ForumGarden

jester:-6

I won't try to keep up with that last one.

Excellent response.

I will try to shorten this.

The first problem I see is in accepting an inerrant Bible. On a personal basis I have no problem with that. That being said it is not that science etc. will catch up with the Bible. There is clear evidence in science, history and archaeology that the Bible is not inerrant or if you will historically accurate. I doubt you would consider the evidence so I won't bore you with it. Besides I have no desire to write a book on the forum.

The problem as I see it is that if one's faith is based on an inerrant book which is proven not to be so then the basis of one's faith falls apart if they finally come to accept that reality. The only other alternative is to continue to deny clear and incontrovertible evidence. Trust in God is the only way.

That man is imperfect is a given. Whatever that imperfection is is immaterial. This is one of the reasons that Jesus established a church through his apostles, as a community. If this community is relying on the Holy Spirit, praying, studying and discussing it is unlikely that this group will make a mistake. In fact this is precisely how the Bible as we now have it came to be. We have no other choice but to do likewise. It is not that you or I trust "some one". People work together, pray together, study together and do likewise alone. Then they rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit to steer the group in the right direction. When we read the Bible an make our own interpretation we are both relying on our own interpretation and being subjective.

The problem today is that folks want certainty in a very uncertain world. This certainty only comes through trust in God.

The whole point of mentioning quantum physics is to show that not only do we not know everything nor understand but there is much of which we are not yet even aware. Your comment that God can do anything may be true but we do not see God working "magic and make believe". If He did this in the past but doesn't now how does that square with God does not change. God has no need to play such games.

You mention Matt 7:21-23. How do I know. I know because I have experienced the reality of God and I trust in him. I am following the calling that He has led me into. I have no need of a book to give me that. I don't need a contract signed sealed and delivered. This book was written by humans, albeit inspired, who are just as prone to error etc as any other human. It is simply a matter trust.

As I pointed out quite clearly in John we have a clear indication that Jesus did not expect us to continue to live in the 1st cent.

When I left the fundamentalist fold I found a much broader all encompassing faith far beyond anything that I expected. This is contrary to your last comments. It seems to me that when we try to describe or define God or heaven in our human language we are indeed limiting God. I realize that God is so far beyond us and our capabilities. I make no pretense at being able to do these things. The writers of the Bible could only resort to metaphor. They could not deal with the reality. It was impossible.

In fact what I see throughout the Bible is a group of writers who were indeed trying to make God in their image and trying to limit Him/Her to that image. God cannot be contained in human language.

As I have said before faith in God is not about right belief, It is about trust. If it were about right belief than in all likelihood no one would attain the ultimate reality. There are billions of folks on the planet and billions have come and gone. There will be as many variations in belief as there are people. One person in paradise will be lonely.

Shalom

Ted:-6

jester:-6

Would you have me deny the vocation to which God has called me?

Shalom

Ted:-6

jester:-6

Good post and excellent thoughts.

I am following my vocation every day of my life and relying on the Holy Spirit for the guidance.

I will give you one example though I could give you dozens. Archaeologists and scientists and historians have prowled the desert where the exodus is supposed to have taken place. They have checked alternative routes etc. They have not found one shred of evidence that such an exodus ever took place. The Jewish scholars even admit that the story of the exodus is a myth.

Your comment about the Bible should it be not historically accurate proves my point. For many of us, knowing that the Bible is not such has absolutely no effect on our faith whatsoever. In fact it has made my faith stronger. Why? I think rather simply the ancient wisdom of that book has survived some 2000+ years as well as believing that God has indeed spoken to us through the very human words of the Bible. To say that God can't do that is to limit Him.

The Bible as many of us see it is written by men, yes, inspired, but none the less they are imperfect. They are writing of their experiences in many genres.

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy is not found in the Bible. It is a human interpretation and the product of the reformation.

I see absolutely no inconsistency whatsoever in my position. The Bible as man's record of his experiences of the divine written in many genres is a metaphorical history of truth explained in the only way he could. There experiences are as valuable as yours or mine or anyones. This is not inconsistent. It is an acknowledgment of their experiences and their humanity. It is an acknowledgment that they too have experienced the divine.

I accept the experiences and the wisdom of the Bible and my experiences tell me that God has spoken to me through those experiences and their written record regardless of writing style.

The Bible came about through the same process that you are now denying. The OT was put together through prayer, thought, discussion etc. It was changed and altered by succeeding editors as they saw fit in trying to make the past understandable in their present age. The councils went through the same process in arriving at the canon we now have. Now it would appear that you are denying the very process that gave us the Bible???

Yes we interpret back to the past as we try to understand what it means for us today and Jesus clearly indicated that was not sufficient. We are more ready now to accept some truths than we were in the past and we will be in the same position in the future. It is God who gave us that skill and drive. Jesus did not want us to continue to live in the 1st cent.

