How to counter the slippery slope?

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Casper_Hesp

In the view of @gbrooks9 (correct me if I am wrong), the Bible is a myth. But it is a myth in the academical sense of the word, which means that it can still reflect truth in some way.

@Casper_Hesp

To clarify … I don’t thin the Bible is a myth. I think it is a complex combination of fact, history, philosophy, legend … AND MYTH as well.

Some truths are true no matter who says them - - reflecting the Divine of the Universe. Other things are pretty plainly fictional.

And then there is the whole middle range … that is left to each person’s heart and mind…

[tokyoguy111 (Tokyoguy)]

@Casper_Hesp

For @tokyoguy111, the Bible is absolutely inerrant in every respect. This also implies that, somehow, our exegesis should be an inerrant process because it gives shape to the Bible. In my view, this is not a position that is demanded by the Scriptures and it results in unnecessary tensions. I would say that it is enough to say that the Scriptures are sufficiently inerrant in the sense that they are completely accurate regarding God’s character and matters relevant for salvation.

Hi Casper,

Yes, I believe the Bible is inerrant in every respect in the original manuscripts. Obviously we know that copying errors, errors of omission and addition all exist so that the current Bible is not error free, but because we have so many manuscripts we can compare all these and come up with a pretty strong idea of what the original reading should be. In the very rare cases where we cannot be certain, fortunately these have nothing to do with the major doctrines or truths of the Bible.

Of course, interpretation comes into play. Historically the grammatical historical method was practiced most often by the Church. Why choose this method?

For one, there does seem to be some Scriptural support for it. It seems to be the method that Jesus used when interpreting Genesis - at least He seemed to take it as literal history.

Here is an article explaining the reasoning behind this choice of hermeneutic.

What does Genesis interpret the Bible?

Quote from the article: “Any method of interpretation that allows allegory to be imposed on the text is obviously unverifiable. Each person’s allegorical interpretation can be different because there are no rules of interpretation to which they must adhere to, so such interpretations can have no more authority than the one proclaiming them. Anyone claiming a personal allegorical meaning of the Bible is actually claiming their mind (rather than the text) as the source of the authority of the interpretation.”

You seem to hold this view: “I would say that it is enough to say that the Scriptures are sufficiently inerrant in the sense that they are completely accurate regarding God’s character and matters relevant for salvation.”

In a separate article entitled “The Bible and Hermeneutics” on the same site, we read this:

"Presuppositions and prior understandings have always played a significant role in the hermeneutical process, and one such presupposition is biblical inerrancy. Inerrancy is a complex doctrine, but it is internally coherent, and consistent with a perfect and righteous God who has revealed Himself. Broadly speaking, the doctrine of inerrancy identifies Scripture as true and without error in all that it affirms, including its affirmations regarding history and the physical universe.1 Article IX of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states:

‘WE AFFIRM that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy   
     utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.

WE DENY that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced 
    distortion or falsehood into God’s Word.’

Concerning the role of history and science in the interpretation of Scripture relating 	to creation and the Flood, Article XII states:
‘WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive 
    themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific 
    hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on 
creation and the flood.’

Indeed, as Herman Bavinck noted, when Scripture touches on science it does not suddenly cease to be the Word of God.2

Of course, a high view of Scripture is ‘of little value to us if we do not enthusiastically embrace the Scripture’s authority.’3 Indeed, many scholars who claim to be evangelical have either rejected this doctrine outright, or have redefined it to allow for errors in historical and scientific references. Francis Schaeffer described the denial of biblical inerrancy as ‘The great evangelical disaster’. He noted that accommodating Scripture to the current scientific consensus has led many evangelicals to a weakened view of the Bible and to no longer affirm the truth of all that it teaches—not only in regard to theology and morality but also regarding science and history.4 Why, then, have many so-called evangelical historians and theologians denied inerrancy and infallibility in relation to history and science? John D. Woodbridge suggests they believe that if the Bible is only infallible for faith and practice, then it cannot be negatively

affected by evolutionary hypotheses.5 The irony of this position is that in trying to defend inerrancy, they have essentially given it up!"

This explains the problem I personally have with your preferred hermeneutic. It seems to simply be a way around the “problems” of the Bible. The problem is then that we have no reason to really believe what the Bible says about spiritual things. How are you going to convince anyone to believe the spiritual teachings that must be completely taken by faith and cannot be verified, if what we can verify is totally wrong and full of mistakes?

Jesus asked the same question of Nicodemus here: “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” John 3:12

[aleo (Albert Leo)]

[quote=“Casper_Hesp, post:60, topic:4322”]
Concerning Salvation through Jesus, I would say that a helpfulway of thinking about receiving Salvation is as becoming part of a new Kingom.

I can agree with your interpretation of Salvation, but the missionaries in my ‘Panel Truck’ story told Eric that Salvation meant 'getting to Heaven’ when you die. If you did not acknowledge Jesus as your savior, you would spend eternity in Hell. To me, that is Satan quoting Scripture.

Thinking, as you seem to do, that salvation is becoming part of a new Kingdom follows closely to the concepts of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who saw humankind entering the Noosphere as part of the journey from Alpha, the creator of the Universe, back to Omega, its final destination. To accomplish this, the ‘genes’ of the Noosphere (ideas, constitutions, dogmas, by-laws, etc.) must overcome the essentially selfish genes of our biological nature.

@Casper_Hesp

For @tokyoguy111, the Bible is absolutely inerrant in every respect. This also implies that, somehow, our exegesis should be an inerrant** process because it gives shape to the Bible.

I agree that our exegesis should be inerrant. I have made my position quite clear on this Forum: I believe the Bible can be a very positive force in the formation of our spiritual lives, IF we take care to interpret it using the intellectual gifts given to us by our Creator. All to often our exegesis is NOT inerrant, which can lead to damaging errors.
Al Leo