How authoritative is the text of Scripture?

[fredonly]

Consistent with Christian beliefs, this subforum requires accepting the premise that the 66 canonical books of the Bible are considered authoritative. Nevertheless, except for Fundamentalists, most Christians accept the idea that there is a human element in the Bible. I'm curious how various Christians reconcile a non-literal view of Scripture with it's authority.

God inspired humans to write the books of the Bible and convey certain information. Differences in detail among the 3 synoptic Gospels are clear examples of human elements - it's impossible for all the conflicting details to all be true. Such minor "contradictions" simply imply the details are insignificant, or that they have a usefulness that goes beyond literal, historical facts about events.

Other portions of the Bible may have a mythic element. This view will be antithetical to some Christians, but there are certainly some Christian theologians who consider the depictions of Creation, the Flood, Tower of Babel, Jonah/fish, and others as being mythic. I’ve even seen references to the “nativity myths� by theologians.

It seems to me these human elements imply that individual verses in the Bible can't be implicitly trusted. Humans make mistakes, so it's plausible to assume they got some things wrong. Greater support for a doctrinal theory is needed than a single verse; the greater quantity of support (more verses) and diversity of support (from multiple books) is necessary to add confidence to the candidate doctrine.

Questions for debate:

• Do you accept the presence of a human element in the Bible?
  Do you believe that having a human element implies there are some errors in the text of the Bible (errors in the autographs, not transcription errors)?
  Do you believe there are mythic elements in the Bible?
  Do you think it is fine to make doctrinal assumptions on the basis of a single passage of scripture, or do you believe more diverse support is needed?
  Do you believe it ever makes sense to quote a single line of scripture to support your point of view If so, explain why this makes sense in light of the presence of the human element.

?

[Moderate Guy]

Do you accept the presence of a human element in the Bible?

Absolutely. I don't see how anyone could deny this.

Do you believe that having a human element implies there are some errors in the text of the Bible (errors in the autographs, not transcription errors)?

There is a high liklihood of various types of errors in the Bible. The discrepancies in detail among the Gospels demonstrates this clearly.

Do you believe there are mythic elements in the Bible?
Do you think it is fine to make doctrinal assumptions on the basis of a single passage of scripture, or do you believe more diverse support is needed?

Yes - the Bible contains myths. For example, it is not possible to build a tower that reaches into heaven.

Do you believe it ever makes sense to quote a single line of scripture to support your point of view If so, explain why this makes sense in light of the presence of the human element?

You have a good point. If the Bible is not 100% literally accurate, and contains human errors, it is illogical to insist that any specific verse should be accepted.

[fewwillfindit]

Yes -the Bible contains myths. For example, it is not possible to build a tower that reaches into heaven.

That's a bad example. That is not myth, it is metaphorical speech. It is hyperbole.

Then they said, Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.

The text that follows this conversation never says that they actually built it into the heavens.

[Angel]

Do you accept the presence of a human element in the Bible?

Yes. I don't accept this just for the stories contained in the Bible, but also which books that would be included in the canon that we now call, Bible. And you can also add some more-or-less editing and interpolations that have happened between translations from the originals (autographa).

Do you believe that having a human element implies there are some errors in the text of the Bible (errors in the autographs, not transcription errors)?

Absolutely. Besides there not being evidence, there's not even a biblical basis to go by to say that all of the Bible, whether it be the autographs or transcriptions, is infallible whether it be in content or doctrine derived from it. I would not even fully trust any claims of Biblical infallibility even if ALL of the Bible was 'revealed' by God, because revelation can still involve humans having to write down the revelation and in the process they may misunderstand, misinterpret, etc, which is what I commonly see or suspect from lots of proclaimed 'prophets' or people who have visions, and I've seen this in some of the Pentecostal Churches i've attended and even in my own family. If God gave me feedback or helped me understand the prophecy, then I'd accept it as being perfectly God's word - and as for the Bible if God proofread these authors writings or recordings of His revelation, then I'd be more willing to accept. These latter 2 conditions are lacking, most times, in my Christian experience.

Do you believe there are mythic elements in the Bible?

I'm sure there are but you can probably find varying theories of just how much. Some theories try to explain the virtually the entire Bible away as being borrowed tradition and myths from other ancients (the Greeks, Sumerians, etc.), and of course some don't draw their conclusion that far. But we can't ignore the similarities like Noah's flood story, and the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc.

Do you think it is fine to make doctrinal assumptions on the basis of a single passage of scripture, or do you believe more diverse support is needed?

