Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

        To start the ball rolling, I'll quote from some other notes
        that I've already written:

        "I believe in the Bible as the unique repository of God's
        revelation and a history of God's involvement with people.  I
        shy away from a position on "inerrancy" both because I find
        most of the arguments for it to be emotional appeals and
        because I find that it leads to a literalism that amounts to
        a new legalism.  I believe that "seeing through a glass
        darkly" and "treasure in earthen vessels" apply to revealed
        truth. 
           
        "As a Catholic I tend to disagree with the Protestant
        viewpoint that all the God-inspired truth that the early
        church possessed was written down in the canonical
        scriptures.  On the other hand, I do not always agree with
        the Catholic Church's own brand of literalism/legalism,
        either. 

        "Part of the problem we have in our discussions in notes
        conferences is that there are (at least!) two kinds of people
        in this world:  those who believe that God has made known
        certain well defined absolute and infallible truths, and
        those who believe that the only absolute and infallible truth
        is the existence of God, and that all revealed truth is
        simply an approximation of and suggestion of that one
        absolute truth.

        "People who feel that a religious faith MUST be based on what
        the believer, at least, considers "absolute truth" have a
        hard time when they are confronted by believers who don't
        claim that their beliefs are "absolutely true".

        "I have a stranger predicament -- I think that "reality" lies
        somewhere in between!  I have a very hard time accepting
        religious beliefs as founded upon a set of infallible
        propositional truths, be those truths be the dogma of a
        church or the text of a book.  I personally base my faith on
        a belief in, reliance upon, relationship to, and submission
        to the one ultimate truth I do profess, namely the existence
        of the God who was manifest in the person of Jesus the
        Messiah.  I believe that the Scriptures and the teachings of
        the Church are God-inspired, authoritative, good, and useful
        but I don't believe that they completely describe God, his
        works, and his principles."
        
        "They [the Scriptures] were written by people whose eyes were
        opened to seeing God as intimately involved with life, and
        not just a far-off monarch.  That was, and continues to be,
        an uncommon ability.

        "... my view [is that] that Scripture is the writing of
        people whose eyes were opened to the presence and working of
        God in their world.  This is in distinction to a more
        traditional view that Scriptures are God's dictation, and
        hence self-description.

        "If you take (as I do) the view that the narrative and
        historic portions of Scripture is an inspired human view of
        God's action in the world, then that view is remarkable, and
        uniquely valuable, even if colored by interpretations
        stemming from the author's personality and culture.

        "I don't think that God would be offended by an author who
        portrays God in some ways that would seem unsavory today but
        which, in the author's culture, were generally accepted
        practice.  I think that it is our responsibility, when
        studying Scripture, not just to accept the human author's
        viewpoint at face value, but to understand what the divine
        actions underlying it were, and then to re-express those
        underlying divine actions in the words that we would use to
        describe them today."

        Of course, we must never make the mistake of thinking that
        our understanding of Scripture is infallible.

        Bob

    re: .1
    
>        "... my view [is that] that Scripture is the writing of
>        people whose eyes were opened to the presence and working of
>        God in their world.  This is in distinction to a more
>        traditional view that Scriptures are God's dictation, and
>        hence self-description.

    What, if anything, sets Scripture apart from literature written by
    other "people whose eyes were opened to the presence and working of God
    in their world?"
    
    
    - Barry W.

re Note 18.2 by LABC::WALLIS:

>     What, if anything, sets Scripture apart from literature written by
>     other "people whose eyes were opened to the presence and working of God
>     in their world?"
  
        In my view, what sets Scripture apart, and what makes it
        absolutely unique, are the events that it observes.

        It observes the preparation, coming, life, and sacrifice of
        God incarnate, which has a uniquely important value for all
        people.  This alone would make it stand above all other
        "inspired" literature.

        Bob

    One important aspect of my own spiritual growth over the last few years
    has been the development of a healthy appreciation of the Bible. When I
    had rejected the tenets of my fundamentalist background many years ago,
    my natural reaction had been to go to the opposite extreme and thus
    regard the Bible with disdain.  I have since come to realize that the
    Bible is an important part of my culture (for both good and bad), and
    it is important to thoroughly understand it.  Also, because
    Christianity is a part of my background, the Hebrew and Christian
    scriptures (also known as the Old and New Testaments) cannot help but
    be a part of my spirituality.

    Thus, about two years ago, I underwent the process of reading the
    Bible.  In fact, I now have four different translations in my home.  I
    found that I was able to appreciate the good to be found there, and as
    a result I could put the less savory parts (e.g., sexism, or violence
    such as found in the book of Joshua) in perspective.  That isn't to say
    that I ignore those parts, but I came to feel that they did not
    invalidate the Bible as a whole.
    
    I don't consider the Bible to be the only valid source of religious
    inspiration; nor do I consider the corresponding Western religious
    tradition to be the only valid spiritual path for all.  But because of
    my own spiritual leanings, I am closer to the Hebrew and Christian
    spiritualities than to those of the East.  Therefore, the Bible does
    play a role for me.
    
    There has been some effort within the Religious Society of Friends to
    re-emphasize the Bible as an important spiritual resource.  Most Friends
    (but not all) are Christians, and the Quaker faith has its origins in
    a radical Christianity of the 17th Century; but many modern Friends,
    especially the unprogrammed ones, tend to emphasis mysticism and the
    Inner Light, and may even have little or no interest in the Bible.  In
    response to that, Virginia Quaker Chuck Fager called a Friends Bible
    Conference last year, and the resulting papers were collected into a
    book called "Reclaiming a Resource".  I have that book, and I have found
    it to have some merit for me, despite its Christian emphasis.

    Quakers in general (with the possible exception of the Evangelical
    Friends) are not biblical literalists, and that tradition goes back to
    George Fox, the founder of the Quaker movement.  He was first arrested
    over this very issue, as a matter of fact.  He reports in his journal:

	...[The priest at Nottingham] told the people that the Scriptures
	were the touchstone and judge by which they were to try all
	doctrines, religions, and opinions, and to end controversy.  Now the
	Lord's power was so mighty upon me, and so strong in me, that I
	could not hold, but was made to cry out and say, 'Oh no, it is not
	the Scriptures', and was commanded to tell them God did not dwell in
	temples made with hands.  But I told them what it was, namely, the
	Holy Spirit, by which the holy men of God gave forth be tried; for
	it led into all Truth, and so gave the knowledge of all Truth...

    This has generally been the position of Quakers since then. Furthermore,
    Quakers believe that there is that of God in everyone, and through the
    Inner Light (sometimes called the Christ within), there is a process
    that Quakers call "continuing revelation".  Quakers do not believe that
    revelation is ever closed; rather, humanity will continue to develop a
    better understanding of God and the application of their faith over
    time.  Quakers do believe in striking a balance between individual
    understanding of the Light and the workings of the group as a whole. 
    Both the individual and the group can serve as checks against one
    another as all seek to understand the Spirit.  Thus Quakers have a
    strong emphasis on consensus, which is their method of conducting
    official business.

    One of the reasons that U.S. Quakers have split into several
    denominations is that there have been divergent views over the
    respective roles of the the Inner Light and the Bible.  The Evangelical
    Friends Alliance, for example, embodies a view not unlike that of
    conservative Protestants, which represents a break from the view
    expressed by George Fox.  The rest of Quakerism, though, generally has
    no set creed (other than possibly the belief in that of God in
    everyone), and they can have widely divergent views on the Bible--some
    revere it, others pay little if any attention to it.  Furthermore, even
    those who value the Bible often find that some parts of the Bible are
    more inspired than others.

    The underlying principle of "that of God in everyone" itself translates
    to certain Quaker traditions, which themselves may or may not be found
    in the Bible.  This principle means that all human beings are valued,
    and the resulting conclusions that Quakers draw include a necessary
    opposition to racism, sexism, violence, and war.  This is why the 18th
    century U.S. Quaker John Woolman led the struggle against slavery, a
    struggle of which Quakers continued to be at the forefront up until the
    Civil War. Quakers have also always believed in the equality of men and
    women--a rather radical notion for the mid 1600s.  Modern Quakers are
    extending this principle into new areas, such as sexual preference;
    many Quaker meetings now perform same-sex marriages, or have gay and
    lesbian concerns committees.  In this way continuing revelation
    operates even today.  The great Quaker mystic Rufus Jones put it this
    way:

        But greatly as I loved the Bible and devoutly as I believed in my
        first years that it was to be taken in literal fashion, I am
        thankful to say that I very early caught the faith and insight,
        which George Fox and other Quaker leaders had taught, that God is
        always revealing himself, and that truth is not something finished,
        but something unfolding as life goes forward.

    I am closely associated with the Religious Society of Friends, even
    though I am not a Christian.  Not all Quakers need be Christians, and
    in fact many are not.  I thus find that I can find a spiritual home in
    the Quaker faith, as I turn to many sources for my own spiritual
    development--many of which are rooted in Christianity.  That even
    includes the Bible.

    -- Mike

    Mike (.4),
    
    Thanks for your description of the Quaker faith.  I hadn't realized
    that their beliefs were so similar to my own.
    
    Ro
    

    Re .2 (Barry - hey, another Barry; hi!)
    
    Of course I haven't read all of the other "holy writings" for
    comparison, but I have done a pretty good amount of study on the
    formation of the canon, the ancient manuscripts, and many of the modern
    English versions of the Bible. The thing that strikes me about it is
    how it repeatedly makes the claim that it is God's word, and that it
    reveals God to the world in the Person of Jesus Christ.
    
    One thing that has always impressed me is how this book, written over a
    period of some 2000 years by dozens of different authors from extremely
    diverse walks of life, is so internally consistent. Barring the (very
    few) insignificant slips that have crept into our modern translations,
    I've learned through serious study that the Bible is totally without
    error. This in itself is miraculous and provides compelling evidence to
    its divine authorship.
    
    	BD�

    It helps me to think of the Bible as a collection of books, rather
    than a singular book.  The Bible contains history, poetry, prophesy,
    4 accounts of the life of Jesus, letters, and more.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Re: Note 18.3 by XANADU::FLEISCHER (Bob Fleischer)
  
>        In my view, what sets Scripture apart, and what makes it
>        absolutely unique, are the events that it observes.
>
>        It observes the preparation, coming, life, and sacrifice of
>        God incarnate, which has a uniquely important value for all
>        people.  This alone would make it stand above all other
>        "inspired" literature.

You can make this same claim, I think, for the Talmud and other ancient Jewish
writings (they certainly talk about the messiah, even if they don't recognize
him as Jesus) and the writings of Josephus (which are a secular chronicle of
the life and times of Jesus). Are there other books which you claim as
scriptural on the above grounds?


Re: Note 18.4 by CSC32::M_VALENZA (Mike Valenza)

Thanks for the insight into the Quaker religion. You have raised some
interesting points which have prompted me to start a new topic ("What
constitutes a Christian religion?"). Since the Quakers believe in continuing
revelation do they have any other writings that they put on a par with the
scriptures? From your note I understand that it is very difficult (impossible?)
to state what Quakers as a whole believe (since according to your note they
consist of both Christains and non-Christians) and I will temper your response
with that in mind.


Re: Note 18.6  DYPSS1::DYSERT (Barry Dysert)

I agree with you, the Bible does seem to be both uniquely inspired, cohesive,
and preserved (I think we may have more in common than just our first names).
Looking at the Dead Sea scrolls and comparing them to the later texts seems to
be an amazing feat of preservation.

re Note 18.8 by LABC::WALLIS:

Re: Note 18.3 by XANADU::FLEISCHER (Bob Fleischer)
  
> You can make this same claim, I think, for the Talmud and other ancient Jewish
> writings (they certainly talk about the messiah, even if they don't recognize
> him as Jesus) and the writings of Josephus (which are a secular chronicle of
> the life and times of Jesus). Are there other books which you claim as
> scriptural on the above grounds?

        My understanding is that Josephus does make some passing
        mention of Jesus, but not an extensive record.

        My understanding of the Talmud is that it is a commentary on
        the Bible, and not a contemporary writing at all.  (I believe
        that it is newer than the New Testament, according to my
        dictionary AD 400-500.)

