Which Old testament events are historically accurate?

Robert, being realistic about the nature of Scripture does not make it any less valuable or insightful. The Bible is the human record of God's revelation. It is not a monolithic tome handed down verbatim by God.

As a collection of writings, the various parts of the Bible serve different purposes. The Pentateuch teaches us the early history of God's relationship with humanity, and also passes down some of the "campfire stories" that our spiritual ancestors thought were essential and defining. The Wisdom literature in the Hebrew Bible is just that - the collected wisdom teachings of God's faithful people from early history. The prophets offer insight into God's holy vision for a fallen humanity. The gospels provide us with a collection of the theachings of Christ, as well as biographical information on Him. The epistles show which writings the early Church considered authoritative for living in Christian community.

One does not have to consider these writings inerrant or of divine authorship (or even, technically, inspired) to learn about the human condition, God's love for us, Jesus' teachings-life-sacrifice-resurrection, and the life in the early church.

Joshua

 

The Bible contains exactly what God wants us to know. If not then where else can we go to find out about God? [*]

 

David and Josh, if the Bible isn't inerrant, it is worthless as a guide for faith, practice, etc.

Jesus embraced inerrancy and so did the apostles. It is people like you who have radically redefined the Bible to fit your current cultural whims.

BTW, Beeson Divinity is a hallmark institution for liberalism. Last year, Kevin Bauder (Ph.D., prof at Central Baptist Seminary, IFB) made foolish their arguments for ecumenicalism and their pro-catholic agenda.

 

David, you are a lawyer (I think). Use some of your logic and deduce each passage and ask yourself if there is any way that the two can be reconciled without contradiction.

You can do it. Multitudes have already.

Like I said, Jesus embraced inerrancy. Why do you make Him a liar???

 

I've noticed some conservatives on the board recommend the Divinity school, and call it conservative. Their dean (name is escaping me right now) is an inerrantist and Calvinist from what I hear.</font>[/QUOTE]David, you're thinking about Timothy George.

 

Funny thing about that. My training as an interrogator using content analysis did the same for me.

Joshua

 

All the training as a lawyer or as an interrogator cannot cause man to properly interpret and discern the Bible. Only through the author of the Bible can man properly interpret the Bible.

And the Bible was written this way intentionally, so the self-professed wise are humbled in their egos to the point of worshipping God and not themselves.

The Bible is indeed the inerrant word of God, even if foolish man thinks it is not, or believes it to be otherwise. For God can take any verse in the Bible, no matter how poor the translation, and interpret to man what he meant in each and every verse.

God bless.

 

What version of inerrancy did he embrace? Was it the Chicago Statement?

Did He say only the original manuscripts were inerrant (like almost all do today) or did he regard what He had at the time as being inerrant?

When He read from the Septuagint, was He saying that the Masoretic texts were not the word of God because they varied from the Septuagint?

Did He say that the words themselves are inerrant or the meaning of the words inerrant?

Where did He make these statements about inerrancy?

Since we don't have the original manuscripts and the copies we have don't always agree, are you saying that either we don't have the trustworthy word of God anymore or that we have it but don't know which copy it is? (The KJVO people have a more consistent view about this than most mainstream "inerrantists".)

If you ascribe modern doctrines to Jesus are you trying to make Him into your own image -- a lie?

Is the Chicago statement a good statement of inerrancy? If not, what is the definition of inerrancy?

Chicago statement links:

http://www.jpusa.org/jpusa/documents/biblical.htm

http://www.namb.net/root/neighborhood/events/chicago.asp

http://www.umi.org/chicago.htm

[ July 24, 2002, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

[ July 24, 2002, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

For some reason, my computer won't allow me to do the search function. If you search "inerrancy" on the Theology portion, you should find one about Jesus and Inerrancy. If you check it out, your questions will be answered.

 

Apparently the search function does not work.

