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.

?

[wonderer]

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.

No I couldn't justify them within the context of the Bible being authoratative, as to me, if the Bible is fallible, then it's not authoratative. I used to be a Christian who believed the Bible to be authoratative, but I didn't believe there was any human element present. Thats why I believed it to be authoratative. I was aware of 'supposed inconsistencies', and had read explanations for some of them. I was prepared to trust that there would be a reasonable explanation for the rest of them, one day at the end of time when God would explain everything. I believed that the Bible was a unified book, with consistent themes throughout, and I was convinced enough that it must have come from God himself, that I was willing to take the difficult to understand parts 'on faith'. I would not have thought it possible that the Bible could have been a false book, it seemed to make too much sense. I don't know now, how I could have believed so strongly, but that's the way it was.

I always thought that if the Bible wasn't the infallible Word of God, it wouldn't be any use taking notice of it, and once I came to think that it indeed was not infallible, I very soon gave up my Christian beliefs altogether and turned against what I had believed, in a big way.

[fredonly]

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

Here's a few:
1) Was Matthew correct to relate the Virgin Birth to a fulfillment of Scriptural prophecy? Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14, but utilizes a mistranslation of the Hebrew word alma. Alma translates to "young woman," but the Greek Septuagint used by Matthew translated it as "virgin." Luke does not make this attribution to fulfillment of prophecy. This seems like a human error of Matthew's.

2. What were Jesus' last words? Did he say, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (as indicated by Mark and Matthew), or did he say, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" as in Luke? They can't both be right. Mark is a source document to both Matthew and Luke, so for some reason Luke changed it. This is a human element.

3. Mark 1:15 quotes Jesus as saying, "The time has been fulfilled; the kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!" No similar sentiments about the imminent establishment of the kingdom of God are expressed in John. Did Mark's humanity cause him to get this wrong, or did John's humanity cause him to omit it (perhaps because John was written 20-30 years later, and the kingdom had not yet come)?

4. Did Jesus perform miracles to demonstrate who He is, as in John? Or does Matthew 12:38 correctly quote Jesus: "An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sigh will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah." In John, Jesus miracles are called "signs," and they are depicted to have been performed to demonstrate who he is. Both views can't be right, there is clearly a human element in one of them.

[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.

No I couldn't justify them within the context of the Bible being authoratative, as to me, if the Bible is fallible, then it's not authoratative. I used to be a Christian who believed the Bible to be authoratative, but I didn't believe there was any human element present. Thats why I believed it to be authoratative. I was aware of 'supposed inconsistencies', and had read explanations for some of them. I was prepared to trust that there would be a reasonable explanation for the rest of them, one day at the end of time when God would explain everything. I believed that the Bible was a unified book, with consistent themes throughout, and I was convinced enough that it must have come from God himself, that I was willing to take the difficult to understand parts 'on faith'. I would not have thought it possible that the Bible could have been a false book, it seemed to make too much sense. I don't know now, how I could have believed so strongly, but that's the way it was.

I always thought that if the Bible wasn't the infallible Word of God, it wouldn't be any use taking notice of it, and once I came to think that it indeed was not infallible, I very soon gave up my Christian beliefs altogether and turned against what I had believed, in a big way.

This is a major problem with Fundamentalist view of inerrant scripture: it sets you up for failure, since there are so many glaring (though minor) contradictions in the Bible. There are two ways to react: 1) as you did, and decide the Bible is not at all authoritative; 2) to accept the presence of a human element as explanation of the discrepancies while still accepting the overall authority of the Bible.

In this thread, I'm exploring option 2 to see how it works for those who go this route.

[wonderer]

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.

No I couldn't justify them within the context of the Bible being authoratative, as to me, if the Bible is fallible, then it's not authoratative. I used to be a Christian who believed the Bible to be authoratative, but I didn't believe there was any human element present. Thats why I believed it to be authoratative. I was aware of 'supposed inconsistencies', and had read explanations for some of them. I was prepared to trust that there would be a reasonable explanation for the rest of them, one day at the end of time when God would explain everything. I believed that the Bible was a unified book, with consistent themes throughout, and I was convinced enough that it must have come from God himself, that I was willing to take the difficult to understand parts 'on faith'. I would not have thought it possible that the Bible could have been a false book, it seemed to make too much sense. I don't know now, how I could have believed so strongly, but that's the way it was.

