The Bible...trust in Faith or trust in Fact?

by jgnat 163 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  BD,

  Secular history really isn't much better than biblical really as it has been said the history books were written by the victorious. I mean, how reliable are the historical accounts of secular history?

  it's not so much that biblical historians have different set of accounts from secular historians. it's how they interpret the accounts. the biblical historians, IMO, generally explain much via faith, as you know. the secual historians have a set of tools, you could say, that aid them in critically dissecting ancient texts. IMO, it's much more reliable. i liken it to interpreting the fossil record via genesis, or interpreting it via scientific method.

  yes, there are some things that we all rely on as a matter of faith, but generally they are things out of our direct control, like gravity. however, the analysis for a book like the bible is a contained procedure. the variables are easily set. and of course, parsimony and economy of explanation go a long way in explaining the historicity of the bible. after that, it's a matter of doing homework in an honest manner. much like a paleontologist would approach a fossil that could be a human's little toe, or a chimps little toe (he he he, extra points for including a poster's moniker in argument).

  TS
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  I suppose it could be argued that the bible does contain some facts

  i consider the sermon on the mount full of good "facts". why do i call them facts? well, because it is easily observable that following the golden rule, for example, is beneficial in dealing with others, and others dealing with you. it doesn't always work, but it's a fact that when it does work, it works well.

  is god a fact? we're still waiting for him to show up, unfortunately, so he's not quite a fact yet. more of an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and therefore not a hypothesis at all, but a dream. but, sorry, i digress. i like a bunch of stuff jesus said. and some of the stuff satan said. and some of the stuff gandalf said.

  as far as trust is concerned? it's obviously not factual enough in uniquely meaningful ways to really trust it all literally.

  TS
• 

  OldSoul

  TS,

  ...and some of the stuff gandalf said.

  Gandalf didn't say anything. See, Gandalf is a fictional character invented by J.R.R. Tolkien for his son, Christopher. So the words attributed to Gandalf aren't actually his, they are Tolkien's...oh...I see where you are headed with this...

  [shames by stroking index finger] Naughty bugger! Sneaking in the back way with a jab at the veracity of Scripture.
• 

  jgnat

  because it is easily observable

  
  TS, I would argue rather that the results of morality cannot be observed. Who defines what is "good"? So I don't think the sermon on the mount or the golden rule could be considered "factual".

  There are other historical bible accounts, however, that can be verified by observation, such as archealogical discoveries or texts from surrounding nations. Those could properly be considered "factual". Oh, and the whole "true Christian" problem has been around for a long time. I think we can safely say that JW's are not Orthodox Christians. Orthodoxy was the first shot at defining what a Christian is, and what is not Christian.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  oldsoul,

  MWA HA HA HA!

  jgnat,

  There are other historical bible accounts, however, that can be verified by observation, such as archealogical discoveries or texts from surrounding nations. Those could properly be considered "factual".

  there are many fictional books that are written in historical context, as you know.

  again, are any of the archaeological discoveries uniquely meaningful to the xian faith? or are they anecdotal little snippits of archaeology that fit with some of the stories in the bible? sure, babylon existed. but that's all it means, not that daniel was a prophet of god. and that's what i have against the WTS and archaeology. can the account be verified by the observation of archaeological discoveries, or is there interpolation involved? i have found that interpolation, severe faith based interpolation (aka wishful thinking), is involved in accounts uniquely meaningful to the xian faith. if i am mistaken, please point out where.

  Oh, and the whole "true Christian" problem has been around for a long time. ; I think we can safely say that JW's are not Orthodox Christians. ; Orthodoxy was the first shot at defining what a Christian is, and what is not Christian.

  and so the "second shots" are not to be trusted? i don't get it. i understand he concept of orthodoxy, but why does the defining end there? how do we know that orthodoxy has "God's" stamp of approval on it? you do see the irony, at least, right? ts
• 

  jgnat

  As you know, I have been involved in a protracted debate with someone who is CONVINCED that I bash the bible. Just because I won't call it divine. The bits that can be confirmed by observation, can properly be called FACTUAL. The rest, I agree, remains airy-fairy. People may chose to follow it by faith. But it is intellectual dishonesty to think that there are SOLID SCIENTIFIC, LOGICAL reasons for believing everything in that book.

  Orthodoxy was described to me this way. We set up a definition for what a "Christian" is. We select a few core doctrines. We stay away from minor details like hem lengths and head coverings, because that is not what makes a person essentially "Christian". If others start a religion that do not have this core essence, they are something else. It doesn't mean they're buzzard meat, only that they can't properly take that name for themselves.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  okay. fair enough.

