is all-knowing and sinless and doesn't lie and is incapable of error.   The promises the Bible makes can be fully trusted because the God who made those promises doesn't go back on His promises.  He is unchanging, meaning that His word is just as good today as it was 3,000 years ago.  

 

 

 

 

Certain forms of inerrancy are. Others aren't. I'd venture to say that most aren't.

There are no “forms” of inerrancy.  Inerrancy comes in only one form.  You obviously don’t understand theology very well.

 

 

 

All the Bible has to do is accomplish its purpose, which is solely spiritual.

 

The purposes God has for His word are “spiritual” but that doesn’t mean they don’t impact our world and it doesn’t mean that we can divorce that purpose from what the Bible says happened in history.  The Bible’s spiritual claims are rooted in its historical claims.

 

 

 

Nowhere in the Bible does it say it needs to be historically or scientifically accurate to be this.

 

Actually the need for the Bible to be 100% error free in terms of its statements of factuality at all points is part of the doctrine of inspiration.  You really can’t claim the Bible is inspired on the one hand but then selectively limit that to the parts of the Bible you want.  You can’t claim that the Bible is inerrant in this part but the conveniently claim that it doesn’t extend to say, Genesis 1.

 

Usually, I have found that most people selectively apply the doctrine of inerrancy only to the parts of the Bible they are comfortable with accepting.   Somehow God always happens to be wrong or the Bible is wrong only in the parts of Bible that folks don’t want to believe.

 

 

 

Indeed it does. This includes not lying through his Creation. 

And He doesn’t lie through or about His creation.  He said He made it six days.  You say it isn’t true.  You are accusing God of being a liar.

 

Continued on next post

[Guest shiloh357]

And another spot where I can see no other interpretation of your words than that you take hermeneutics to give 100% certain results.

Yep.  The process of exegesis would be pointless if the end result is that still can’t tell what the genre is of the text in question.  If it leaves me in the dark, then the process of literary analysis is futile. 

 

 

 

Just as science is don't by "fallible little men," hermenutics, the manner of interpreting the Bible, is done by "fallible little men."

 

The difference is that in science, you are testing for the truth value of an hypothesis.  In literary analysis we are not testing for a truth value, but simply determining what kind of text we are doing.  You really cannot compare the two, as they are completely dissimilar. 

 

And to correct you on another point…  Exegiess is the manner of interpreting the Bible.  Hermeneutics are the rules of literary analysis. We don’t “do” hermeneutics.  We “do” exegesis.   You really don’t have a clue about what you are talking about and really don’t belong in this debate until you do.

 

 

 

But if it is construed to intend for me to think that the Earth is 6000 years old or that the Exodus actually happened, then it is false on those points.

 

The Bible doesn’t give us an age, but it is certainly not 4.5 billion years old.  The Bible claims by inspiration of God that He made it six regular days.   If you disbelieve that claim,  then you are calling God a liar.   If God can’t get it straight, in Genesis 1, why should anyone trust anything else He has to say down the line.  If the first three chapters of Genesis are false then there is no reason to put faith in anything else God has to say, is there? 

 

There really is no place for you to sit on the fence here.  Either you believe the Bible or yoy don’t.  It is not a smorgasboard from which you can pick and choose according to your taste.  God is either 100% true and correct in every word, or He is not worthy of anyone’s faith.

 

[HumbleThinker]

This is a good point Humble. I usually only go to them as a first authoritative witness, especially where we in modern times may hotly differ. Like in the debate over the pre-, mid, post trib, amill, positions. There are good arguments on all sides and most supporters use scripture. So I asked..."What did those taught by the Apostles teach?" I was very surprised, compared this to scriptures, and in the end of it all I changed my view. It turned out their view (and there were a couple of potential dissenters after a couple of hundred years) was totally supported by the scriptures and seemed to be agreed with universally (which indicated all their teachers taught them the same view). The scriptures actually answered the "when" and "who" questions differently, and I had previously been persuaded of a different view. They were dealing with what the scriptures say and I had been taught what they allegedly mean. So thanks...