I always thought that if the Bible wasn't the infallible Word of God, it wouldn't be any use taking notice of it, and once I came to think that it indeed was not infallible, I very soon gave up my Christian beliefs altogether and turned against what I had believed, in a big way.

This is a major problem with Fundamentalist view of inerrant scripture: it sets you up for failure, since there are so many glaring (though minor) contradictions in the Bible. There are two ways to react: 1) as you did, and decide the Bible is not at all authoritative; 2) to accept the presence of a human element as explanation of the discrepancies while still accepting the overall authority of the Bible.

In this thread, I'm exploring option 2 to see how it works for those who go this route.

I'd like to see how option 2 works, too, for those who go this route. There are some denominatons who say 'The Bible CONTAINS the Word of God", rather than "is" the Word of God. I've never actually received a satisfactory answer to the question as to how that is reconciled with it still being authoratative.

[Moderate Guy]

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.

Let's look at the whole text, it's not that long:

1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward,[a] they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.

3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.� They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.�

5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.�

8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel[c]—because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

Granted, they didn't actually build a tower into "the heavens." But the story suggests God didn't want them to build such a tower - a brick and mortar tower couldn't possibly have been as high as modern buildings. What would God have against such things?

"the LORD confused the language of the whole world." This has been cited by some to be the reason people speak different languages. This is mythic.

But belief in the literalness of this story isn't nearly as problematic as other myths in the Bible: Genesis creation, Noah's flood, and the story of Jonah being swallowed by a fish and living there 3 days.

I know that fundamentalists believe all such stories are 100% true. Are you of this persuasion?

[Adstar]

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

Here's a few:
1) Was Matthew correct to relate the Virgin Birth to a fulfillment of Scriptural prophecy? Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14, but utilizes a mistranslation of the Hebrew word alma. Alma translates to "young woman," but the Greek Septuagint used by Matthew translated it as "virgin." Luke does not make this attribution to fulfillment of prophecy. This seems like a human error of Matthew's.

There are 3 words that need to be looked at. If Isaiah was just talking about a young woman then he should have used the Word "na arah" but he didn't. If he wanted to use the word virgin He could have used "bethoolaw" but that could mean any female even ones not yet reached child bearing age. Isaiah used the Word Alma and that means a eligible young woman who is single and chaste.

1. The word "na'arah" signified a young woman whether single or married.
2. The word "bethoolaw" signified a virgin but not necessarily of marriageable age.
3. Only the word "alma" signified an eligible young woman, single and chaste.

The statement that alma just means young woman is false. Isaiah would have used "na arah" if he was only talking about a young woman of child bearing age single or married.

And how would it be a sign to anyone if a young woman gave birth to a baby boy and called it Immanuel?? That happened a lot. Nothing special about that. But the birth of Jesus from a virgin now there is a definite sign.

2. What were Jesus' last words? Did he say, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (as indicated by Mark and Matthew), or did he say, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" as in Luke? They can't both be right. Mark is a source document to both Matthew and Luke, so for some reason Luke changed it. This is a human element.

Jesus last words where "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" as luke states.

Mark states:

Mark 15
33 Now when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?� which is translated, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?�
35 Some of those who stood by, when they heard that, said, “Look, He is calling for Elijah!� 36 Then someone ran and filled a sponge full of sour wine, put it on a reed, and offered it to Him to drink, saying, “Let Him alone; let us see if Elijah will come to take Him down.�
37 And Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and breathed His last.

Jesus cried out with a loud voice AFTER he had already said My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me, So Mark is not stating that My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me where the last words Jesus said, He is saying it was the second last words that Jesus said.

And again Matthew says the same thing:

Matthew 27
46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?� that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?�
47 Some of those who stood there, when they heard that, said, “This Man is calling for Elijah!� 48 Immediately one of them ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and offered it to Him to drink.
49 The rest said, “Let Him alone; let us see if Elijah will come to save Him.�
50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.

So your supposed inconsistency is just not there in scriptures.

3. Mark 1:15 quotes Jesus as saying, "The time has been fulfilled; the kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!" No similar sentiments about the imminent establishment of the kingdom of God are expressed in John. Did Mark's humanity cause him to get this wrong, or did John's humanity cause him to omit it (perhaps because John was written 20-30 years later, and the kingdom had not yet come)?