  :)

  TS
• 

  Shining One

  Jgnat,
  'Inerrancy' is the concept that no amount of error is extant in the original, inspired manuscripts. It does not apply to any translation that exists so we have a 'moot point'. It does show a 99.95 accuracy of the harmony where the major texts are compared. With the dead sea scrolls we have some of the Old Testament that goes back to 200 BC and the 'errors' are miniscule. They do not compromise the texts from the 10 and 12th centuries. We actually have more accurate translations now than ever do to the development of scholarship combined with manuscripts being compared. I still caution you that Jesus very much affirmed the teachings in the O.T. and it tis the basis for the N.T. teachings. I wouldn't take it lightly.
  'Infallibility' is the concept that on matters of faith and sound doctrine it is absolutely reliable. This allows for the errors that may exist in historicity and the mundane details. This is where the majority of scholarship resides. The Pope and councils claim this on their decrees. A Evangelical Lutheran pastor would preach that the Genesis accounts are myths (not untruths) that God uses to teach a particular point and must be viewed with the 'Cross' in mind. He would also teach that the texts are inspired through fallible humans and often reflect the human factor as related to the culture (especially in the O.T.). A Southern Baptist pastor would teach that the Bible is inerrant and infallible but would allow for the errors crept into translations, much like Hank Hannegraf teaches. Some churches actually believe the KJV to be 'reinspired' and will use only that translation. That is the extreme fundamentalist position.
  The above examples are in general and not universally true. Each pastor has a particular take on scriipture and line up in their respective camps. Where the essential doctrines of faith are concerned the correct view is to have 'no division' but agreed disagreement in 'grey areas'. My own preference is to give God the benefit of the doubt in each instance until proven other wise; to take text at literal reading until it proves to be otherwise; and always insist on the contextual interpretation. This is something that we all do to some extent naturally and with training it is a real skill to master.
  Rex
• 

  jgnat

  Thank you, OldSoul, for providing greater clarity around inerrancy and infallibility than I ever got out of "Shining One".

  'Infallibility' is the concept that on matters of faith and sound doctrine it is absolutely reliable

  My big beef with "Shining One" is that he also argues that on matters of science and history the bible is absolutely reliable, since God wrote it and He can write no wrong. That is, if the bible speaks of a world-wide flood, it was world-wide as we know it today. Based on what we know today, I am perfectly content that a flood did happen, and that a boatload of animals and a few people survived the catastrophe. What is wrong with conceding that "world" meant something completely different at that time, as in, "from as far as the eye could see"?

  I still caution you that Jesus very much affirmed the teachings in the O.T. and it tis the basis for the N.T. teachings. I wouldn't take it lightly.

  I am still wondering about this, for three reasons. I endured the most complex sermons in my past twenty years when a pastor tried to reconcile one bible command with another. Such as head-coverings, an eye for an eye, or whether one can speak in tongues in public. I've concluded that complex sermon equals trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. The second I've learned from the linguists on this board, is that the bible is not as unified in it's presentation as we like to pretend. John has a different take on the gospel than Paul, and the OT is significantly different. And, finally, I don't think the codifying of morality and teaching would have stopped two thousand years ago.

  Jesus may have said he was coming to fulfill the law, but his teachings were a significant departure in ritual and practice. No longer are we secure within a framework of taboos but rather must judge every situation whether we are contributing to the good of that person. If not, we sin.

  Now, let's take the example of women's liberation. At one time I thought the highest ambition a woman can fulfill is to live up to the standards of the fine lady described in the last chapter of Proverbs. Of course, a lady today has many more choices, and they don't all revolve around the home. I now have a responsible position in my secular career equivalent or higher than the elders in my church. Yet the elders in my church are all male. Why? I never questioned the concept of all-male pastorship until I read an article on a female pastor's forum. The author described how she was called and how it became impossible to ignore. Her reasoning went like this; to ignore the talent God had given her and bury it simply because she is female would be disrespecting the gift God gave her.

  How could God's Bible not have accounted for cultural progression? That is why I say the principles endure, but the details become irrelevant over time.
• 

  OldSoul

  [psst! Hey, jgnat! That WAS Shining One, hee-hee!] I know. I was shocked when I read it, too. Very well presented, I thought. I tells ya, there's hope for him yet!