If we're talking about 'doctrine' then it would depend on how explicit and emphasis is in the passage. Now all doctrine has to relate to is the 'belief' system, it doesn't have to apply to what can be logically or scientifically validated. If one passage emphatically and explicitly states that God is infallible and He inspired, revealed, and proofread I think it's okay to build a doctrine of infallibility based on that one passage alone. The only issue I can think of is if there are internal inconsistencies, like some passage stating that Scripture is infallible and some other passage stating that Scripture is not infallible. IN that case, you can't develop any coherent doctrine of that matter, at least.

Do you believe it ever makes sense to quote a single line of scripture to support your point of view If so, explain why this makes sense in light of the presence of the human element. [/list]?

I think it can make sense depending on how explicit the passage is, and this ties into my previous response to your previous question. To me, quoting multiple passages or one passage can leave you just as prone to error so that would be an arbitrary condition to me if we're speaking about accuracy in terms of facts or scientific knowledge of the world.

[fredonly]

Do you think it is fine to make doctrinal assumptions on the basis of a single passage of scripture, or do you believe more diverse support is needed?

If we're talking about 'doctrine' then it would depend on how explicit and emphasis is in the passage. Now all doctrine has to relate to is the 'belief' system, it doesn't have to apply to what can be logically or scientifically validated. If one passage emphatically and explicitly states that God is infallible and He inspired, revealed, and proofread I think it's okay to build a doctrine of infallibility based on that one passage alone. The only issue I can think of is if there are internal inconsistencies, like some passage stating that Scripture is infallible and some other passage stating that Scripture is not infallible. IN that case, you can't develop any coherent doctrine of that matter, at least.

Consider the Johanine comma. It explicitly references the 3 persons of the Trinity, and yet it would be be wrong to argue for the Trinity using this verse, since it was a late addition to the text of the Gospel. There could be any number of similar situations that we don't know about, since the oldest partial manuscripts date from the 3rd century. Speaking of infallibility, what if 2 Timothy 3:16 is a human corruption? Scholars already believe this epistle is pseudepigraphical.

[wonderer]

Consistent with Christian beliefs, this subforum requires accepting the premise that the 66 canonical books of the Bible are considered authoritative. Nevertheless, except for Fundamentalists, most Christians accept the idea that there is a human element in the Bible. I'm curious how various Christians reconcile a non-literal view of Scripture with it's authority.

God inspired humans to write the books of the Bible and convey certain information. Differences in detail among the 3 synoptic Gospels are clear examples of human elements - it's impossible for all the conflicting details to all be true. Such minor "contradictions" simply imply the details are insignificant, or that they have a usefulness that goes beyond literal, historical facts about events.

Other portions of the Bible may have a mythic element. This view will be antithetical to some Christians, but there are certainly some Christian theologians who consider the depictions of Creation, the Flood, Tower of Babel, Jonah/fish, and others as being mythic. I’ve even seen references to the “nativity myths� by theologians.

It seems to me these human elements imply that individual verses in the Bible can't be implicitly trusted. Humans make mistakes, so it's plausible to assume they got some things wrong. Greater support for a doctrinal theory is needed than a single verse; the greater quantity of support (more verses) and diversity of support (from multiple books) is necessary to add confidence to the candidate doctrine.

Questions for debate:

• Do you accept the presence of a human element in the Bible?
  Do you believe that having a human element implies there are some errors in the text of the Bible (errors in the autographs, not transcription errors)?
  Do you believe there are mythic elements in the Bible?
  Do you think it is fine to make doctrinal assumptions on the basis of a single passage of scripture, or do you believe more diverse support is needed?
  Do you believe it ever makes sense to quote a single line of scripture to support your point of view If so, explain why this makes sense in light of the presence of the human element.

?

If there are errors in the Bible, that implies a human element.
Or it implies that God makes mistakes, or that God is inconsistent, or lies. (Stranger things have happened!)

In the first case, if there's a human element to the Bible, the Bible is useless as a book in which to find 'the truth'. You would never know which passages were true, ie, as being a direct message from God. You would not have certainty about any doctrine derived from the Bible. You wouldn't have certainty about how to be 'saved'. You wouldn't know if heaven or hell existed, or if there was really any need to be saved. It wouldn't be any more useful in basing one's life on than any other self help book written by humans.

In the second case, if God 'wrote' the Bible but made mistakes, was inconsistent, or lied, or even as someone on these forums pointed out, deliberately set out to hide the truth from us, it is equally the case that it'd be no use looking to the Bible to find the truth about anything, as similarly, we wouldn't know which parts were 'true'.