The Spiritual beginning of the Kingdom came on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came down into the apostles. So Jesus was correct that the Kingdom was close at hand. Each and every Christian down through the centuries who likewise have been indwelled by the Holy Spirit has also entered into the Spiritual Kingdom. This Kingdom is a real Kingdom but it is not the full physical manifestation of the Kingdom. This Kingdom will not be appear until the second coming of the Messiah Jesus. So Christians belong to the Kingdom that came on the day of Pentecost but they are in a Spiritual kingdom in waiting for the final physical manifestation of that same Kingdom.

No inconsistency. Just an inability to understand leading to a perception of inconsistency.

4. Did Jesus perform miracles to demonstrate who He is, as in John? Or does Matthew 12:38 correctly quote Jesus: "An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sigh will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah." In John, Jesus miracles are called "signs," and they are depicted to have been performed to demonstrate who he is. Both views can't be right, there is clearly a human element in one of them.

When Jesus said "An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sigh will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah." He was talking to limited crowd, not about the entire nation of the Jews.

Matthew 12
38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.�
39 But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

The scribes and Pharisees where demanding a sign from Him. His response was a specific response to them. They where however given the sign of Jonah.



Thanks for posting your examples.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[wonderer]

Consistent with Christian beliefs, this subforum requires accepting the premise that the 66 canonical books of the Bible are considered authoritative. . [/list]?

Does this subforum require accepting the premise that the Bible books are considered 'authoratative' in the sense of being without error of any kind?

[fredonly]

Consistent with Christian beliefs, this subforum requires accepting the premise that the 66 canonical books of the Bible are considered authoritative. . [/list]?

Does this subforum require accepting the premise that the Bible books are considered 'authoratative' in the sense of being without error of any kind?

I think the answer is no. I asked a similar question previously, and it was this exchange that led me to post the current thread:

Moderator Comment

Fewwillfindit- Before I respond, we need to get a common understanding of the subforum rules. The rule is:

In this subforum, the Bible (the 66 canonical books of the Bible) is considered an authoritative source. Challenges to the authority of the Bible are not allowed here.

As I read it, this does not demand that we accept the traditional authorship of the various books of the Bible, does it insist we accept the traditional dating of the books, does not insist that we accept a literalist view of the Bible, nor does it preclude the possibility of a human element in the Bible. The Bible can be regarded as authoritative in spite of this, as any liberal-minded Christian will agree, I believe.

Do you disagree?

No, to be fair, I do not disagree. The only thing I disagree with is questioning the authorship where within the text it explicitly states who the author is. Exact dates are not explicitly stated within the text, so this would have nothing to do with subforum rules. Literalism and human elements are also debatable issues as there is more than one way to understand these from the text.

However, I believe that calling into question the authenticity of Biblical books or calling them forgeries does go against the subforum rules.

I will bring the issues raised here up for discussion with the other moderators, but will say a few things for now.

Yes, as fewwillfindit and fredonly seem to agree, the TD&D guidelines are not meant to imply that any particular interpretation of scripture is the only valid one, nor that any particular opinion on dating is to be considered authoritative, nor preclude a "human element" or even potential errors. The main rationale for the guideline is to provide a forum for debate where the Bible can be cited as evidence without digressing into questions regarding the validity of the Bible as evidence.

We have not had the issue of authorship come up before that I am aware of. I think it is fair to say that the forum guidelines are not meant to imply that many of the traditional ascriptions, often based on church tradition, which are not made within the text of the Bible itself are authoritative.

My own interpretation of the guidelines would suggest that if an authorship issue is alluded to in the Bible, that can be considered evidence for that authorship claim.
However, the guidelines are not meant to imply that non-Biblical evidence cannot be cited or that such evidence carries no weight or even less weight than Biblical evidence. Thus, if there is evidence that an authorship claim is not true, even if that claim is supported by the Bible, that evidence is admissable. Again, the main reason for the guidelines is to avoid constant challenges or dismissals of the Bible as evidence. I am not sure the guidelines are meant to imply that the Bible trumps all other forms of evidence.



However, as I said, I will see what the views of the other moderators and report back to the thread.