        Bob

    Re:All
    
    Hi Folks:
    
    I too appreciate the information on the beliefs of the Quakers.  While
    my brother-in-law purports to be a Quaker, I haven't been around him
    long enough to find out just what he believes.  But I find it difficult
    to buy the argument that Godly inspiration is ongoing.  First of all,
    just what has the 'ongoing' revelation produced in real terms. Modern 
    society, according to that line of belief, is in possession of better 
    and more up-to-date revelation than our predecessors.  Have we achieved
    a period of peace and prosperity that even comes close to that realized
    by King Solomon whose revelation was only those Hebrew scriptures 
    available to him?  Even the pagan Queen of Sheba exclaimed after seeing
    the reign of Solomon, "Look! I had not been told the half.  You have
    surpassed in wisdom and prosperity the things heard to which I
    listened."  --1 Kings 10:7 (NWT)
    
    How about morals and values?  Have they improved with our increased
    revelation?  Hardly.  Crime, wars and immorality are rife in the earth
    with one war succeeding another, citizens of third world countries
    slaughtering each other with a brutality seldom seen since the
    inquisition.  None of this would happen if we accept the Bible as
    sufficient revelation and just do what it says!!    
    
    Its 66 books were penned by some 40 writers who without exception 
    accepted divine authority and never took credit for inspiration.
    Indeed, the Psalmist David expressed the views of all the rest when he
    stated "The spirit of Jehovah it was that spoke by me, and his word was
    upon my tongue."  --2 Sam. 23:2 (NWT)  No book has ever been translated
    into so many tongues (1,800 to date) loved by so many nor has been the 
    target of so much vicious opposition and hatred throughout history. 
    By the same token, no book has inspired so many people nor such greatness 
    in the men and women who accepted its authority and loved its author.  
    If it weren't for the Bible, Hebrew as a language would likely be as 
    extinct as Akkadian and Sumerian, both of which had vast literature 
    which their peoples accepted as divinely inspired.
    
    The Bible as a book maintains a level of accuracy both in history and
    in prophecy that uniquely testifies to its divine inspiration.  How
    else can one explain prophecies that are mathematically accurate over
    periods of hundreds and even thousands of years?  Not only are the
    writers different, but often didn't even understand what they were
    writing when the fulfillment was to occur well into the future. Daniel
    aptly expressed his interest in knowing about such matters when he said
    to the dictating angel, "Now as for me, I heard, but I could not
    understand; so that I said: "O my lord, what will be the final part of
    these things?"  And he went on to say: "Go, Daniel, because the words
    are made secret and sealed up until the time of the end [in which we
    live]."  --Dan 12:8,9 (NWT)
    
    The fulfillment of the prophecies he gave are nothing short of
    fascinating and have taken place exactly on schedule.  In like manner
    so have other revelations concerning the 'last days.'  The value of
    these words ascend far above any professed modern revelations.  The
    problem is simply that few people accept the Bible and the authority of
    its author.  It's much more fashionable to be skeptical about the
    Bible, to consider it out of date and irrelevant and to search for more
    up-to-date values and principles.  If people would take the time to
    understand what the Bible has to say and apply it in their lives, we
    would have no need for anyone else's revelations.  It is quite
    sufficient in itself and today, even more so than any generation in the
    past, we need to appreciate the comment made by the Apostle Paul when he
    said "the Word of God is alive and exerts power." (Heb. 4:12)  But that
    power can act toward us only when we exert ourselves to learn what it
    has to say and then apply it in our lives.
    
    'Nuff said...
    
    Larry
    

    Whether or not any scriptures were available in Solomon's day is not a
    question that all the participants here will agree on.  Many scholars
    would date what they believe to be the first strand of the Pentateuch,
    J, from as early as Solomon's time, or possibly later.  Of course,
    those who reject the Documentary Hypothesis in favor of a belief in
    Moses's authorship of the Pentateuch would naturally believe that these
    five books were written by Solomon's time.

    As for Solomon's alleged wisdom--well, whether he really merited such a
    reputation is a question that probably deserves another topic.  And as
    for the alleged lack of progress of ideas over the course of history, I
    am afraid that I disagree.  The rise of democratic institutions in many
    parts of the world within the last few centuries, the abolition of
    slavery, the women's rights movement, and (with the unfortunate
    exception of the United States) the abolition of the death penalty
    among economically advanced countries, all attest to the development of
    new and more enlightened ideas disseminating within societies.  I am
    not aware that Solomon accepted any of those values in his own realm. 
    After all, he was not exactly chosen to be King through free and
    democratic multiparty elections, and as far as I know slavery and
    capital punishment were very much a part of his world.  For a
    discussion of the history of ideas concerning slavery, I recommend the
    first section of Alfred North Whitehead's book, "Adventures of Ideas".
    
    That is *certainly* not to say that all is well with the world today,
    of course; far from it.   There is still very much work that we have to
    do.  The goal of eliminating poverty, militarism, racism, sexism,
    homophobia, and injustice is an ideal that I believe we must continue
    to strive for, just as prophetic Americans more than a century ago
    strove to eliminate slavery from their nation.  Pipe dream or not, I
    think it is worth the effort.

    -- Mike

    RE:  .11 and one previous on whether �inspirition continues ---
    
    I believe God speaks to me and to you.  �I believe this is both
    timeless and timely.  Does this invalidate scripture?   NO.  I prefer
    to think of it as the continued unfolding of a rose, which was the same
    flower even in the seed.
    
    DR

re Note 18.10 by MAMTS2::LROSS:

>     Its 66 books were penned by some 40 writers who without exception 
>     accepted divine authority and never took credit for inspiration.
>     Indeed, the Psalmist David expressed the views of all the rest when he
>     stated "The spirit of Jehovah it was that spoke by me, and his word was
>     upon my tongue."  --2 Sam. 23:2 (NWT)  

        I have no doubt that there are, recorded in the Bible, some
        words and phrases, laws and prophecies, that were received
        from the mind of God.

        Note that 2 Sam. 23:2 uses the words "spoke" and "tongue",
        note "wrote" and "pen".

        The issue is whether every last word, even those that appear
        (from context) to be the writings of human authors, are
        actually not that at all, but directly authored (dictated) by
        God.

>     If it weren't for the Bible, Hebrew as a language would likely be as 
>     extinct as Akkadian and Sumerian, both of which had vast literature 
>     which their peoples accepted as divinely inspired.
  
        My hypothesis, i.e., that it is the unique importance of the
        events recorded that make the Bible unique, would also
        explain its unique track record.  (Can you use "unique" three
        times in a sentence? :-)
          
>     The Bible as a book maintains a level of accuracy both in history and
>     in prophecy that uniquely testifies to its divine inspiration.  How
>     else can one explain prophecies that are mathematically accurate over
>     periods of hundreds and even thousands of years?  

        Once again, we must not confuse accuracy of the prophecies
        that were recorded with accuracy of the entire text of which
        those recorded prophecies are only a part.

        Once again, I must emphasize that I do not deny
        "inspiration", or, more scripturally, "God-breathing" of
        Scripture.  But I do question the enormous leap to the
        conclusion that therefore every word is divinely chosen. 
        The text never says that.
    
>     If people would take the time to
>     understand what the Bible has to say and apply it in their lives, we
>     would have no need for anyone else's revelations.  It is quite
>     sufficient in itself and today, even more so than any generation in the
>     past, 

        I actually agree with you on this!  But, unlike most
        conservative Christians, I don't see the need -- or the
        scriptural justification -- to conclude literal inerrancy for
        all of the Bible in order to hold the above position.  It
        seems that traditional Christianity (and I include the
        Catholic and Orthodox traditions in this) feels an intense
        need to super-elevate Scripture, as if there were a danger of
        it being ignored if we only appreciated it as a "merely
        inspired" record of God's special involvement in the world's
        history.

>     we need to appreciate the comment made by the Apostle Paul when he
>     said "the Word of God is alive and exerts power." (Heb. 4:12)  But that
>     power can act toward us only when we exert ourselves to learn what it
>     has to say and then apply it in our lives.
  
        This is the biggest theological mistake you make.  Scripture
        says that Christ is "the Word of God".  Christ is certainly
        alive, and through the Holy Spirit certainly exerts power.

        All pronouncements of God, whether recorded in Scripture or
        not, have power only because of the one who pronounced them.

        THE WORD OF GOD IS NOT AN "IT"!!!!!!!

        Bob

Continuing Bible discussion here...

Bob,

What does it mean when Jesus says every jot (jog?) and tittle of the Law shall
be preserved?  These are the marks used when in the actually writing.  These
marks are actually the smallest marks that form part of a character in
Hebrew.  It sure sounds to me like Jesus was saying *every* word that
was originally written will *last*.

Just more to consider.

Collis

re Note 18.14 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> What does it mean when Jesus says every jot (jog?) and tittle of the Law shall
> be preserved?  These are the marks used when in the actually writing.  These
> marks are actually the smallest marks that form part of a character in
> Hebrew.  It sure sounds to me like Jesus was saying *every* word that
> was originally written will *last*.

        Yeah, so?

        From this you conclude not only that every word of the law
        will be preserved, which is reasonable to conclude from this
        passage, but then you go on to conclude that every written
        word of every line of Scripture is inerrant?  That is a
        gigantic leap!

        (Although I must say that it isn't clear whether Jesus means
        "the law as God declared it" or "the recorded text of the
        law" -- note the contemporary phrase "laying down the letter
        of the law", in which "letter" is used figuratively, rather
        than meaning a glyph to be inscribed.)

        Bob

Bob, if you're willing to consider the entire law as inerrant, I consider
that a leap forward from where you are today (if I understand you correctly).
Are you willing to believe this?

(I'm willing.  Help my disbelief. :-) )

Your point is well taken, Bob.  There certainly is a gap between stating
that the law is inerrant and stating that the entire Bible is inerrant.
Let me help fill this gap in for you.

First off, this is not the only word I've said on the subject in the past
day.  This is just one more piece of IMO convincing evidence.

Secondly, to the best of my knowledge, all Scripture is treated alike
in terms of its authority and accuracy.  No where in the Bible am I aware
of a portion of Scripture ever treated as less than fully authoritative
(that is, fully true).  There are (somewhere around?) a hundred quotes of
the Old Testament in the New Testament.  Every one (with the possible
exception of a quote in Ephesians 4 which I also believe qualifies)
assumes the truthfulness of the quoted material.  (You're getting all
this evidence from me piece by piece in different notes.  It's starting
to pile up... :-) )

Third, let's look at a similar verse which covers more than the law.

Isaiah 40:8  "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the 
word of our
  God stands forever".

The Bible is referred to often as the word of God.  Does this help by
extending the principle?

Collis

Re:  .15

In terms of "the law as God declared it", I think that the "law as God
declared it" *has* to be considered to be the written text, because this
quote explicitly deals with the written text.

Collis

    The OT canon was closed by the time of Jesus. Back then it was
    contained in 22 (or 24?) books. However, it was the same text as we
    have in our 39 OT books today. (The Hebrew Bible has some of our books
    combined, e.g. the Kings, Chronicles, Samuels, Ezra/Nehemiah, the 12
    minor prophets.)
    
    The Jews classified their Holy Scriptures into three parts, viz. the
    law, prophets, and psalms (or writings). All three were considered
    inspired, however, and it can be seen from the NT that while Jesus
    recognized this classification He also apparently treated them all as
    being equal in authority.
    
    Some selected examples include Matt. 5:18 (the famous "jot and tittle"
    verse), which mentions only the law. In Matt. 7:12 we read about the
    law and the prophets. In Luke 24:44 we read about the law, the
    prophets, and the psalms.
    
    Further evidence that Jesus wasn't talking exclusively about the
    Pentateuch when He referred to the law can be seen from His words as
    recorded in John 10:34 and John 15:25. In both of these verses He's
    assigning a quotation as having come from the law, but in reality
    they're quotes from Psalm 82:6 and 35:19 (respectively). (I realize
    someone could say that He or John just made a mistake. My response to
    that is I think it's not being serious to simply dismiss any Biblical
    passages that don't agree with our preconceived notions.)
    
    Jesus also "rubber stamped" the current OT when He reminded them (in
    Matt. 23:35 & Luke 11:51) about the span of martyrs from Abel to
    Zechariah. In the Hebrew Bible, 2 Chronicles (where Zechariah's death
    is recorded) was the last book in the canon. Genesis was the first.
    Abel was the first martyr and Zechariah the last martyr - in the order
    presented in the canon. There were later martyrs chronologically, but
    these are contained in the "inner" books of the Hebrew canon. So I
    think Jesus was affirming the full range of the OT by "bookending" it
    with this comment. And remember, the text of this entire Hebrew canon
    is the same text, albeit reordered, that exists as our OT today.
    
