TGC: Making Sense of Scriptures "Inconsistency"

[Corcaigh]

When one grasps what the Bible is about as a whole, you find that it tells one continuous story. Many who attack the Bible do so ignorantly. God's Word is for God's people. It's not meant for unbelievers. Without your heart and mind being transformed by the Holy Spirit, you WILL find no use for it.

 

Exactly. Just like the emperor's new clothes.

[zoony]

I'm not angry. And I'm not exactly an atheist or an absolute believer. I accept that there may well be a higher power that set the universe in motion and I want to believe that this god provied for us a guide for us to live by so that we can meet him at the end of this life's journey.

What I have no faith in is mankind's ability to understand gods message and put it all down on paper with 100% accuracy. If you are going to believe in divine inspiration why not believe any number of contemporary preachers who claim God speaks to them with all kinds of conflicting messages?

Questions remain, like why deliver the message to one small group and tell the rest of mankind that they are out of luck if they live in a jungle and have never heard of Christ or the bible. Seems like a crappy thing to do for a god. Since the beginning of the human race, how many millions of souls have gone to hell because God never gave them a chance?

If I beleive in anything, it is the teaching of Jesus who even if he was not actually the son of God (he called himself the son of man) provided us with the best guide to being good humans that I know of.

He also called himself the Lamb of God.

Nobody believes he was actually the son of God except Mormons and Jehovas witnesses. Christians believe that he is God.

[Xameil]

Christians believe that he is God.

Not exactly....Episcopals are taught that he is part of the Holy Trinity...

Eh...thinking back on it...it's taught the 3 are separate, but always together...soooo...guess I have no idea...lol

[AsburySkinsFan]

But Pauls past is so crucial to the story i don't think anyone could tell the story without including it. It's the ultimate conversion / redemption story.

That's not really what I'm getting at. I know the difference in the process...I'm talking about what is the difference in the meaning now?

If it's dictation or inspiration, how does that affect interpretation? Does inspiration allow us to say paul, or Matthew, or any of the NT authors could've written things that weren't the will of God?

The difference in meaning now is that the dictation folks will insist on inerrancy which stipulates that the Bible is without any factual or any other type of error or contradiction. When even a cursory reading of the text will demonstrate otherwise, especially with the multiple accounts of the same histories. Which leaves the inerrancy folks left defending the indefensible.

 

The inspiration of scripture leads to the position of the infallibility of scripture which is that scripture is correct in all the things that it affirms. It forces the reader to understand what the scripture is and what it isn't. It isn't a textbook, it is however a collection of various genre of texts of varying ages each working within fairly specific structures that govern the genre, they are also contained within the historical norms of the time and it is false to force those texts to fit within genre and rules that we have today.

[Captain James]

No offense, but you can say that about any group of followers who believe without question.

 

Be it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith

 

or:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

 

And if you were a Christian, it's not meant to be exclusionary to "god's people".  But stuff like this makes these threads great.

This isn't a discussion about other faith-groups. Sure, I could have worded my last post a bit better, but the Bible IS ultimately meant for believers. People can absolutely find encouragement and inspiration through casual reading, but they obviously won't get as much from it as those who are spiritually born again (like zguy alluded to).

[Riggo-toni]

I have said, "Show me someone who is a fundamentalist/literalist and I'll show you someone who has never read the Old Testament." The dictation rather than inspiration nonsense is as out there to me as people who still cling to the Bishop of Usher's hypothesis of a 6000 year old earth.

[zoony]

.Episcopals are taught that he is part of the Holy Trinity..

Exactly.

[Zguy28]

I have said, "Show me someone who is a fundamentalist/literalist and I'll show you someone who has never read the Old Testament." The dictation rather than inspiration nonsense is as out there to me as people who still cling to the Bishop of Usher's hypothesis of a 6000 year old earth.

I know a lot of what I'm sure you would call "fundies" and I don't think any of them believe in the Dictation Theory of inspiration. Most evangelicals believe in Plenary Verbal inspiration.

 

The word plenary means "full" or "complete". Therefore, plenary verbal inspiration asserts that God inspired the complete text(s) of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, including both historical and doctrinal details. The word verbal affirms the idea that inspiration extends to the very words the writers chose. For example, in Acts 1:16 the Apostle Peter says "the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake" (KJV). Paul calls all scripture "God-breathed" in 2 Timothy 3:16 (referring to the Old Testament). Thus, the Holy Spirit guided the writers along (cf. 2 Peter 1:20-21) while allowing their own personalities and freedom to produce the Bible we have today. This view recognizes and asserts both the human and divine element within Scripture.