In any case, I've heard many arguments that try to make it look like Jesus endorsed what is popularly called "inerrancy", and they just don't hold water. Certainly Jesus held scripture in high regard, but I seriously doubt He would endorse what is popularly called "inerrancy."

(The term inerrancy is a pretty lousy term too -- it is something of a double negative. "Inerrancy" = not error-prone/error-filled. Why don't you just use the words "truth" or "trustworthy'?)

Just for the record, I believe the Bible we have now as being fully reliable for faith and practice -- not just the original autographs that we don't possess. In my understanding, the meaning of the scripture is what is inspired, but the specific words. Therefore if I am using a good translation (one that presents the meaning of the original text) I have God's word whether it is in Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, King James English, French, Spanish or modern English.

[ July 25, 2002, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

If the meaning or interpretation of the scriptures is inspired, then the meaning or interpretation of scripture is indeed inerrant; that is if you believe a God capable of inerrancy.

And if one doesn't, then who or what is it one is having faith in, and where then is our hope?

A translation of scripture may indeed be in error, because of the possible and potential errors of the translator; but the interpretation of those translations through the Holy Spirit cannot possibly be in error, if those scriptures were indeed originally inspired by the Holy Ghost.

For, if I were to write "the cat is green," and someone rewrote that into "the feline is like grass," I, the original author of the verse, could still tell you what the original interpretation of that verse means.

Likewise it's the same with the Bible. If a translator happens to mistranslate scripture in his endeavor, the Holy Spirit can still nevertheless quicken man to what the true interpretation of the scripture is; although poor translations can give an opportunity for the author of confusion to wreak more confusion unto the already confused, in his battle against the Holy Spirit. But nevertheless, the Holy Spirit is still able to properly interpret what he has written, even if it is rewritten poorly.

God bless.

 

I'm totally amazed that there are those who consider themselves Baptist Christians who do not believe the Bible is telling the truth directly and straightforwardly! They think they can figure things out better than God can let us know or what? Our minds are capable of contradicting eyewitnesses to events?

I would have expected some of those answers from Methodists or Episcopalians, but not from Baptists!

How can anyone really trust Jesus if they don't trust that He knows how to tell what happened?

Amazing.

 

Helen, I don't think that's the issue here at all. Jesus' teachings were recorded with considerable unity by His followers (although - interestingly - not by anyone else). We can get a farily clear picture of the teachings, ministry, and life of Jesus from the Scriptures without believing them to be inerrant.

Joshua

 

Again I ask- If the Bible is with error where do we go for truth?

Vain man can't accept the fact that God could and did preserve his word that we might know the truth. Why is it so hard for men to believe this?

Perhaps this will give us a clue:


1 Corinthians 2:11 (KJV)
11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
)
14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

 

I ask you, Helen, since there are numerous translations of the Bible, including formal equivalency translations (word for word) and dynamic equivalency translations (thought for thought, paraphrased), is it not possible that some - especially the paraphrased - are not ordained by God and therefore are prone to error from the "word for word" standpoint?

Paraphrased translations (thought for thought) are, in a sense, more or less the translators opinions as to what he/she thinks the text means. Therefore, could the interpretations of such translators be prone to error, especially if they have done so on their own, without ordination from God?

I tend to believe that well established formal equivalency translations are indeed accurate - as accurate as can be - at least the ones ordained by God and blessed by God. For even word for word translations can be prone to error, if the translators are not ordained and blessed by God. However, with the Bible being the most reviewed and scrutinized book in the history of the world, such errors are usually discovered and pointed out, and therefore corrected, if warranted.

The inspired word of God indeed has no errors. However, the uninspired personal interpretations of men are indeed prone to error, which is where the conflict lies. But as I said before, even if man mistranslates scripture, the author of each verse of the scriptures can still properly interpret each verse, in spite of the poorly written translation.

This makes the Bible still the inerrant word of God, whether the translation is accurate or not; and is one of the 'secrets' of God.

God bless.

[ July 25, 2002, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Ruht ]