    	BD�

    re: several of the previous
    
    	Sheba was indeed impressed by Solomon, a man whose wisdom is held
    up to us even today as enlightened. This is the man who was wise enough
    to exchange certain promises with the Queen of Sheba, including one
    about theft, and then had a highly salty meal prepared for her. There
    was no water by the Queen's bedside so she took that from his, the
    result being delivered 9 months later in Ethiopia. He also was the wise
    man who was asked to decide which of two women was the mother of a
    babe. His solution was to threaten to cut the babe in half - and he had
    every right to do so under the law. Nice gentle guy. Great laws.
    	About the peace of that world vs our own. You may have noticed that
    the world of the Old Testement is perhaps 1% of that covered in the
    6o'clock news? A more accurate comparison in terms of acres and
    population might be New England and New York. When did our various
    states last war against each other or against our northern neighbor?
    	About the accuracy of prophecy in the Bible. I would like to point
    out that the Greeks held the Oracle at Delphi in high regard for the
    accuracy of the predictions made there. There is not a single recorded
    instance of an erroneous prediction. Sounds great until you understand
    that the "oracle" was a local village idiot who sat on a throne over a
    volcanic crack into which certain plant matter was thrown. The
    resulting smoke was hallucinogenic and the resulting babble was the
    "prediction" - which could always be interpreted as having been right
    in hindsight.
    	About the inerrancy of the Bible and its lack of contradiction or
    change. Gee, I wish I'd taken the time to study those curious numbers
    and stuff in the margins; perhaps some of you scholars could correct my
    quotation and fill in the numbers. Prior to Christ the law stated "an
    eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", a ruling intended, no doubt,
    to insure that the punishment fit the crime and was not excessive. Then
    Christ came along and, through continueing revelation, said 'that's
    wrong, I say you should turn the other cheek'.(single quotes indicates
    that I KNOW the wording is not "standard") Christ was, imho, urging the
    precidence of the spirit of the law over the letter of the law.

re Note 18.16 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> Bob, if you're willing to consider the entire law as inerrant, I consider
> that a leap forward from where you are today (if I understand you correctly).
> Are you willing to believe this?

        My second, parenthetical, paragraph was my poor attempt at
        saying that not even the conclusion "the entire law as
        (written is) inerrant" is warranted by the verse you quoted.


> Isaiah 40:8  "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the 
word of our
>   God stands forever".
> 
> The Bible is referred to often as the word of God.  Does this help by
> extending the principle?

        John 1 appears to be definitively stating that "the word of
        God" is Christ.

        (And, if we did not have John 1 for guidance on this, we
        would still have the problem that "stands forever" does not
        mean or imply "a particular text recording the word is
        inerrant".)

        Bob

re Note 18.17 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> In terms of "the law as God declared it", I think that the "law as God
> declared it" *has* to be considered to be the written text, because this
> quote explicitly deals with the written text.

        But does it?  It is in a context in which an allusion to the
        written text could be used to convey a meaning, not about
        the literal text, but to the concept of God's law.

        And, as I said before, "no changes" does not mean or imply
        "the text is inerrant".

        Bob

re Note 18.18 by DYPSS1::DYSERT:

        Barry,

        The words "authoritative" and "rubber stamped", when used in
        ANY other context, would not be regarded as synonymous or
        proof of "inerrancy".  There are dozens of books in my local
        public library that I would consider authoritative, but not
        one of which are considered inerrant by anybody!

        Bob

Tell me if I'm understanding you correctly, Bob.

When Jesus says that not one jot or tittle of the law will disapear, he
wasn't really referring explicitly to the strokes made in writing?

If I got this right, then it is true that we just don't see eye to eye
on this one.

What is clear to me, is not clear to you (and vice versa).

The written law will not disappear according to Matthew 5:18.
God (Jesus) Himself said this.
God does not lie.
What does God do with that which is wrong?  Does he preserve it or
destroy it?  He destroys it.
God is preserving *every mark* of the law.
Therefore, every mark of the law is correct, not wrong.

That's my logic.  It makes perfect sense to me.

Collis

    re .23
    
    I'll bite:  What's a tittle??  Is it like a tuffet??
    
    Didn't someone here hint that Matthew was gearing his Gospel
    toward the Jews?  And wouldn't it have had a certain appeal to
    the Jews to hear that their precious Mosaic Law was not going to be
    discarded, destroyed, and forever swept away as totally invalid?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Bob:
    
    Your use of "Word" or 'logos' in Greek is more limited than it's use in
    the Bible.  According to Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament
    Words, the word 'logos' refers to (1) expressions of thought in written
    or oral form, or (2) the revealed will of God, or (3) a title of the
    Son of God.  Other similar sources state that the 'Word' as a title
    implies a speaker for God, one who imparts God's will to his listeners. 
    So its use in the Bible can refer to both the written word or to Jesus
    as the Word of God.  It depends on the specific application and
    context.
    
    In addition, I have a problem with understanding your position on
    inerrancy.  If the Bible is inspired by God, or rather the writers were
    inspired when they wrote, then how is the Bible inerrant in any sense. 
    If God inspires a writer who pens a document under that inspiration,
    then by definition of the word God it is either going to be inerrant or
    it wasn't inspired.  It doesn't make sense to me that a portion was
    inspired and was accurate while other portions by the same writer were
    not.   Can you, in fact, show inaccuracies which are attributed to the
    Bible and not to a lack of human understanding?
    
    Larry
    

    Rich:
    
    A tittle was a dot or diacritical mark used in manuscripts.  In more
    modern times it simply refers to a very small particle (and is so
    translated in some modern translations.)  However, more important, the
    comment that the law would not be done away with has nothing to do with
    the literal law of Moses, but rather the fulfillment of the law.  Paul
    stated that the "law has become our tutor leading to Christ." (Gal
    4:24)  In that sense the "law has a shadow of the good things to come." 
    (Heb. 10:1)  Once that had been accomplished, the law had no further
    value whereas the sacrifice of Jesus had great value and was the
    fulfillment of the law.  So "[God] kindly forgave us all our trespasses
    and blotted out the handwritten document [the law] against us, which
    consisted of decrees and which was in opposition to us." --Col. 2:13,14
    (NWT)  The result is that the law is no more and has no value other
    than to read it and thus help us understand the mind of God who gave
    it. But in the sense of the law's fulfillment, not a particle was taken
    away from it.
    
    Larry
    

    The key to biblical literalism is its dogmatic nature.  Either, argues
    this position, the entire Bible must be literally true, or else the
    entire Bible would be worthless.  Such alternatives!  This inability to
    perceive a middle ground means that any inroads of modernism,
    scholarship, or reason must be fought against, at all costs.  For if
    any inroads are allowed to develop, the entire foundation of their
    belief system would crumble.  Once that is recognized, it becomes clear
    why fundamentalism fears modernism as much as it does, and why it fights
    tooth and nail against any perceived heresy.  Thus the Documentary
    Hypothesis, the Two Source Hypothesis, biological evolution, or any
    other development in science or biblical scholarship is a threat to the
    dogma.

    A faith that is not so threatened by collapse over every jot and tittle
    of dogma is not so inflexible.  Mainline, non-fundamentalist
    Christianity, is not threatened by modern serious scholarship or by
    scientific discoveries.  It accepts reason and easily incorporates it
    into the continually developing human understanding of the cosmos.  It
    does not depend on the age of the earth or who wrote the Pentateuch.

    For those from fundamentalist backgrounds who realize that biblical
    literalism is an untenable position, the alternative is to go to the
    other extreme and to reject Christianity entirely.  I was brought up in
    a conservative Protestant church, and that was what happened to me.  I
    simply went from one extreme to the other, having accepted in both
    cases the either-or dogmatism that says that the Bible must be
    literally true or else it is all bogus.  It has me a long time to
    grow beyond that mode of thinking, to mature in my understanding of
    spirituality and faith.

    -- Mike

re Note 18.25 by MAMTS2::LROSS:

>     So its use in the Bible can refer to both the written word or to Jesus
>     as the Word of God.  

        So who gets to decide whether the phrase "word of God" means
        Jesus or the written text in each context?

>     If the Bible is inspired by God, or rather the writers were
>     inspired when they wrote, then how is the Bible inerrant in any sense. 
>     If God inspires a writer who pens a document under that inspiration,
>     then by definition of the word God it is either going to be inerrant or
>     it wasn't inspired.  

        I don't read that implication into the word "inspiration" (or
        "God breathing") at all.  You are free to think that that
        word means, or implies, something else.

>      It doesn't make sense to me that a portion was
>     inspired and was accurate while other portions by the same writer were
>     not.   

        Quite frankly, I don't rely on what makes sense, or doesn't
        make sense, to you (or me).

>     Can you, in fact, show inaccuracies which are attributed to the
>     Bible and not to a lack of human understanding?
    
        No -- but nobody has shown me that the Bible itself claims
        word-for-word inerrancy of its entire text.  (Obviously, a
        lot of people do make such a claim.)

        Bob

    Mike:
    
    I understand how you feel about Biblical literalism.  However I am not
    sure you understand the point I was trying to make.  Nothing I said
    implied that the Bible would be valueless unless it were inerrant.
    However it becomes invaluable if it is.  Nothing I have learned in the
    34 four years I have been studying the Bible has in any sense
    diminished my belief that it has been written under inspiration and,
    thus, inerrant.  Either it is or it isn't.
    
    Certainly other books, modern scientific investigation, scholarly
    research, etc. all have value.  Although I do not take every statement
    in the Bible to be literal since many of them are symbolic,
    allegorical, etc., nevertheless whether the passage deals with history,
    morality, prophecy or whatever, it has real meaning and was written for
    us to learn from.  That doesn't mean that we cannot learn from other
    sources.  But where those sources conflict with the Bible, my choice is
    obvious.
    
    I have to admit that your comments about having to pendulum swing from
    one extreme to the other leaves me confused.  Why?  There is at least
    another position...considering what is often taught in the Orthodox
    Churches of Christendom and the behavior of many of the clergy that's
    been making the news lately, you may never have had the opportunity to
    get an accurate understanding of just what the Bible really has to say. 
    Try that before you nail yourself into a permanent mindset about the
    Bible.
    
    Larry
    

    Larry, my point about the pendulum swing was that it was easy for me to
    switch from being domatically in favor of the Bible to being
    dogmatically opposed to it.  It is only in recent years that I have
    come to shed this view and thus appreciate the Bible, warts and all.
    
    -- Mike

    Mike:
    
    Sorry...I misunderstood.  By the way, what caused you to get the
    warts??
    
    Larry
    

Mike,

Surely you recognize that the vast number of people who hold to Biblical
inerrancy (like me) hold to it because they accept it is the claim of the
Bible itself.  Even if you don't agree that it is.  Do you realize this?

I don't know a single inerrantist who has studied the issue that holds to
innerancy (primarily) for any other reason.

Therefore, the issue is NOT trying to defend what you believe at any cost.
Rather, it is interpreting the Bible as best as possible and seeing whether
it makes more sense to accept what it claims or deny what it claims.  This
is THE reason I accept inerrancy.  If the Bible did not claim it, neither
would I.  But the Bible does claim it, so I explain to others how it
claims it and why it is reasonable, logical and consistent with God's
character.

Collis

    And when the Bible conflicts with science, or reason, or the findings
    of scholarship, the biblical literalist resolves that conflict in favor
    of the Bible.  That means holding onto their dogma at all costs, at the
    expense of reason.

    Surely *you* know, Collis, that intelligent, reasonable people are
    under no obligation to accept any claim at face value, so even if the
    Bible made the claim you alleged (to be the inerrant Word of God), that
    is hardly any reason to simply accept that without question. 
    Furthermore, it would not follow from such a claim that the entire
    Bible would be invalidated if a single passage were somehow in "error". 
    In fact, the existence of error elsewhere would certainly be consistent
    with an error in any self-claim of inerrancy, as you also surely know.

    Arguing inerrancy from an alleged self-claim sounds an awful lot like a
    sort of Ontological Argument, applied to the Bible.

    -- Mike

Re:  33

You have some good points, Mike.

When the Bible conflicts with science (human based observation and reasoning),
reason (again, human based) and findings of scholarship (human-based
reasoning applied to documents), the biblical literalist resolves the
conflict in favor the Bible (divine revelation).

Is this a sensible (i.e. reasonable) thing to do?  Let's let the masses
judge. (Are you out there, masses? :-) )

I think that accepting a claim just because it is claimed is foolishness.
I also think that rejecting a claim just because it is claimed is
foolishness.  The other data has to be taken into account.  The other
claims of the Bible are being discussed throughout this and other notes
conferences.  The Biblical claims stand as true in my opinion.  I know
your opinion differs.  Let's not discuss all the rest of that here.
We can continue to discuss them in other notes and just agree to disagree
on these other claims here.

Collis

    The conclusion that the Bible is divine-based is itself human-based. 
    