 

 

 

Now it sounds like ASF may differ slightly from that based on his comment about historical events, not sure.

 

A good article about that is here:  http://www.theopedia.com/Inspiration_of_the_Bible

[PleaseBlitz]

I like the part where he talks about divorce:

 

 

 

First, it’s not only the Old Testament that has proscriptions about homosexuality. The New Testament has plenty to say about it as well. Even Jesus says, in his discussion of divorce in Matthew 19:3–12, that the original design of God was for one man and one woman to be united as one flesh, and failing that (v. 12), persons should abstain from marriage and sex.

 

But fails to note that the bible abhors divorce:

 

Deuteronomy 22:19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name upon a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife. He may not divorce her all his days.

Matthew 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
 

1Corinthians 7:39 A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

.

Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
 

 

And yet, the divorce rate among Christians is approximately 42%.  

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-03-14-divorce-christians_N.htm

 

 

 

Why would anyone think that is inconsistent?

[Jumbo]

Warning: very long

 

I still read/scan these threads, but far more often than not for quite awhile don't post in them (other than mod stuff) and I expect that will remain so...but, weakness of the flesh and all  .

 

I was raised Catholic though we had a strong Protestant contingent and my sister eventually went Baptist (and devout 24-7 Fox addict Republican) after trying Mormonism. Some clergy in the family, including one cousin a wonderful and brilliant Jesuit priest who later left the church.

 

 

This would be my single paragraph form of the "pro" side:

 

"For the non-Christian, non-believer, and Bible skeptic, the things you think that's written there that are factually wrong, rationally nonsensical, fundamentally fallacious in logical form, or even horrifying or just stupid, New or Old Testament, there's a very solid explanation that will show your misunderstandings and logically and rationally rebuke those views. And for every thing that's written in there that you find acceptance with, well, then we're good on that stuff." 

 

I'm going to point out that many "con" folk are well aware of many of the things various Christian spokespersons say in explanation (even when still-argued among themselves)---they're not all Bible/Christian theology/dogma ignorant. Many are far from it.

 

It's true that for many skeptics, such can still read like copious and convoluted detail and nuance in service to how Alice In Wonderland is about a "divine truth, you just have to know how to read it." Well, that's fair, at least to a point--it (Alice) was about some very human truths, and 1984 was all allegories and metaphors, but about very real truths in the eye of the writer and many readers, though it doesn't claim to be divine. There really weren't talking pigs, for instance (excepting Arnold, who came much later).

 

Just one of the many things I think worth noting: in what is a massively organized manner compared to the world of "Bible critics", some of the Christian population over time---which has included and does include many highly intelligent people (and people with as vested an interest and as deeply-seated a bias as could possibly exist)---have spent two thousand years honing their arguments against each generation's challenges from then to now.

 

One of the wise-ass but humorously-intended terms I coined log ago regarding such stuff was "The Greatest Makeover Ever Told", referring to the vast efforts of organized Christianity (occurring/really ramping up centuries after the actual life of Christ) to pass from the OT stuff to the NT stuff as the more real (modern) deal.

 

That's a very long discussion in itself. The idea being that the OT "by itself" or if given "too much weight/emphasis" by the faith, as opposed to being presented as anything other than metaphorical morality tales and using forms of communication appropriate to those times, would have been left behind just as the tales of the Gods of Olympus (etc) previously were by increasingly sophisticated and diversified society, communication, education, and contact with other cultures and their thinking/beliefs.

 

One of the results has been the production of some of the most intellectually and philosophically complex (which is not inherently an endorsement at all) body of arguments and schools of (Christian) thought to be found in any topic, all (supposedly?) to help explain Jesus' "simple message of faith and love."

 

These often, but not always, seem to me as some ever-evolving debate-winning self-soothing model, as opposed to being born of "lovingly" or "truly" sought for the benefit of soul-saving for skeptics. But that's just one possible reasonable analysis cum projection when applied.

 

Most of us, I think, accept that the result of this back and forth is, and always has been, a case of almost everyone reaffirming what they already thought (human). To me, most of it seems about serving other "inner drives" (mainly fear and insecurity---and that applies to many skeptics, too). But that's just another possible reasonable analysis cum projection when applied.

 

Personally, after five decades of such discourse in variety of diverse venues (some brilliant, some not so much), most of it amounts to kicking a can down the road for a large percentage of participants in terms of "results" as far as I can tell.