How do we know of God? There are several ways, including the same ways the ancients found: The sacred writings which attest to those experiences, the church that arose out of the Life of Jesus, the experiences of others, our own experiences.

Miracles do happen. I am not denying that. I have experienced them. But we do not see the grandiose miracles written of in midrash. The seas do not part. The earth does not stand still for a day, chariots pulled by horses do not come down out of the sky. These are midrash. They are metaphor.

The word "faith" means trust. I trust in God. Why don't I belie in some of the Biblical stories as historically accurate? They have been proven inaccurate. I see them as absurd as reality but wonderful lessons as metaphor.

Many of us do not need the assurances of an inerrant Bible. We have the experiential reality of God. It is God I trust in and not a humanly produces book. Though I do acknowledge that God has and does speak to us through the stories of the Bible and the kernels of history found therein.

I'm certainly pleased that you realize our view of God is limited. In fact the only view we can have is metaphorical in our own minds and in our expressions. God cannot be grasped in any way close to the reality by man's languages and conceptualization abilities. God is beyond that.

Without prejudice I must say you are telling me that out of the billions of people that are and have been, you have the exactly right belief?? I think that you are as fallible as any other human being on this earth. No one has the total grasp of God or even comes close to te reality. Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel are myths. That one's offering was apparently acceptable is the ancient writers view of what he felt God would appreciate and would reject.

You are making me write more and more. Is this some kind of punishment. LOL

Actually I am enjoying the exchange. Thanks.

Shalom

Ted:-6

jester:-6

Neither of us will change the others mind but at least we are studying and learning.

When you have that many folks moving through the desert they will leave a footprint that lasts for millennia.

Trust the Jewish scholars? As much as any other scholar. Because they are Jewish does not change the historical evidence or lack thereof. A good book to read is "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silberman.

It does not follow logically that the Bible is inerrant just because it is God inspired. I've been inspired to write, to preach, to teach etc. but it does not follow that I am perfect. The ancient writers were inspired just as Dickens was inspired or Muhammed, or Siddhartha Gautama or Ghandi were. If A then B is not a proper logical syllogism.

You are correct that much of what is in the Bible is timeless. I would most certainly agree with that. However, what has changed is man's ability to gather knowledge, conceptualize and of course his massive fund of knowledge that was not available 2000 years ago. We as a species have progressed and Jesus realized that that was going to happen and that is precisely why he said they were not yet ready for all truth.

If you were more aware of the history of the Bible you would realize the changes that have occurred through the writers, the editors, the redactors, the problem of hand copying, the church etc.

When I spoke of the council that put together the Bible I was speaking of both the OT and the NT. The Jewish people had many different oral traditions and later on many different manuscripts which they had to choose from. There were J or Yahwehist documents, E, El documents, P or priestly documents as well as D or deuteronomistic documents. Much discussion preceeded the final Jewish Bible. Some things were put in and some left out.

The same holds true for the NT. There were several copies of each of the books included plus many books and gospels not included. The council of 375 which finally produced the canon as we have it engaged in much discussion, prayer and study and then finally voted on the documents to include. Add to that that among all of the documents representing included in the Bible as we now have it there were some 400 000 variants. They did not and we do not have the originals. They were long ago lost.

Some of the church fathers wanted to include the Apocrypha and others did not. As such some churches have chosen to include them and some have chosen not to. Many of todays church fathers now think that perphaps the Gospel of Thomas should be included. That debate is still ongoing.

Other items besides the exodus which is now considered a myth are the story of Joshua and the destruction of Jericho. It has been clearly shown that Jericho was an abandoned derelict at the supposed time of Joshua; that Joshua had absolutely nothing to do with the walls of Jericho coming down. They were already down.

It has been shown that, yes, David was a real live person but that his kingdom was no where near as described in the Bible. David was basically a local war lord.

Current evidence of a world wide flood simply does not exist. It has been proven that it simply did not happen. It is a legend which may have arisen out of a more local flood such as the floods of the Tigris or the Euphrates.

I would agree that man was created in God's image. The real question is what does that mean. I certainly do not see God as a man with arms, legs, etc. God is Spirit. It is the belief of many that the true nature of God is simply beyond the human ability to conceptualize or define or describe. Any words we use are metaphor. This does not mean that we do not understand a small part of God: His love, His grace and so on.

BTW I've soon got to purchase a new Bible as mine is now falling apart. Well used. I have many other translations but prefer the NRSV though I may purchase the "Oxford Annotated Edition". I do of course still have my Hebrew edition of the OT and the Greek NT which I make frequent use of.

Shalom

Ted:-6