    -- Mike

    Re .33 (Mike)

    One reason Biblical literalists (at least me) tilt toward the Bible in
    the case of apparent conflict with science/reason/scholarship is
    because in times past these conflicts have turned out to either show
    science incorrect or that people were interpreting the Bible
    incorrectly (perhaps even setting up straw men). I admit to being
    ignorant of many conflicts, but I can't think of anything currently on
    the table that's been proven as a conflict between science and a proper
    understanding of the Bible (evolution, the JEDP theory, the Q theory,
    etc., included).

    Collis said it so well that it bears repeating. Since the Bible claims
    to be inerrant then I believe it to be, too. Coming from that
    perspective, versus the one that allows for errors, I observe the world
    around me and see how it fits with the truth in the Word. Otherwise I'd
    be constantly changing how the Bible should be understood with the
    continual shifts in social mores.

    As a matter of fact, that's how the Lord reached me at such a young
    age. I grew up in a very conservative church and so was taught all this
    stuff from my infancy. When I reached an age where I started to develop
    a personality driven by logic and reason I took to studying the Bible
    seriously for myself. It was as the result of this serious study that I
    realized that the Bible had to be a miraculous work because of its
    internal consistency and total veracity. (Can you imagine the
    probability of the hundreds of Messianic prophecies coming true by
    sheer coincidence?)

    A man-made document of the Bible's magnitude would be filled with
    contradictions and errors. During these last 20 years my knowledge and
    understanding of the Bible has increased significantly, as has my
    knowledge of science/reason/scholarship, and I'm even *more* convinced
    that the Bible is right.

    One last response to the issue about how `literalists fight against
    modernism' (.27). I believe that there is absolute truth, i.e. truth
    that is not relative and therefore does not change over time. I
    further believe that this truth is revealed (to the extent that God
    chose to reveal it) in the Bible. Because of this belief, I cling to
    what I consider to be the absolute truth and therefore naturally
    oppose any so-called modernism *when it conflicts with the truth of
    Scripture*.

    There are some hot topics right now that were barely considered a
    generation ago (avoiding specifics so as to prevent a rathole). If
    the Bible teaches that certain things are wrong, for example, then
    they're just as wrong now as they were in Jesus' day. It's not that
    I'm at all afraid of modernism (as I type this on a nifty new
    VAXstation), but I just subject everything to the unchangeable rule of
    Scripture.

    	BD�

    Barry -
    
    If you have to "interpret" an inerrant document then doesn't that
    automatically imply the fallibility of that document?  

    It doesn't matter to me (or to my faith!) whether or not the Bible
    errs in matters of historical and scientific fact.  The Bible is
    a collection of writings about faith and about relationships between
    people and God.  The Bible chronicles the *development of human
    understanding* of God!  
    
    I find the Bible amazing and its historical and scientific accuracy or
    inaccuracy have no effect on that for me!!

    That is well put, Nancy.
    
    -- Mike

    Nancy,
    
    That works for me, too.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
    Nanci,
    
    You put in a few words what I've been mulling over in long, long
    paragraphs in my head....thanks! :-)
    
    guy

re Note 18.38 by EDIT::SMITH:

>     I find the Bible amazing and its historical and scientific accuracy or
>     inaccuracy have no effect on that for me!!

        Likewise, I find great authority in the Bible.  Inerrancy
        just isn't a big issue for me -- but it does appear to be a
        wedge that drives people away who are attracted to its
        authority but would rather have the spirit within them
        validate it, instead of having a dogmatic position on it a
        priori.

        Bob

    Nancy,
    	I'll ditto the series of "thanks" for that entry. I've never been
    much of a fan of inerrancy myself. A reply or two before yours was a
    comment that a man-made document of that size would be filled with
    errors and contradictions. That might be so, but this work was not
    created in a vacuum, it wasn't the collected essays from the op-ed page
    of the Jerusalem Times, it was the result of a great deal of scholarly
    discussion. The O.T. part, at least. The N.T. part only had to draw on
    what we believe to be actual occurances and sayings in order to be
    consistent. It would be a surprise if it were not consistent.

re Note 18.43 by DELNI::MEYER:

>     A reply or two before yours was a
>     comment that a man-made document of that size would be filled with
>     errors and contradictions. That might be so, but this work was not
>     created in a vacuum, 

        In particular, my point of view is that the Bible IS
        God-inspired (God-breathed), but that it doesn't claim
        inerrancy.  A "God-inspired" writing should, even when
        colored by the character and limitations of the human author,
        generally be free of substantial error.

        Of course, for the conservative Christian, it would seem that
        "inerrancy" isn't the whole picture.  "Inerrancy" seems to be
        one part of a series of claims necessary to assert
        conservative morality as the only acceptable morality.

        For example, the conservative agenda includes absolute
        condemnation of homosexuality.  The conservative agenda also
        seems to include absolute notions of male-female hierarchy in
        which the man is the head and the woman is some other part.
        The conservative agenda also fosters the notion that
        conservative Christianity is the only religious expression
        that really has a right to exist.

        To assert all these claims, it really helps to have an
        "inerrant" Bible.  But that is not sufficient.  It also helps
        to have a "literal" Bible (except in certain cases that are
        clear to the conservatives, of course).  It is also necessary
        to claim that pronouncements made in the Bible apply to all
        times and circumstances (e.g., Paul's writing about women). 
        This is really not the same issue as "inerrancy" or
        "authority" at all.

        I'm sorry -- the above has almost certainly offended
        somebody.  But I just can't get over the notion that
        "inerrancy" is so closely held, in spite of tenuous logic,
        because it serves human needs and objectives.

        Bob

Re Note 18.37 (BSS::VANFLEET)

>    If you have to "interpret" an inerrant document then doesn't that
>    automatically imply the fallibility of that document?

    I don't think so. A document that is without error can certainly be
    interpreted incorrectly. Just because our understanding may be wrong
    doesn't imply that the document itself is in error. Do you disagree?

    If I read an inerrant algebra book (btw, I have yet to find one :-) to
    learn how to factor trinomials, I may improperly understand the method
    even though it is correctly presented. It may require that I have a
    teacher show me the error of my ways.

>    -< What if our interpretations are not the same? >-

    Then at least one of us is wrong. If we are truly interested in knowing
    the truth (assuming, of course, that we believe the Bible to contain
    the truth) then I'd expect we would each study and rationally discuss
    our interpretations - our common goal being to arrive at *the* truth.
    Since the Holy Spirit authored the Scriptures, and since He is our
    teacher, then I would expect that He would enlighten us as we seek to
    understand what He has to say.

    I realize that even well-intentioned, equally-studious individuals may
    never agree on all points, but that still doesn't mean that the Bible
    contains error or is unknowable.
    
    	BD�

If any of you who choose to believe that the Bible is not inerrant wish
to discuss the logic I presented earlier which leads to the opposite
conclusion, let's do it.  Perhaps we'll make some headway.

I think it is good to state opinions and share them with each other.  But
I also think that the best *growth* is spawned when we are challenged with
what we believe and truly question the foundations.  This has certainly
been true in my life.

That is why I am always will to state not only *what* I believe, but *why*.
If I'm wrong, I *want* to change because I truly do *desire* to know the
truth.  My hope would also be that if you're wrong that you would change,
but I have little control over that.  Perhaps we'll find that we're both
right and wrong to some extent.

So the offer is there.  Jump in if you want.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    I really appreciate (and always have) your 
    willingness to discuss issues of differing viewpoints.
    
    I believe I understand your logic for the way in which
    you read the Bible, so although at present, I view the Bible
    differently and do not share your logic, I wish to agree to
    disagree at this time.
    
    But thanks for your thoughts;  I'm *glad* you're here.
    
    Karen

Just a few thoughts, (whew, but this conference is active, a Good Sign in my 
book, but it does make it hard to keep up!)

I don't want to argue one way or the other, but just for some interesting 
discussion, I think it was Collis (forgive me and correct me if I am mistaken) 
who said that most believers in Biblical inerrancy believe it because the
Bible says that it is inerrant.  I won't comment on whether I interpret it as
such or not, but it is an interesting example of what is known as a
"self-referential system". 

The fact that it references itself makes for some interesting phenomena.

For an interesting book exploring some of the intricacies of this I recommend 
Douglas Hoffsteader's book _G�del, Escher, Bach; an Eternal Golden Braid_.

In the realm of Number Theory, self-referential systems have some interesting 
properties, especially concerning the concept of "true" and "false".  (At one 
time it was believed that all true statements could be proven true, and all 
false statements could be proven false.  A fascinating history in which
several mathematician's careers and lives were shattered because of their
belief in the absolute purity of mathematics.) 

Some of the properties are ...

There are true statements (theorems) which Cannot be proven true.

(And it is possible to PROVE that they can't be proven true, G�del's 
Incompleteness Thorem is a prime example, stating in mathematical terms "this 
statement cannot be proven true".  Prove it true, and it's false.  Be unable 
to prove it and it's obviously true...)

There are false statements which cannot be proven false, and you can prove 
that they cannot be proven false.

There are statements which can't be proven either way, and it can be proven 
that they are indeterminant.

There are statements which can be proven both true AND false.

As an example, take as a theorem "This Statement is True".  

Now, if you suppose it is true, you reach no logical contradictions and the
statement is true.  (It's true, it says it's true, which is a true statement,
therefore it's true...) 

But let's suppose it is false.  (It's false, but it says it's true.  That's a 
false statement, therefore it certainly is false....)  Again, there is no 
logical contradiction.

Now, it took the genius of G�del to introduce that concept into mathematics, 
long believed to be a pristine realm of absolutes, but even in the simplest
consideration of whole numbers, there are shadowy, grey areas.  (It turns out 
that if you have a system than includes addition, subtraction, and 
multiplication (if memory serves me correctly, you don't even need division),
you can arrive at such foggy boundaries.

It is true that there ARE systems which are Absolute in this sense, but it 
turns out they are actually quite boring.

Now, where was I going with all this?  Oh yes, while it was difficult to 
introduce such self-referential statements in mathematics, it is simple to do 
so in human languages.  (Who hasn't seen a file card with "the statement on 
the other side is true" on one side, and "the statement on the other side is 
false" on the other? Or smiled at the statement "This sentence no verb." or 
"This sentence have three errs."?)  (btw, can you find them all? .-)

Human language is a very rich system, with many possible levels of 
self-referencing.  If it weren't so, literature would be very dull indeed.

Of a necessity, to read a good book is to interact with it, to bring one's own
ideas, knowledge and perceptions to it.  Often these perceptions will be
different from those of others.  So it is inevitable that someone will
conclude that the statement is true, while another is convinced that it's
false. 

(Please note that I am NOT saying that the Bible is or is not false, or that 
I perceive or imply that anyone in this conversation is saying that the Bible 
is or is not false.  I am merely exploring some of the implications of a 
Biblical self-referencing statement.)

Now, the Bible is a very rich collection of books, historically, artistically, 
spiritually, and in many other ways.  By it's very nature it invites one to 
relate to it, to interact with it, to discover layer upon layer of meaning.
But along with this comes the possibility of multiple interpretation.  You 
can't have one without the other.  (Very similar to the notion that one cannot 
have true freedom without responsibility.)

So even in the simple realm of arithmetic there are questions that are
unanswerable, or that result in multiple answers simultaneously.  

Now God, being infinitely more vast and inclusive of all of mathematics, MUST 
lead to such diversity of expression.  And the Bible, whether one considers it 
the inspired Word of God, the writings of humans inspired to share their 
relationship with God, or simply another religion's sacred writing, is a 
complex and diverse library, and so inevitably leads to a diversity of 
opinion.

If that were NOT the case, if the Bible were so cut and dry that exactly one 
single opinion were possible, if God were reducible to a set of rules with no 
possibility of mystery or imponderables, then I would not bother to read that  
Bible, and I would not feel called to worship that God.

I'm thankful that that is *NOT* the case.

Peace,

Jim

    Just a question, it appears to me that statements that the Bible
    itself says it is inerant are based on lines of scripture that
    themselves are open to question. Am I correctly following this
    disucssion?
    
    Further, *which* Bible is inerant? A lot of conservative Christians
    rely solely on the King James version which is according to more
    modern scholars riddled with translation errors?
    
    So does one rely on an older, beautifully written book, with
    language that we can easily misunderstand, or a more modern
    version (New English, New Jeruslem, Good News)?
    
    Or do we compare a number of versions and decide for ourselves
    which interpretation is 'right' for us?
    
    The freedom to read scripture for oneself was a major part
    of what the protestant reformation was about.
    
    Bonnie 
    (the other Reinke in this file)

    re .49
    
    	I would say "which version" is a decision you as an individual
    should make.  I use them all.
    
