Featured What Does "Inspired" Mean, Relative to the Bible?

I'm a bit softer in tone, a bit slower at posting,
... and a bit less nimble of mind than the Preacher, but I'll interact with you on this issue John.
... don't need to be pigeoned as a "liberal", just call me still searching

The concept of inerrancy as it's traditionally taught still troubles me.
As much as I like the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, it doesn't fully satisfy me anymore.

Perhaps my unease with it is because my educational background is primarily scientific with any theological training subordinate to it.

Perhaps it's because I'm unsatisfied with the traditional flimsy explanations.

We can appreciate subtle grammar distinctions in the different books of scripture and see that God communicated through the authors different literary styles.

But we also observe how the authors arguments were sometimes swayed by nonscientific thought... dare we call it superstition or ancient beliefs, .. and God even communicated his message through these.

Rob

 

Wow! And you thought I was offensive. Never mind about me, I really don't care what you think of me. But hey, you are here insulting some of the greatest evangelical scholars and leaders of the 20th century, men who shaped modern evangelicalism: Francis Schaeffer and Harold Ockenga who I quoted, Lindsell, Machen, Warfield and many, many others. And you think these men were legalists and self-righteous, thinking they were better than others? Not to mention the many wonderful Christians right here on the BB who believe as these men did.

How judgmental!! You think you are better and more enlightened than them, I suppose, because according to you there are errors in the Bible. Unreal.

 

I haven't even called Archie a liberal yet, just quoted a couple of scholars on it. But don't sell yourself short. You've shown on the BB far more knowledge of Bibliology than he has. He's still saying there are spelling errors in the original, as if they had dictionaries and spelling bees in Bible times.

Surely you know this is backwards. We don't judge the Bible by science, which is ever changing. Just think how different physics is now from when I took it in high school.

It reminds me of the student who came from hearing a guest lecturer on physics saying, "Wow, that was great. I found out that everything I've just learned in class is wrong!" :tongue3:

My argument is very simple. Does God have bad breath? In other words, if God breathed out the Scriptures (metaphorically, of course), why in the world would they not be inerrant?

Sorry, I can't picture what you mean here. Can you give an example?

 

Nothing profound, I've read enough old English translations recently to know that what we precieve as a spelling err was probably just another way of spelling the word - grammar and spelling were not standardized but reflected how a word was spoken or pronounced.

I like that picture!
In the Genesis creation story we see God creating the universe and calling it, "good… very good".
Interpreters have taken that phrase and imagined perfection – picture a warm, summer day, the grass is always green and never needs mowing, a place where the sun never stops shining.
The biologist in me envisions a more diverse, wild and grand creation – and the theologian in me agrees: our God can't be held to so clean a definition of "good"; to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, our God isn't tame.
I have similar thoughts about our concept of biblical inerrancy.
I accept God's word as authoritative, not because I can demonstrate that it is without error but because it carries his authority.
Scripture is exactly as God wanted it, with all the bumps; prejudices, biases, ancient tales of war, death, and murders, perceived errors …any ideas an author expressed; they were written with God's full oversight and for his purposes.
It is inerrant because of its source, not because I can understand it, explain it, or reason it out.

As a result, I don't have to know or explain everything.
I can wonder and pursue other explainations for a scriptural difficulty that may be out-of-bounds for those structured in a ridged theological framework.

My God doesn’t have bad breath.

Rob

 

was Archie trained/schooled at Fuler? As his replies line up exactly with their answers regarding inspiration, as basically the bible fully inspired in NT regarding jesus and Gospel, the 'spiritual facts", yet were also know errors/mistakes in dating/historical facts/dates etc, especially in OT books?

they would see the bible fully inerrant in area of getting to us the revelation of jesus and the cross, the rest of it, not so much?

 

Arthur doesn't say where he was trained (assuming he was), but Fuller is pretty much as you've painted it. That's if it hasn't changed since Harold Lindsell wrote Battle for the Bible and The Bible in the Balance. To be fair, other seminaries such as Southeastern have come back to an inerrancy position.

 

This is correct. Another factor is regional differences, like "Saviour" in England and "Savior" in America. The Greek word for "immediately" occurs usually as eutheos in the Byzantine tradition and euthus in the Alexandrian mss, showing a regional preference. (There are exceptions on both sides.) Neither is right or wrong, just different.

Well said! The doctrine of inspiration should be squarely based on theology proper, the doctrine of God. And Aslan is not tame!

 

In the first place, I never said I disagreed with you on everything. In the second place, theopneustos demands inspiration based on theology proper, and from the start I've believed that and never said anything different. (Look at my post #2 in this thread, which you said in post #7 had no content.) In the third place, one of my early posts to you was that you were mixing up the doctrines of revelation (truth from God) and inspiration--a point you pretty much ignored, then said I didn't know what I was talking about. But that was an attempt to interact with you.

P. S. I can't apologize for misrepresenting you unless you tell me how I did that. Tell me in a PM or right here, either way. You said I would be intellectually dishonest if I didn't, but I honestly don't know how I misrepresented you. Call me dense if you like.

 

No problem Archie, through the grand filter of the internet it may seem like fresh air – but my wife tells me I'm passing gas.

So...is the Bible is only "inspired in matters of faith and practice"?

Rob

 

And that is what is wrong with Christianity today. The word of God gets interpreted by manmade science.

 

And yet Rev, science and rational thought appear in every logical way to be a gift granted by God.

 

Aside from things in the Word pertaining to Creation what possible meaning do you have that it gets interpreted by manmade science?

 

Do yuo hold that then originals had no errors/mistakes regrading any thing that was addressed?

that all the names were correct, that all dates were correct, that there were NO mistakes in facts recorded down?

 

many seem to assume that things were just written to culture back then, that somehow we have become more 'enlighted", as per lifestyles/abortion etc!

 

yes, but how can it be logocal and scientific to create theories like Global warming, billions of years old, evolutionary processes, when NONE of them can be verified and proven?