 

And it seems often to involve those who might have certain "inner needs" (soothing from fear and insecurity #1) driving them other than to do "holy work." That goes for many "nay-sayers", too. (more reasonable possible analysis, still projected). 

 

It makes sense to me at "every level" that religion is made by man (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity scream such to me) and is another tool/construct for people to use to adjust to the trials of existence---not supernatural; perfectly natural.

 

I have long thought, and stated here before if only a couple times, that discussing the possible existence of some intelligent/sentient (and how we define "intelligent/sentient" plays first here) entity that created all we're able to perceive is one that should initially be separated from any religion's presentation of such a figure. Then the next step would be to discuss the nature, level of involvement with what, and all other characteristics, of such an entity and then support those contentions. Then move onto what various organized religions have to say about their specific versions. I am aware of the rational thinking (when actually present, which is not often IME) that advocates the much more common progression that works more in the "other direction." 

 

The more I learn and observe about how belief works in human cognition, the further I get from viewing any religion as having any special hold on any divine inspiration the way that term is meant. And I know the entire line of  thought re: "of course we see humanity in our religion, for God created us in his own image" so ya don't need to "inform me" of that claim. Again, that one alone is worthy of a very long and quite separate discourse (and I have many jokes that would apply of a non-sacrosanct manner). 

 

It's unlikely i'll post much again on this topic overall, anymore than I have the last 5-6 years (other than mod stuff or trying to diffuse those who would get swept up too excitably in PeterMP v alexy go-arounds ) . And if I don't reply to comments on this post, don't take it personal. The post was made with respect to all and prompted by a desire simply to participate in the tailgate on the topic with you guys, and as is the goal of most of my really long posts, it has/covers all I think I would say in this thread.

[Major Harris]

Dam jumbo, can i get the cliff notes?

[Jumbo]

You're doing fine on your own, major  --you don't need anything from me, nor would I ever want you so infected.   

 

Hi TB. 

 

One more thing I should thought of saying since he's the OP and given some of my comments--I think (because I can't know) that Zguy is the "real thing" (deeply thoughtful and sincere) and I'm glad he's around. We have even PM'ed. 

[Mad Mike]

Jumbo

 

I've said for years that some computer programs are harder to learn than others because the programmers mind works in a different way than the user. The program may be the the most functional one available but for some it will be the most difficult to produce results because it does not work in the expected way for that particular user.

 

Your musings are a lot like that for me. They take a lot of work to comprehend, but the extra effort never fails to provide interesting and valuable content.

 

And If I understand you correctly, I agree. For me, it has always seemed that the content of the bible and of other religious beliefs show more of a human "signature" than the divine. 

[AsburySkinsFan]

But ASF, one doesn't need to look too hard to find things / issues that biblical scholars will disagree on.

That's because Biblical scholars write books out of mole hills.

If you look at the general trends of Christian theology over the last 2,000 years there is a sincerely large amount of consensus. Now, from the time of the Reformation we find much more divergence but even those streams can be sorted into a few camps; primarily Reformed (Calvinist tradition) and Arminian (Wesleyan/Free Will tradition). From there we splinter into smaller camps but the general theology remains the same which is why we come back to the same logic and rationale for various discussions because they find themselves in those main streams of theology.

[Riggo-toni]

If you said the last 1500 years you might have a point.

The first 2 centuries had plenty of division between gnosticism and Roman theologies, accompanied and then followed by the Arian/Athanasian split (To quote Gibbon, the western empire fell on the difference of one iota). Then there was the monophysitic split between east and west (Leo was a douchebag acting more out of lust for power and a chance to put down Theodorus than any real piety if you ask me).

[AsburySkinsFan]

If you said the last 1500 years you might have a point.

The first 2 centuries had plenty of division between gnosticism and Roman theologies, accompanied and then followed by the Arian/Athanasian split (To quote Gibbon, the western empire fell on the difference of one iota). Then there was the monophysitic split between east and west (Leo was a douchebag acting more out of lust for power and a chance to put down Theodorus than any real piety if you ask me).

I think you over estimate the Gnostic strain of theology, yes it was there but it was rejected from early on. Heck the earliest creeds were written to combat that strain, so while prevalent it was rejected as an authentic avenue of Christian theology early. And, yes of course the East/West split was big the Eastern theology has remained fairly consistent but has not had the numerical influence that the Western church has seen.