    	As of today, I have the Catholic edition of the TEV (Good News)
    Bible in my cubicle.  I won't say why, but there is a good reason
    for my having done this.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Re .49 (Bonnie)

    I think you'll find that at least a few of us have already said that we
    don't necessarily hold any current translation as being inerrant. The
    "mainstream" inerrantist only claims inerrancy for the original
    manuscripts. (I might take heat here, but I think that the KJV-onlys
    are a bit more extreme than the mainstream.)
    
    It is the task of textual criticism to try to deduce the original text
    (since no original manuscripts are known to exist) from available
    evidence. The work of textual critics in the last couple of decades has
    gotten us very close, in the minds of the majority, to the original.
    
    	BD�

    .48 Jim
    
    Thanks you for expressing that so consisely.  I think I was trying to
    make the same point by way of my interpretation question.
    
    :-)
    
      Nanci

    Fascinating comments, Jim.  The disciplines of human knowledge were at
    one time confident that everything could be understood and rationally
    comprehended.  It seems that this optimism was premature, given the
    twentieth century discoveries in mathematics and physics.  It seems that
    there is a place for mystery in our lives after all.

    There is a controversial psychological theory that dreaming is actually
    nothing but the human mind's way of imposing meaning on what are
    essentially random neuron firings in the brain.  The theory argues that
    the bizarreness of dreams reflects the random nature of these firings. I
    don't know if the theory is true, but it does suggest an interesting
    notion about the human mind--that it is impossible for humans to
    perceive without also interpreting; we even impose a meaning upon
    randomness.  It's built in to the perception process.  Wittgenstein
    talked about something somewhat similar in his concept of "seeing-as".

    This does seem to works at the physiological level.  There is a certain
    kind of color blindness that is caused by brain damage rather than any
    genetic problem with the eyes.  This type of color blindness results not
    only in seeing the world entirely in black and white, but in fact the
    victim can't even *imagine* what colors look like.  The brain's ability
    to formulate the concept of colors is gone.  What researchers have found
    when they studied this form of color blindness is that this is the key
    to why humans see colors the same in different kinds of daylight.  Even
    though the spectrum of colors from the sun is different at different
    times of day, a red apple looks red to you in the morning, afternoon,
    and evening--even though different frequencies of light from the apple
    are hitting your eyes at each time.
    
    The reason is that between the time the light hits your retina and the
    time you perceive color in your mind, the brain performs several
    algorithms comparing the wavelengths of light found in the total
    environment.  From the results it tries to make adjustments so that red
    still looks like red to you, even in a different spectrum of daylight. 
    Thus the brain interprets the data it receives, rather than just
    reporting it to you verbatim.  You can't get away from interpretation.
    
    Perhaps there is a role for mystery in the world after all.  Things need
    not be so definite, so clear cut.  Perhaps there is not just *one* valid
    interpretation to the Bible, because, after all, all we really have *is*
    interpretation.  Perhaps there are many valid spiritualities.  Rather
    than shunning the mysteries, as the logical posivitists do, perhaps what
    we need to do is embrace them.  Matthew Fox calls it the Via Negativa,
    the acceptance of the darkness.  The world need not be all light. 
    Mystery has its place.
    
    -- Mike

    Perhaps this needs a different note, but has anyone else seen the
    review in Newsweek of a book annalyzing the first five books of
    the old testament which came to the conslusion that they are
    expanded on a work of poetic fiction written by a female author
    in the court of Solomon?
    
    Bonnie

    Jim,
    
    Another thanks for .48.
    
    > ...if the Bible were so cut and dry that exactly one single opinion
    > were possible, if God were reducible to a set of rules with no
    > possibility of mystery or imponderables, then I would not bother to
    > read that Bible, and I would not feel called to worship that God.
    
    Me neither. :-)
    
    Karen

    Bonnie, the current issue of Tikkun magazine has an excerpt from that
    book.  It is called "The Book of J", and features a new translation of
    J by Harold Bloom and a commentary by David Rosenberg.  The article is
    very interesting, and I do intend to buy the book now that I have seen
    it in bookstores.

    -- Mike

Re:  .48
    
    > ...if the Bible were so cut and dry that exactly one single opinion
    > were possible, if God were reducible to a set of rules with no
    > possibility of mystery or imponderables, then I would not bother to
    > read that Bible, and I would not feel called to worship that God.
    
I, on the other hand, accept God however he reveals Himself.  It so
turns out that God does not reveal Himself as "reducible to a set of rules".

Collis

    .29:
    
�                     ...considering what is often taught in the Orthodox
�    Churches of Christendom and the behavior of many of the clergy that's
�    been making the news lately, ...
    
    What are these teachings, and which Churches?
    
    Dick

    
    Dust on your Bible is not evidence that it is a dry book.
    
    Many Christians expect the world to respect a book they neglect.
    
    How can you have faith in the Bible unless you know what's in it.
    
    A book which will lift men up to God must have come down from God.
    
    Satan can quote Scripture for his purpose.
    
                                      RM

Re:.58

Dick:

At the risk of offending some I can give you some instances, but these are, 
as you can well imagine, just samples from a large universe.  Obviously 
some may disagree about whether the teachings of the churches involved are 
in harmony with the Bible or not.  My position in each case should be 
clear.

Re: Military Service: The Pope, when responding to the question of whether 
a soldier can also be a faithful Christian, stated: "There is no basic 
difficulty or impossibility in uniting the Christian vocation with that of 
military service.  If we look at the latter positively, it can be seen as a 
beautiful, worthy and fine thing." (L'Osservatore Romano)  A similar point 
of view was taken recently from comments made by the Evangelical Lutheran 
Church Council of Germany in July.  Most Protestant denominations seem to 
agree.

Scriptural Teaching: "We do indeed live in the body but we do not wage 
warfare with human resources.  The weapons of our warfare are not merely 
human."  --2 Cor 10:3,4 (NAB)  "For although we are human, it is not by 
human methods that we do battle" (NJB)  [Both translations are Roman 
Catholic]

Early Christian Behavior in this matter: In the book "An Historian's 
Approach to Religion", Arnold Toynbee shows that the early Christians 
refused participation in military service because they considered the 
Christian's warfare to be strictly spiritual.  This same conclusion was 
reached by Edward Gibbon in his book, "History of Christianity."


Re: Christian morality:  In a recent report, an Anglican priest in 
Adelaide, Australia stated that scriptural prohibitions against pre-marital 
sex are old-fashioned and that homosexuality might be acceptable in some 
cases.  The Uniting Church in Australia "agreed with the basic principles 
of the report."   So do many, if not most, Protestant churches.  This is 
borne out by a recent comment by the Bishop of Newark for the Episcopal 
Church of America who stated that churches should "bless homosexual couples 
in church ceremonies".  Recent statements by the sexual ethics expert at 
United Theological Seminary in New Brighton agreed. And he teaches the 
prospective clergymen!!  The Catholic Church has been very negligent in 
dealing with priests guilty of child molestation.  "The Roman Catholic 
Church in the United States has been forced to pay millions of dollars in 
damages to families who contend that their children have been sexually 
abused by priests.  In spite of that, the problem has grown so severe that 
many lawyers and victims say the church ignores and covers up such cases." 
--The Miami Herald, January 3, 1988  There was a terrible scandal in Canada 
last year that pointed out an identical problem there.

Scriptural Teaching: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the 
Kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived.  Neither the sexually immoral...nor 
homosexual offenders...will inherit the Kingdom of God." --1 Cor 6:9,10 NIV

Re: Christian ministry: Remarking on the recent severe decline in 
membership of 15 affiliated denominations of Britain's Free Church Federal 
Council, the "Church Times" admitted that the "churches have continued to 
devote too much time and energy to...socialities."  It went on to show that 
instead of their ministry, they have spent most of their energy and time on 
annual bazaars, dramatic-society productions and other social efforts. This 
is probably true of churches in most other countries as well.

Scriptural Teaching: After being flogged by the Jewish religious leaders 
for their unflagging zeal in their ministry, the apostles, the Bible 
states, "went steadily on with their teaching in the temple and in private 
houses, telling the good news of Jesus the Messiah."  --Acts 5:40-42 NEB


Re: Clergy-laity distinction - True of virtually all Orthodox Christian 
religions and supported, obviously, by all clergymen.

Scriptural Teaching: Acts 20:29,30 and James 2:1-9

Early Christians: Even Orthodox theologians of Christendom recognize that 
Christianity as practised by Christians early in its history had no 
clergy-laity distinction.  Vatican observer Giancarlo Zizola said of these 
original Christians that they "had no priests, their ministers were 
presbyters, that is, elders...There were no hierarchies among them."  
Regarding the clergy-laity distinction "Theology Today" states that "there 
is not the slightest justification...for that 'split-level' distinction."

Well, I can go on and on with quotations from clergymen and Orthodox Church 
teachings that reflect what I stated in .29.  I see no need to refer to the 
teachings (via behavior) of the televangelists Bakker and Swaggart since 
they are so well known.  I have tried to give you some view of the position 
taken by clergymen that are not so well known...and I have barely scratched 
the tip of the iceberg.  That is what is being taught to the flock.  No 
wonder the flock is leaving the churches, jails are filled with many who 
have had religious training and the general morality of the masses in both 
the first, second and third world countries stinks, frankly!!  Well, you 
asked what I was referring to...and I tried to fulfill your request even if 
the sample was small at best.  But at least it is accurate.

Larry
 

    re:.59
    
    > How can you have faith in the Bible unless you know what's in it?
    
    Well, *I* have faith in the teachings of Christ. The NT is my source
    for those teachings and the OT is a useful source for understanding
    where Christ was coming from. This does not mean in any way that I have
    faith in the Bible, the medium need not be the message.
    
    > Satan can quote Scripture for his purpose."
    
    So can Collis, Mike, Irena, Karen, Nancy, Nanci, Bob, and Dave. Dave
    can also quote Heinlien and Shakespeare and I've noticed that many of
    the others are well-read also. 

All right, I noticed a couple of things missing from this discussion:

First, if it says somewhere in what we now call the "Bible" that the
"Bible" or "Scripture" is inerrant, then it can only be talking about
the OT, as the NT was not yet put together.  MEN decided which writings
were divinely inspired or not divinely inspired, and so chose the writings
that make up our current Bible.  Therefore they may have been writings
that were divinely inspired which were not included, and some writings
that were not divinely inspired which were included.

Secondly, not all the Bible is divinely inspired.  We know this because
*Paul* said so.  In one of his letters, now included in the NT, he 
specifically gives an opinion that he states is *not* from God, but is
his own opinion.

*argh.  Now I've written a note.  Eventually I'll have to get around to
putting in an intro.  :-}

         Carol

re. 62

	Carol,

	I don't recall Paul saying that exactly. Which verse are you referring
to?

Thanks,
ace

    re .62
    
    It is amazing how God works, eh? SOmetimes he even hides it under the
    actions of ...gasp... people.
    
    Jamey

    As Rabbi Kushner has pointed out, the Psalms were generally addressed
    from individuals to God, and not the other way around.
    
    -- Mike

    
    If the Bible IS divinely inspired, (which I beleive, and KNOW, that it
    is), then the decision as to which writings to put in it was ALSO
    divinely inspired.
    
    

    I disagree.  There's no logic to your statement.  What I saw was, if
    A=B and C=Z then A=Z.  Could you please explain why you think the Bible
    is divinely inspired, using references from sources other than the
    Bible.  (After all, I can say I'm divinely inspired but you're probably
    not going to believe me unless some other source confirms my belief.) 
    Then can you explain what you know about how the decision of what was
    to be included in the Bible was arrived at and why you think that was
    divinely inspired.  (I'm asking for historical references as well as
    personally inspirational references.)
    
    Nanci 

Re:  18.62

Hi, Carol,

  >First, if it says somewhere in what we now call the "Bible" that the
  >"Bible" or "Scripture" is inerrant, then it can only be talking about
  >the OT, as the NT was not yet put together.  

We've had this discussion before, but I expect I'll have it again many
times before I die.  :-)

The verse in question is II Timothy 3:16 which says that "All Scripture
is God-breathed" (CJJ translation).  Now, what Carol is saying is
that since the "New Testament" as a new testament did not yet exist,
then "Scripture" could not refer to the "New Testament".

A simple example.  If I say, "All computers have a cpu" and then, the
next day, I make a computer, will it have a cpu?  If you answered, "YES",
then you are correct.  This is because I was making a general claim about
ALL computers whether they were built yesterday, today or tomorrow.

Likewise, if I say "All Scripture is God-breathed" and tomorrow I write
some Scripture, will it be God-breathed?

Now, granted, this is just one possible meaning for the word "all" in this
context.  However, it is certainly a common one and, personally, I think it 
is the best interpretation of the word in II Timothy 3:16.