 

Personal interpretation of scripture (which Peter warns against) depends however on one's hermeneutic principles. My first four are:

 

Pray, trusting the Holy Spirit when you study not our teachers perspectives (tough one for many)

 

"rightly dividing", which we all try our best at, includes, understanding metaphor, simile, a law versus and ordinance or general principle and so on (maybe the actual meaning of the terminology in the Hebrew or Greek)

 

another is not to add to or take away from (which is commanded in a number of places) 

 

And finally I try and explore all the word of God on a subject matter or point (because a text out of context can become a pretext...many false doctrines and even denominations have risen from hanging one's hat on one or only a few scriptures)

 

Are these some of your hermeneutic principles?

 

Thanks

 

Paul

 

Even with these tools we have some differences...

Very good principles indeed. My principles are similar, though some focus on different aspects that yours. The more glaring examples of this include:

1)all our understandings must be held provisional, for hermenutics as an inductive process that, like all other inductive processes, is based on analyzing phenomena (in this case instances of words, phrases, etc. translated and in their native language both inside and outside the Bible) and then applying what we learn from these phenomena to Scripture. Nothing in this process can be known for certain, only with varying degrees of certainty. We should have confidence in our interpretations, particularly those we have a high certainty in, but we should remain accurate in our understanding that nothing coming from our works is 100% certain.

2) None of God's works, all of which reveal some aspect of Him and/or His works, will conflict when all are rightly understood. This simply derives from the Biblical principle that God is neither a liar or deceptive and is unchanging. The two most important are obviously Scripture and Creation. And despite all knowledge coming from God, since all that we know of both, save for direct revelation by God, is from fallible processes like science and hermeneutics, conflicts between the two reflect our own fallibitlies, not the fallibitlies of either work of God.

3) The Bible is a spiritual text that requires nothing of us that is not related to the spiritual purpose of God to save our soul's out of love for us so that we would not perish but have everlasting life. Everything else is superfulous. Every "inaccuracy" is simply a reflection of the beliefs of that time and/or beliefs that the people of the time required to best further God's purpose. These aspects either further and assist God's spiritual purpose, or they are irrelevant to it.

4) Language is fluid but physical phenomenon is more concrete. This is probably the most controversial and is perfectly summed up in Galileo's words but is echoed in some of the early church father's words as well. Since it will be better put by him, I'll simply repost it: "It is necessary for the Bible, in order to be accommodated to the understanding of every man, to speak many things which appear to differ from the absolute truth so far as the bare meaning of the words is concerned. But Nature, on the other hand, is inexorable and immutable; she never transgresses the laws imposed upon her, or cares a whit whether her abstruse reasons and methods of operation are understandable to men. For that reason it appears that nothing physical which sense-experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages which may have some different meaning beneath their words." Therefore, Creation takes priority in matters of science and history, all phenomenon in the natural world, which is not the Bible's primary purpose in the first place so in no way affects it.

Edited December 10, 2013 by HumbleThinker

[Guest shiloh357]

Personal interpretation of scripture (which Peter warns against) depends however on one's hermeneutic principles. My first four are:

 

Peter didn't warn against personal interpretation of Scripture.   Peter said that the Scriptures were not of private interpretation, and in the Greek this reads that the Scriptures do not originate in the private opionions or "intepretations" of the human authors.  Peter, in context is saying that the men who wrote the Scriptures were not writing out of their own imagination, intellect or impulse but that they were moved upon the Holy Spirit and wrote what the Holy Spirit moved upon them to write.

[HumbleThinker]

I am not boasting in my confidence or certainty.  I  am saying that my faith rests on a God who doesn't lie and who doesn't make mistakes and so I can have 100% certainty that every historical event recorded in the Bible is true and correct.   Thus I am not comparing two styles of faith.  I am comparing my complete faith in God's ability to trasnmit His word and your complete and utter lack of faith in God's ability to correctly transmit His Word to us.  You don't have a "style" of faith, because faith doesn't exist in styles or varieties.  You either have faith or you don't.  In our situation here, I have faith and you don't.  Nothing you have said up to this point would convince me that you are even a genuine follower of Jesus.  You may be religionist to some extent, but so far, as I have said before, you have presented the atheist camp's arguments like a seasoned professional.