Therefore if the Bible is fallible, it's pretty useless really, except as, maybe literature or ancient history.

[Question Everything]

The more I look at the Bible and what we know of how it was written, the more clear it becomes that it is all a work of fiction.

[fredonly]

If there are errors in the Bible, that implies a human element.
Or it implies that God makes mistakes, or that God is inconsistent, or lies. (Stranger things have happened!)

In the first case, if there's a human element to the Bible, the Bible is useless as a book in which to find 'the truth'. You would never know which passages were true, ie, as being a direct message from God. You would not have certainty about any doctrine derived from the Bible. You wouldn't have certainty about how to be 'saved'. You wouldn't know if heaven or hell existed, or if there was really any need to be saved. It wouldn't be any more useful in basing one's life on than any other self help book written by humans.

In the second case, if God 'wrote' the Bible but made mistakes, was inconsistent, or lied, or even as someone on these forums pointed out, deliberately set out to hide the truth from us, it is equally the case that it'd be no use looking to the Bible to find the truth about anything, as similarly, we wouldn't know which parts were 'true'.

Therefore if the Bible is fallible, it's pretty useless really, except as, maybe literature or ancient history.

Hmmm. You seem to be suggesting that if the Bible is not 100% accurate, in a literal sense, that it can't be trusted at all. I can see the logic in your argument, but this sounds to me like it is in violation of the subforum rule. Can you justify your statements within the context of the Bible being authoritative?

I'm primarily interested in hearing the views of Christians who truly look at the Bible as being authoritative, and how they rationalize the presence of this human element.

[Darias]

Do you accept the presence of a human element in the Bible?

Yes. This is self-evident.

Do you believe that having a human element implies there are some errors in the text of the Bible (errors in the autographs, not transcription errors)?

Yes. This is likely.

Do you believe there are mythic elements in the Bible?

Certainly -- creation myths, flood myths, talking animals, etc.

Do you think it is fine to make doctrinal assumptions on the basis of a single passage of scripture, or do you believe more diverse support is needed?

To do so would create a shoddy theology. But even the strongest doctrines have their weaknesses. As I grow older in my walk with God, I've become more critical of various doctrines, even reassessing my own. I reason that since all doctrines are man made, I do not equate my criticism and analysis to undermining God. Unfortunately, many doctrines are erroneously equivocated with being nothing short of God's truth themselves -- so I do get a lot of flack for asking questions.

Do you believe it ever makes sense to quote a single line of scripture to support your point of view[?] If so, explain why this makes sense in light of the presence of the human element.

No. If I do quote passages or lines of scripture to support my view, it's usually because I'm trying to illustrate what I see as flaws in my opponent's theological argument -- sort of like giving someone a taste of their own medicine -- essentially it's playing by their rules.

In my own life, I like to quote Jesus or other sections of scripture because of its poetry and morality -- which motivates me to do good and love other people. I don't like using it to condemn people -- sometimes I use it to illustrate hypocrisy in an argument, but only if the individual is being particularly uncivil or inflammatory.

[Adstar]

If there are errors in the Bible, that implies a human element.
Or it implies that God makes mistakes, or that God is inconsistent, or lies. (Stranger things have happened!)

In the first case, if there's a human element to the Bible, the Bible is useless as a book in which to find 'the truth'. You would never know which passages were true, ie, as being a direct message from God. You would not have certainty about any doctrine derived from the Bible. You wouldn't have certainty about how to be 'saved'. You wouldn't know if heaven or hell existed, or if there was really any need to be saved. It wouldn't be any more useful in basing one's life on than any other self help book written by humans.

In the second case, if God 'wrote' the Bible but made mistakes, was inconsistent, or lied, or even as someone on these forums pointed out, deliberately set out to hide the truth from us, it is equally the case that it'd be no use looking to the Bible to find the truth about anything, as similarly, we wouldn't know which parts were 'true'.

Therefore if the Bible is fallible, it's pretty useless really, except as, maybe literature or ancient history.

Hmmm. You seem to be suggesting that if the Bible is not 100% accurate, in a literal sense, that it can't be trusted at all. I can see the logic in your argument, but this sounds to me like it is in violation of the subforum rule. Can you justify your statements within the context of the Bible being authoritative?

I'm primarily interested in hearing the views of Christians who truly look at the Bible as being authoritative, and how they rationalize the presence of this human element.

Could you give me an example of the human element in the Gospels. So that i know what your talking about?


All Praise The Ancient Of Days