  >Secondly, not all the Bible is divinely inspired.  We know this because
  >*Paul* said so.  In one of his letters, now included in the NT, he 
  >specifically gives an opinion that he states is *not* from God, but is
  >his own opinion.

Actually, Paul said what he wrote is not from the "Lord", that is Jesus 
Christ.  As opposed to what he previously did write which *was* teaching 
that "the Lord" (i.e. Jesus Christ) had given on earth while in human form.

Paul nowhere denies that what he wrote was written by the Holy Spirit
(i.e. God) which, in fact, Peter expressly claims (when he claims that
Paul's writing are Scripture).

Hope this helps you understand the other side of these issues.

Collis

    Nanci:
    
    The external (extra-Biblical) reasons for accepting the Bible as being 
    inerrant and thus proving that it is inspired are based on history,
    science, prophecy, etc.  I have a small publication that will cover
    these approaches to the subject and I would be happy to send you a copy
    if you send me an outside mailing address.  There is just too much
    information to try and include in this file.
    
    Larry
    

    Larry - 
    
    Please share some of the highlights of this pamphlet (along with who
    wrote and published it) in the file.  I ask, not only for me, but also
    for the other members of the file.  I would appreciate hearing how the
    historical and scientific perspective supports not only the Bible being
    an inerrant document, but that those, who eliminated those documents
    that were previously also considered inerrant, were inerrant in their
    choices of what to include or leave out. 
    
    Nanci

Putting myself in Paul's place while writing to my friend and
associate Timothy, it becomes abundantly clear that I certainly
could not have been referring to the Bible as we know it today
when I use the term "scripture", simply because it did not exist
at the time.

II Timothy 3:16, Paul uses the Greek word "graphE" from which we derive such
words as graphite and graphics.  It simply means "writing".

Some have translated this verse "All God-breathed writing is also
useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"

This insight sheds the light that the Bible may or may not be incomplete
and/or that everything contained therein may or may not be God-breathed.

Peace,
Richard

Note 18.68

>Actually, Paul said what he wrote is not from the "Lord", that is Jesus 
>Christ.  As opposed to what he previously did write which *was* teaching 
>that "the Lord" (i.e. Jesus Christ) had given on earth while in human form.

Is this to say that you never refer to God as Lord?

Of course, you know, Paul never met Jesus "in the flesh".

Are you a trinitarian?  If yes, please 'splain.

Peace,
Richard

Re:  18.72

     >>Actually, Paul said what he wrote is not from the "Lord", that is Jesus 
     >>Christ.  As opposed to what he previously did write which *was* teaching 
     >>that "the Lord" (i.e. Jesus Christ) had given on earth while in human 
     >>form.

  >Is this to say that you never refer to God as Lord?

I freely admit that the above is only one possible explanation.  Based
on the context and the rest of the Bible, it seems to me almost surely
to be the correct one.  To answer your question, Yes, I often refer
to God as Lord.

Does this make sense to you now?

Collis

Re:  18.71

  >Putting myself in Paul's place while writing to my friend and
  >associate Timothy, it becomes abundantly clear that I certainly
  >could not have been referring to the Bible as we know it today
  >when I use the term "scripture", simply because it did not exist
  >at the time.

What is abundantly clear to you is abundantly clear to you.  I
respectfully disagree.

  >Paul uses the Greek word "graphE" 

Yes, indeed, this is the case.  Few question that Paul means "Scripture"
by this term but if you are questioning this, we can pursue it.

  >Some have translated this verse "All God-breathed writing is also
  >useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"

This translation is conceivable based on the words used in the Greek.
Particularly, the Greek word "kai" can mean either "and" or "also".
However, based both on the sentence construction and the usual meaning
of "kai", particularly at this place in the sentence, that translation
is considered extremely unlikely.  (That's the grammatical argument.  There
is also a contextual argument.)

Collis

Note 18.74

>What is abundantly clear to you is abundantly clear to you.  I
>respectfully disagree.

I can accept this because I share much the same perception about
many of your assertions.  I think I can co-exist with amicable
disagreement.  I'm not positive, but I think you might be able to,
also.

In respectful disagreement,
Richard

Disagree amicably?  I expect we can.  :-)

Collis

Re:  18.71

  >Putting myself in Paul's place while writing to my friend and
  >associate Timothy, it becomes abundantly clear that I certainly
  >could not have been referring to the Bible as we know it today
  >when I use the term "scripture", simply because it did not exist
  >at the time.

Upon further reflection, I'm unwilling to leave it at the point where
we simply disagree.  This is because the reasons why we disagree were
not as fully explored as they might be.  Since it is quite clear in
my mind why this is not "abundantly clear", I desire to share that
and see if others might not agree with my thinking.

As I see it, Paul might have been trying to say any of three things
when he wrote this:

  1)  the "abundantly clear" option.  Paul is simply referring to
      existing Scripture as God-breathed.  This can be referred to
      as the "particular" option.

  2)  Paul is giving some principles of using Scripture.  This can be
      referred to as the "principle" option.

  3)  Paul is doing both, i.e. he is giving a principle of Scripture
      which is applicable to the particular situation.  This can be
      called the "application" option.

In order for one option to be vastly preferred over another, there
should be some reason (e.g. contextual, historical, grammatical,
consistent with other ways of dealing with things, etc.)

There are several reason I think the applicaction option (3) is the best.

  - Grammatical.  This is a broad-based statement.  The word "graphE"
    was chosen for Scripture.  This does not exclude future writing and,
    in fact, would seem to explicitly include future writing.  There
    were other terms that Paul could have used if he meant simply the
    Old Testament.  (For example, he could have said that all of the
    Law and the Prophets is God-breathed.)

  - Broad context.  Several points.  Paul writes authoritatively in all
    that he writes.  He doesn't present options; he writes what he writes
    as truth.  This gives weight to the belief that he considered his
    writing as God-breathed truth.  (Note that one of the main distinguishing
    characteristics of Jesus during his earthly ministry was that he
    "taught with authority".  This was *highly* unusual since even the
    greatest teachers commonly based their teachings on the teachings
    passed down.  Paul, likewise, teaches *with authority*.  This is NOT
    a point to be taken lightly, in my opinion.)

    In addition, Paul refers to the teachings of Jesus as outlined in the 
    Scripture and uses them the same way he uses Old Testament teachings.
    This indicates that he places them in the same category as the Old
    Testament teachings.

    Peter indicates that what Paul writes is Scripture.  Do you really
    think this was a total surprise to Paul?  In other words, you have
    to believe that when Paul wrote this, he (errorneously) believed
    that what he *had* written and what he *was* writing was NOT
    Scripture.  This, in my opinion, is not likely for the reasons
    stated above.

  - Immediate context.  Paul is commending Timothy for learning the
    Scriptures.  Again note the general word which, although it applied
    to the Old Testament at the time, is not limited to simply the Old
    Testament.  After commending Timothy, Paul says, "All Scripture is..."
    which is the perfect context for either a principle (option 2) or
    a principle being applied (option 3).  He *could* have said, "you're
    reading of the Old Testament is profitable for..."  This way of saying 
    it would much more likely indicate that the practical option (1)
    is meant.

More could be said, but I think this at least provides a basis for
understanding the principle and application (2 and 3) options as
viable.

Collis

Note 18.77
>	              -< I just won't go away.  :-) >-

I didn't expect you would. :-)

>  1)  the "abundantly clear" option.
>  2)  Paul is giving some principles of using Scripture.
>  3)  Paul is doing both, i.e. he is giving a principle of Scripture
       which is applicable to the particular situation.

I'm sorry.  I'm not feeling very categorical today.

Ok, I'm Paul writing to my buddy, Timothy.  As I'm writing this private
letter, it occurs to me that the very thing I'm writing will someday be a
part of a Holy Book which will be established as a reaction to something
called the Marcion heresy.  Marcion, of course, has not been born yet.
But, that doesn't matter.  I just somehow know this.  Perhaps God revealed
this to me.

So, in writing to my friend and brother in the faith, I refer (in this private
letter) to something that I know Timothy will immediately understand and
recognize because of our relationship and past communications.  Additionally,
I slip into this private letter something that I know will be read and taken
literally by people I've never met for thousands of years to come.  I say to
Timothy that not only is what I am presently writing God-breathed Scripture,
but that all that is yet to be composed and someday canonized is *also*
God-breathed Scripture, and that beyond that there will be no more
God-breathed Scripture.

I suppose I could take it on faith that this is a reasonable facsimile of
what actually happened, but I don't.  I'm certain a lot of other things
would start to make sense if I believed it, but I don't.  I'm sure it
would make my fundamentalist friends and foes happier if I believed it,
but I don't.

Peace,
Richard

    Richard,
    
    The way you put it, makes a good deal of sense.
    
    Thanks
    
    Bonnie

re Note 18.78 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

        Richard,

        You've touched on the heart of the problem I have with
        traditional understandings of the nature of the Bible.

        Are the parts, e.g., the letters from one individual to
        another, what they appear to be?  Or are they a facade --
        something being acted out, in order to communicate some
        messages?

        Clearly a God could do the latter, but why?  And what would
        that itself say about God?

        It's very similar to the problem I have with "6-day
        creationists" -- while it is logically possible to propose
        that God simply created, in 6 working days, a universe that
        appears to be billions of years old and in which species
        appear in a derivational sequence, even though that's not
        really how they arose, it requires a very strange kind of God
        who delights in making things appear to be what they really
        aren't.

        Bob

    I like what you wrote, Richard.  It's interesting that many people
    also often interpret the words of the Hebrew prophets as having been
    written over the heads of their contemporaries, directly to us.  I
    don't view the ancient prophets in that light.

    -- Mike

Re:  18.78

Richard,

Your style is whimsical, but misleading.

Let's talk about how Scripture should be best understood.  

You're approach is to invent a scenario and then ask if that scenario
makes a lot of sense.

My approach is to analyze the Scripture in context using the knowledge
of grammar, historical data, immediate context, general context and a
few other things thrown in which seem to be relevant.

The question is, "which methodology leads to the better result?" i.e.
which methodology will give us what the author originally meant?

It is clear to me (I think) why you do not respond to the specific
points I brought up in my methodology.  It is not simply a matter of
style.  Although there are some points that could certainly be made to 
support your contention, I seriously doubt that there is enough data to 
say that the "principle" or the "application" options are not viable.

However, I am willing to deal with the scenario you present.

  >Ok, I'm Paul writing to my buddy, Timothy.  

Well, let's expand on this a little.  You are "Paul, an apostle of Christ
Jesus by the will of God, according to the promise of life that is Christ
Jesus" (II Timothy 1:1) writing to "Timothy, my dear son"  (1:2).

The context here is an apostle, specially called by Jesus' supernatural
appearance on the road to Damascus writing to his beloved spiritual son,
one who is being entrusted to accurately present the Gospel (1:8-12) and 
hold firm to the faith (1:13-14).  Paul prays "night and day" (1:3) for 
this man.  

This letter is written with the specific idea of encouraging Timothy in
his faith and holding onto the Word of God.  In summary, this letter 
is an EXTREMELY IMPORTANT letter in that it deals with the things that are
nearest and dearest to Paul's heart.  

  >As I'm writing this private letter, it occurs to me that the very thing 
  >I'm writing will someday be a part of a Holy Book which will be 
  >established as a reaction to something called the Marcion heresy.  
  >Marcion, of course, has not been born yet. But, that doesn't matter.  
  >I just somehow know this.  Perhaps God revealed this to me.

This is not relevant to the interpretation of II Timothy 3:16.  I
personally do not believe this.

  >So, in writing to my friend and brother in the faith, I refer (in this 
  >private letter) to something that I know Timothy will immediately 
  >understand and recognize because of our relationship and past 
  >communications.  

I don't see how this is relevant to the interpretation of II Timothy 3:16.
I don't know what it is that Paul refers to that "Timothy will immediately
understand".  There is no "hidden understanding" that *I* credit Timothy
with when he reads the letter.  What is the "hidden understanding" that
you are crediting him with?

  >Additionally, I slip into this private letter something that I know will 
  >be read and taken literally by people I've never met for thousands of years 
  >to come.  

3 points here.

 - I slip into...
 - I know will be read...
 - I know will be... taken literally

Define "slip into".  If by this you mean that it was not originally Paul's
intention to discuss God breathing all Scripture, I agree with you.

If you mean that what Paul said is unimportant because when he started
writing the letter, it was not his express purpose to deal with the
issue of God breathing all Scripture, I disagree strongly with you.