Placing my certainty in something that is demonstrably false by God's own Creation is impossible for me as it would violate my faith. Therefore it is much simpler to not require 100% certainty. It's necessity would only be a fabric of my imagination, an extra trick that God in no way demands of me and that in no way enhances my faith. And it's worked fine for me so far and God hasn't told me to cut it out, so again, if it works for you great, but it doesn't work for me.

Don't ask me to commit in something I would consider a sin for myself.

It isn't "my" interpretation of the Bible.   Furthermore, what is really at stake here is that you can't bring yourself to believe the biblical account as written.  The Bible says that Adam and Eve ate of a fruit that God had forbidden them, and they did so as a result of Eve being tempted and decieved by satan who took the form of a serpent in the Garden of Eden.  As a result of that sin, they were banned from the Garden so that they would not eat from the tree of life.  The way to that tree was guarded by cherubim with flaming swords.

 

That is not an interpretation, that is the historical account that is what you dont believe.   That isn't really something that can be "interpreted."   Historical accounts are simply statements of what happened.  They are not teachings requriing insight or 'interpretation.'   Hermeneutics simply tells me what kind of literature I am reading and what the author is saying.   Hermeneutics doesn't speak to the truthfulness of what is presented.   In this case, you don't accept that this story has any real truth value, that it is nota true historical account.

If God didn't grant it to you from on high, then yes it is your interpretation. And even if He did, you cannot demonstrate that to anyone else, only God can, so claiming personal revelation for an interpretation is useless in a conversation. From my experience, such claims have always served as excuses for hubris on the part of the claimant, so I'm glad to see you haven't committed this yet.

 

You are confusing interpretating a text with determining the truth value of the text.   Hermeneutics tells me with 100% certainty that Genesis 1 is an historical narrative.  The chapter reads like a sequence of events just like any other historical narrative.   Hermeneutics does NOT give me 100% certainty that the story is TRUE.   The truth value I assign to the story is rooted in my faith in an all-knowing God.

There is the "truth of the text" and the truth of an interpretation of the text. It is perfectly summed up the difference: "In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." Note the difference between Scripture and an explanation of it. This is exactly my position.

There are no “forms” of inerrancy.  Inerrancy comes in only one form.  You obviously don’t understand theology very well.

That's demonstrably false. There is inerrancy in the since that the author's were inspired and so did not err in matter's relating to theology. And then there is inerrancy that every minute word in the original manuscripts is absolutely perfect as God intended. This is just to name two.

 

 

The purposes God has for His word are “spiritual” but that doesn’t mean they don’t impact our world and it doesn’t mean that we can divorce that purpose from what the Bible says happened in history.  The Bible’s spiritual claims are rooted in its historical claims.

We do not need to divorce anything, but simply find it unnecessary to it's spiritual purpose. Therefore there is no need to hold tightly to views on things which are unnecessary and that may serve to blind us to further revelation or facts in God's Creation.

 

 

Actually the need for the Bible to be 100% error free in terms of its statements of factuality at all points is part of the doctrine of inspiration.  You really can’t claim the Bible is inspired on the one hand but then selectively limit that to the parts of the Bible you want.  You can’t claim that the Bible is inerrant in this part but the conveniently claim that it doesn’t extend to say, Genesis 1.

 

Usually, I have found that most people selectively apply the doctrine of inerrancy only to the parts of the Bible they are comfortable with accepting.   Somehow God always happens to be wrong or the Bible is wrong only in the parts of Bible that folks don’t want to believe.

And the human conception of that doctrine is nowhere found in the Bible. The "doctrine of inspiration" found in the Bible does not say what you are making it say.

 

And He doesn’t lie through or about His creation.  He said He made it six days.  You say it isn’t true.  You are accusing God of being a liar.

Continued on next post

His Creation says otherwise. His Creation says that the things told to have happened over 6 days happened over many millions of years.