I don't think Paul's intentions before he wrote the letter are particularly
relevant to the claims that he makes.  Because, regardless of his original
intentions, Paul did not make claims lightly.  Paul made claims about
Jesus that sent him to jail and kept him there.  Paul made hundreds of
claims in his letters and I'm not aware of a *single* claim that he
"took back".

We often here in notes conferences "slip into" other issues different
than the original topic that started the discussion.  Does that mean that
these "other issues" are unimportant?

 - I know will be read...

In my opinion, it was irrelevant whether or not Paul knew they would be
read by anyone other than Timothy.  Perhaps you can explain why this is
relevant?  The relevant issue, as I see it, is whether or not Paul "takes
liberties" in what he declares to Timothy, his faithful son in the Lord.
Or does Paul take pains to make sure that he proclaims the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth?  Based on the introduction of
the letter which I have already addressed, it is a certainty in my mind
that what Paul wrote, he BELIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVED.

 - I know will be... taken literally

Define "taken literally".  If by this you mean "interpreted in such a
way as that the words mean what they ordinarily mean in the context in
which they are in", then I concur wholeheartedly.  That is exactly the
approach I use in trying to interpret Scripture.  If you mean something
else, please define what that is.

  >I say to Timothy that not only is what I am presently writing God-breathed 
  >Scripture, but that all that is yet to be composed and someday canonized 
  >is *also* God-breathed Scripture, and that beyond that there will be no more
  >God-breathed Scripture.

3 points here.

 - present writing
 - future writing
 - no more God-breathed Scripture.

Paul does *not* say, in my opinion, that what he is presently writing is
God-breathed Scripture.  (He may certainly believe this, but he certainly
does not say it in the letter.)  Therefore, this part of the scenario
is not accurate.

 - "all that is yet to be composed and someday canonized is *also* 
   God-breathed Scripture"

Canonization is not on Paul's mind, as I understand it.  (It's
irrelevant anyway to what he means whether it is or isn't.)  However,
and this is the ONE point which has SOME relevance to the discussion,
certainly Paul could be (and in my opinion is) making a claim about
the properties of all God-breathed Scripture.  This was discussed in
detail in my last reply, so I won't comment more on it here.

 - no more God-breathed Scripture.

Paul's making no claim about whether or not there would be God-breathed
Scripture in the future.  If he did, his claim would be that there *will be*
more God-breathed Scripture in the future, since Paul was not the last
to write Scripture.  Again, this point is not only irrelevant, it is
wrong.

  >I suppose I could take it on faith that this is a reasonable facsimile of
  >what actually happened, but I don't.  

And you think I do??????????

Let's change the scenario to fit the Biblical facts we have at our
disposal and see how it reads:

  I'm Paul writing to my beloved son in the faith Timothy.  as I'm
  writing this private letter, I happen to touch upon Timothy's
  growth in the knowledge of God which started from his infancy 
  when he was taught the Scriptures which made him wise for salvation.

  This leads me to comment on the usefulness of all Scripture which,
  by definition is God-breathed, in all the things that we do.  He
  should understand this letter in its natural context applying the
  normal meanings to the words as much as possible.

			  -  the end  -

I'm sorry, I couldn't seem to fit the rest of what you wrote in
because it is either irrelevant or wrong.

Do you see, Richard, how your example has only led to obscure and
confuse the issue?  How every point except for part of one point was
irrelevant to the interpretation of II Timothy 3:16?  What you did,
quite simply, was put in a LOT of points which are not only irrelevant,
but (in my opinion) clearly unsupportable and also included ONE point
which is under discussion.  You then said that you didn't believe that
this was what happened.

*WE AGREE*.  What you made up certainly did not happen.  And we are left
with trying to understand from the grammar, the immediate context, the
broad context and other *relevant* data WHAT PAUL MEANT when he wrote
II Timothy 3:16.

It is my belief that many claims that are accepted at face value when
stated in a general, overview way are *rejected* when examined in
detail.  I have personally done this many times.  And have seen others
do it.  THAT is why I deal not only in generalities, but also in specifics.
Yes, we need to generalize.  But if the generalities are not supported
by the specifics, then we need to discard the generalities.

An aside:

You know what I like about notes?  You can have your say.  You're not
limited to a 30 second television commercial.  You can discuss something
and clarify yourself if it needs to be done.  You can respond in full
to what you think is wrong.

Collis

    I would like to point out that this discussion is assuming that it was
    actually Paul who wrote the pastoral epistles.
    
    -- Mike

Note 18.83
XLIB::JACKSON "Collis Jackson"

(You any relation to Jesse?  I campaigned for him.)

>Do you see, Richard, how your example has only led to obscure and
>confuse the issue? 

No. :-)  However, I do see that you don't know any more about it than I do,
and that you're a whole lot more verbose about demonstrating it.

:-) ;-) :-)

Peace,
Richard

I look forward to the times when an issue can be fully discussed by
dealing with the specifics.  However, I came to the conclusion long
ago that generalities and denial are going to be the usual response.

:-(  :-(  :-(

But for what it's worth, I do appreciate you're sense of humor, Richard. :-)

Collis

    Richard,
    	I find this whole string to be amusing, even those comments typed
    with a straight face, but you did manage to get a couple of zingers in
    there, didn't you. Got a question, though, could your "verbose" comment
    be considered a personal attack on Collis and what are the mods going
    to do about it ?  };-> (soon to be 8*O ?)

    Dave .87,
    
    This mod doesn't perceive Richard's "verbose" comment as a personal
    attack.  Verbose is simply defined by Webster's as "Using or having 
    more words than required."  
    
    You can put the marshmellows away for now... and stop playing in the
    campfire.  ;-)                              
    
    Karen

    This Sunday during the sermon, I flipped through my prayer book
    and found the catecism section. In the Anglican church, scripture
    is held to be 'inspired by God'. This to me is different from
    'directly dictated to the author by God'
    
    Bonnie

I agree with you, Bonnie.  "inspired by God" is certainly different than
"directly dictated to the author by God'.

Personally, I don't hold to either of the above.  Scripture was "God-breathed"
(which is clearly recognized today as the best translation of II Timothy
3:16) and not directly dictated.  (There was no "automatic writing", so to
speak.)  This is why the author's maintain their own styles, including the
use (or non-use) of certain words, phrases and themes.

Collis

    Re: .70
    
    Nanci:  I will be happy to add some of the information, but will need
    some time.  I'll try this week since I'm Bermuda-bound next week (bit
    of vacation after ten years).
    
    Re: .80
    
    Bob: No need to view the creative 'days' as deviations from fact since
    they are not 24 hour days.  Neither was the creation of the universe
    included in the 6 creative days.  Verse 1 of Genesis preceded the six
    days and allows for billions of years...whatever is necessary.  I
    entered some detail on the subject in the GOLF::CHRISTIAN conference
    (which was originally in the previous CHRISTIAN conference.)  If you
    are interested you will find them in topic 92.55.  If it isn't clear,
    let me know and I will try to elaborate.
    
    Re: -1  Hello Collis..I agree with your comments again...this is
    getting to be a habit!!
    
    Larry
    

    .60:
    
    I see, I think.
    
    By the way, there is a difference between the Orthodox Churches, and
    what you might call the orthodox Churches.
    
    Dick

                                                                 
    Tsk, tsk.  92 replies and still nothing solved.
    
    There is a wonderful pamphlet put out by the UU church which is
    entitled, "There Are Bible Thumpers and Bible Bashers - We Are
    Neither".   It ends with a sentence that goes something like this:
    
    	"When we stop thumping and refrain from bashing...we can
    	 hear God."
    
    I'll try to find it and type it all in here - it's wonderful.
    
    Cindy
    
    PS. Re.92 - Dick - are you the same fellow who hates disco and 
        short skis?  *<(;^)||
    
    PPS. I'm still behind, so I might not get back here for a while.

Re:  .93

  >92 replies and still nothing solved

The people participating in this discussion, for the most part, have
dealt with these issues in their lives already.  And come to a conclusion.

I find it very reasonable to make a decision.  In fact, I think that
Jesus demands that we do just that.  Decide about who He is and what
He did.

So, it is not unexpected that people who have come to differing decisions
which have been reinforced for long periods of time do not chuck their
decisions at a sign of disagreement.  Certainly, God does not want us to
be easily swayed.  This is the sign of an immature person.

However, we *should* be willing to consider the foundations of what we
believe.  To delve into the reasons for believing something into the
first place.  We're all growing every day.  We're learning more things
about facts, about people, about ourselves and about God.  We need to
modify what we believe based on what we learn (using the Bible, reason,
experience and tradition).  But this is a long process.

Now, most people severely reject attempts to change them, for numerous
reasons.  It's important to be open to new data while continuing to
affirm the data you already have.

What all this says is that as we pursue this and other topics, there is,
in my mind, hope that some will be drawn closer to the truth of God through
the discussions.  Certainly I grow in my understanding of God as well
as His Word from the sharing in notes files.  I also grow spiritually as
I'm encouraged to pray and taking the burdens of others upon myself.
But let's not be too discouraged if people continue to disagree for years
and years.  God's not finished with us yet.

Collis

    re:.88
    
    Karen,
    	didn't you read the faces ?  The grinning "devil" followed by the
    surprised "mashed nose" face ?  Of COURSE I know what "verbose" means,
    it has been applied to my own self - but only by unsympathetic others,
    of course - on more than one occasion.
    
    	Heck, I wasn't even around for a week and you guys did just fine
    without me. Well, Nancy and Collis did. You don't need me to fan the
    flames - or is that FLAMES ? 
    
    	A hundred down and 400 to go. You take a week off here and you
    might as well just SET /SEEN/BEFORE= or you'll never catch up.
    
    	Dave

    Dave .95,
    
    I was trying to kid with you Dave.  Sorry if it didn't appear 
    that way.  Btw, I missed you while you were gone.  
    
    Welcome back :-)
    
    Karen

I've made the claim that if you believe that the Bible has errors, then
it follows that Bible is full of lies and distortions (which, I think may
be better expressed as full of errors).

Let me explain my thinking on this.  First, when I say "full of", I mean
numerous in terms of actual counting.  In other words one error or five
errors are very few.  One or two hundred are very many.  If the Bible
was shown to have 200 hundred errors, I would say the Bible is full of
errors.  (Now, by the Bible, I mean the original manuscripts - not what
we have today.  There could well be 200 translation or interpretation
errors what we may call the Bible today).

For example, there are over 3500 references in the Old Testament alone
to parts of the Bible containing what God said (and God does not lie).
If we accept that 90% of these are true and that only 10% are false,
then we are saying that the Old Testament has a minimum of 350 errors
(lies?).

Psalm 119 is a psalm of 178 verses entirely devoted to proclaiming the
truth and usefulness of the word of God.  If we say that Scriptures are
not true, how many verses in Psalm 119 are now lies?  50?  75?

As I see it, the claims to the Bible's inerrancy are in practically
every book.  Every quote of the Bible in the Bible assumes the truthness
of what is quoted.  The Bible is *full* of verses like in Psalm 119 which
extol the truthfulness and usefulness of the Bible.  The Old Testament
especially claims often to record direct quotations from God.  The fulfillment
of prophecy (which is a particularly important part to consider) is
without exception.

Therefore, simply claiming that the Bible is not true puts the claimer
in contradiction with hundreds of Scriptures.  Therefore, I say that those
who claim the Bible is not inerrant are claiming that the Bible is full
of lies and deception.

Does this make sense?

Collis

    Allow me to ask you this, Collis.  Many claim that God knows
    everything.  Has there ever been anything that God didn't know?
    
    According to the Bible (OT) there was.
    
    I suppose I'll be asked for a breakdown, but my guess is that
    many here can supply the references.
    
    Richard

Re:  .100

Yes, Richard, I believe that God does know everything.  I also believe
that it is possible to explain how this is even in the light of verses
which suggest otherwise.

Collis

    This probably hasn't been said often enough, Collis.
    Thank you for being patient with us.  Thank you for being here,
    and for prodding and challenging us.
    
    Discussion would quickly die if we were all in agreement.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Re:  .101

>I also believe
>that it is possible to explain how this is even in the light of verses
>which suggest otherwise.

    I believe it is possible to explain such verses to conform to a particular
    understanding, also.  But this is usually what *I* am being accused of.
    Imagine that! ;-}
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Re:  18.103

  >I believe it is possible to explain such verses to conform to a particular
  >understanding, also.  But this is usually what *I* am being accused of.

Only because you do it so well, Richard.  :-)

Collis

    Re .104
    
    				:-)
    
    						Richard

I remember that the idea of what Paul thought about his own writing
when he wrote it was mentioned a while ago and I indicated that I
believed he knew that what he was writing was God-breathed Scripture,
but had no references.  Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the exact 
note reference.  But since this is an appropriate topic, I'll put this 
in here.

On Sunday, we happened to read I Thes 2:3-13 for the Scripture reading.
Lo and behold, this is part of that Scripture:

  And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word
  of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of
  men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you
  who believe.  I Thes 2:13

Sounds clear to me.

Collis

re Note 18.106 by ISVBOO::JACKSON:

>                      -< Paul's thoughts on what he wrote >-
  ...
> On Sunday, we happened to read I Thes 2:3-13 for the Scripture reading.
> Lo and behold, this is part of that Scripture:
> 
>   And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word
>   of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of
>   men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you
>   who believe.  I Thes 2:13

        This looks like a reference to what Paul spoke, rather than
        what Paul wrote, since it says "which you heard" rather than
        "which you read".  At best, it's ambiguous about the mode.

        Bob

    U.S. News and World Report has a very good series of articles
    on the authorship of the Bible.
    
    Bonnie

Re:  U.S.News and World Report article

Perhaps that's the article that our pastor spoke about on Sunday.  The
sermon topic was inerrancy.  He said that the article claimed to have
new evidence and that the arguments in the article were the same arguments
that have been around for hundreds of years (many of these arguments were much
discussed in the 18th century).

I'd be interested in reading the article, if you knew what copy of
U.S. News and World Report had it.

Collis

Re:  18.107

  >This looks like a reference to what Paul spoke, rather than
  >what Paul wrote, since it says "which you heard" rather than
  >"which you read".  At best, it's ambiguous about the mode.

Yes, it can be said to be ambiguous about the mode, but not the message.
(Or do you think it is a reasonable distinction to say that Paul believed
that his speaking on theological matters were the words of God [if indeed
that is the reference in the quote above] and that his writings were not
[which could certainly be considered long-distance speaking]?)

Collis

re Note 18.110 by ISVBOO::JACKSON:

>                      -< Sounds to me like you're reaching >-

        That's what I thought YOU were doing with that citation!


        Actually, perhaps I am reaching -- reaching for a wider
        meaning of "word of God" than Christians typically use.

        Paul's sermons were certainly not "Scripture" in our usual
        sense, i.e., writings;  nevertheless he calls them (or
        perhaps their content or connotation) the "word of God."

        Think back to some of the best and/or most powerful sermons
        you have heard.  If they had good, spiritual, and inspired
        messages, I'm sure that you (or at least I) could call them
        "the word of God".

        (I am not just referring to direct scriptural quotes the
        speaker make have used, but to an evaluation of the entire
        sermon.)


        Of course, I hold to a "treasure in earthen vessels"
        viewpoint on Scripture -- that it is a thoroughly human
        piece of writing with nevertheless conveys God-given
        spiritual truth which could not have come from human
        knowledge alone.  I still view it as the "word of God", but
        not totally and solely the "words of God".

        Bob

    	This being the season for many things, including renewing ties
    which may have lapsed over the year, I just sent out my annual
    multi-page letter to family and friends whom I don't get to see often
    enough. This one ran to four pages but nearly half of that was clip
    art. The third paragraph, after the greetings and such, starts out with
    "and now word of my family". Does anyone doubt that what I meant was
    information ABOUT my family ?  Had I said "word of Mike"(my son) would
    you not interpret it in a similar way ?  Yet Paul says "word of God"
    and you immediatly think "words belonging to and coming from God" and
    will brook no discussion on the authorship. 

    I once read a book by an Episcopalian priest which aided my
    understanding a great deal.  He proposed that the word "word"
    in the phrase "word of God" is close in meaning to the word
    "message"; for example, in the phrase "What's the good word?"
    or "Any word from Karen yet?"
    
    The word (but not the logos) of God would be functionally the
    message of God.
    
    fwiw,
    Richard

    Richard,
    	I didn't actually expect a serious answer. My point was not so much
    what it does mean so much as to point out that it could easily be taken
    to mean something significantly different. The "message" part is the
    easiest understanding of "word", but why do we assume that it is God's
    word rather than the word about God - "of" can mean either. When used
    regarding Christ we can immediatly see if it is his spoken word or a
    word about him - although some would not differentiate between the two. 
    	Still, I did not intend to argue the point so much as to raise it
    for inspection - or introspection ? - or whatever. I'm sure that if you
    took it seriously enough to reply there will be those who will see fit
    to quote chapter and verse as to why there is only one possible meaning
    ever and what kind of a person would dare think such a thing. The host
    system for this conference IS in an airconditioned room though, right?

    Collis it is the December 10th US News and World Report. The cover
    has a picture of the painting of St.Matthew and the Angel by
    Caravaggio.
    
    The articles cover the orginins of the Christian Canon. The origins
    of the four Gospels, the letters of  Paul, the Catholic letters, and
    the original Hebrew bible.
    
    I found them to be very interesting reading.
    
    Bonnie

Re:  18.111

  >That's what I thought YOU were doing with that citation!

Previously, you're main point for disagreement was the use of the
verb "heard" rather than "read".

Let me deal with that point more specifically and see why not only do
I think it is not stretching the meaining to think that Paul is referring
to what he has written, but I think it is the best interpretation of the 
passage.

First, we use the very "heard" in reference to the reading of writings
today.  Not typically, I agree, but this is not unheard of.

Second, there was no voice communication in Paul's day over long
distances.  So believing that "heard" means to have literally heard from
Paul's mouth these messages that they believed means that Paul was
actually there.  Most scholars believe that 2 Thes. was a response to
a letter Paul received from Thessalonica which responded to 1 Thes.  Unless
I have my chronology wrong, Paul did not visit Thessalonica between the
writing of these two letters and therefore the verb "heard" may not
possibly have the meaning to have heard with their ears a message from
Paul's mouth.

Third, not everyone had skills of reading in the first century.  It is
believed that letters such as Paul's were read to the churches to which
they were addressed.  Even if the message was just read by a single person
and passed along by word of mouth, the verb "heard" can be considered the
most appopriate verb since many more people "heard" than "read" the letter.

Does this make sense to you?  Do you now agree?

  >Actually, perhaps I am reaching -- reaching for a wider
  >meaning of "word of God" than Christians typically use.

The issue is not (or should not be) how you or I typically use the
phrase "word of God".  Rather, the issue is how Paul and the Bible 
itself uses this phrase.

The phrase "word of God" is used 41 times in the Bible.  As I see it,
there are four meanings (which overlap) in this usage:

  1) a specific message from God
  2) Scripture in general
  3) the gospel message in particular
  4) a title for Jesus Christ

What is clear is that "word of God" means that it really is a word that
came *from* God and is being passed on.  (Jesus is the Word given to us
from God.)  Therefore, the preposition "of" in the phrase "word of God" 
is best understood as a genitive of source.

  >Paul's sermons were certainly not "Scripture" in our usual
  >sense, i.e., writings;  nevertheless he calls them (or
  >perhaps their content or connotation) the "word of God."

I don't understand what you're saying, Bob.  Or I do understand and
I think it's just plain wrong.

Obviously, Paul's writings *are* Scripture in the usual sense of
what you and I mean when we say that something is "Scripture".  And
yet you say that they were "certainly not 'Scripture'".  Huh?

  >Think back to some of the best and/or most powerful sermons
  >you have heard.  If they had good, spiritual, and inspired
  >messages, I'm sure that you (or at least I) could call them
  >"the word of God".

I do not lighly call something the word of God.  Neither does the Bible.
When the Bible calls something the word of God, it means it and is not
wrong.  I could call something the word of God and be wrong.  Therefore,
I don't remember ever calling anything other than Scripture the "word
of God" in the sense that it had equality with Scripture (although God
still does reveal Himself to us today).

  >Of course, I hold to a "treasure in earthen vessels"
  >viewpoint on Scripture -- that it is a thoroughly human
  >piece of writing with nevertheless conveys God-given
  >spiritual truth which could not have come from human
  >knowledge alone.  I still view it as the "word of God", but
  >not totally and solely the "words of God".

And to maintain this belief, you, in my opinion, are desperately reaching
for meanings other than the very clear meaning intended in this passage
of Scripture.  :-(

Collis

re Note 18.117 by ISVBOO::JACKSON:

> First, we use the very "heard" in reference to the reading of writings
> today.  Not typically, I agree, but this is not unheard of.
> 
> Second, there was no voice communication in Paul's day over long
> distances.  So believing that "heard" means to have literally heard from
> Paul's mouth these messages that they believed means that Paul was
> actually there.  Most scholars believe that 2 Thes. was a response to
> a letter Paul received from Thessalonica which responded to 1 Thes.  Unless
> I have my chronology wrong, Paul did not visit Thessalonica between the
> writing of these two letters and therefore the verb "heard" may not
> possibly have the meaning to have heard with their ears a message from
> Paul's mouth.
> 
> Third, not everyone had skills of reading in the first century.  It is
> believed that letters such as Paul's were read to the churches to which
> they were addressed.  Even if the message was just read by a single person
> and passed along by word of mouth, the verb "heard" can be considered the
> most appropriate verb since many more people "heard" than "read" the letter.
> 
> Does this make sense to you?  

        Sure -- but this is precisely what is meant by a "reach" in
        this context:  "to assert without certainty or sufficient
        evidence".  You have established a plausible meaning, but
        have not established a certain meaning.  (A "reach" does not
        imply implausibility or improbability or illogic -- just that
        you have not made a tight case:  "Most scholars believe that
        2 Thes. was a response to a letter Paul received from
        Thessalonica which responded to 1 Thes." is hardly evidence
        upon which any prudent person should hang a fundamental
        doctrine.)

        Of course, the biggest hole in this line of reasoning is that
        the verse in question -- the one you quoted -- is from
        I Thessalonians, not II.  Now THAT'S a "reach"!


> The phrase "word of God" is used 41 times in the Bible.  As I see it,
> there are four meanings (which overlap) in this usage:
> 
>   1) a specific message from God
>   2) Scripture in general
>   3) the gospel message in particular
>   4) a title for Jesus Christ
> 
> What is clear is that "word of God" means that it really is a word that
> came *from* God and is being passed on.  (Jesus is the Word given to us
> from God.)  Therefore, the preposition "of" in the phrase "word of God" 
> is best understood as a genitive of source.

        Meaning #3 is precisely the kind of meaning where the
        particular words (i.e., lexical units) are not the essential
        "word" but, as you write, "the message" is.  It is clear (to
        me) that when the Bible uses the term "gospel" it does not
        mean any particular formulaic representation in words but a
        "message" that was conveyed by many different verbal
        expressions.


> Obviously, Paul's writings *are* Scripture in the usual sense of
> what you and I mean when we say that something is "Scripture".  And
> yet you say that they were "certainly not 'Scripture'".  Huh?

        You are obviously so certain that Paul never spoke to the
        Thessalonians in person (even though Acts 17 chronicles
        Paul's visit there), that you cannot conceive of another
        equally possible (if not more so) interpretation.


> Therefore,
> I don't remember ever calling anything other than Scripture the "word
> of God" in the sense that it had equality with Scripture (although God
> still does reveal Himself to us today).

        But the issue here is precisely whether Paul is claiming that
        his writings are "word of God" in one sense rather than the
        other -- the fact that YOU never would use one of those
        senses is immaterial (believe me, Collis, I am quite
        convinced that if you had the chance for a face-to-face
        conversation with Paul today, there would be a lot of
        difference of interpretation).


> And to maintain this belief, you, in my opinion, are desperately reaching
> for meanings other than the very clear meaning intended in this passage
> of Scripture.  :-(

        Give me a break, Collis -- you do this to almost every person
        you disagree with.

        I really find it incredibly hard dealing with an attitude
        that clothes yourself in effective inerrancy.

        Bob

Re:  18.118

  >Of course, the biggest hole in this line of reasoning is that
  >the verse in question -- the one you quoted -- is from
  >I Thessalonians, not II.  Now THAT'S a "reach"!

Oops!  :-)  :-)  AS Rosanna Rosanna Dana would say, "never mind".

  >It is clear (to me) that when the Bible uses the term "gospel" it does not
  >mean any particular formulaic representation in words but a "message" 
  >that was conveyed by many different verbal expressions.

The gospel is the message of Jesus Christ with all of its theological
implications.  This can easily be shown by seeing how the writers of
Scripture use the word gospel.  Quotes can be provided if desired.
But what should not be lost in this discussion is that in the phrase
"the word of God", "of" is accurately understood as a genitive of source
in all 41 instances without exception.  God is the source of the word.

  >You are obviously so certain that Paul never spoke to the
  >Thessalonians in person (even though Acts 17 chronicles
  >Paul's visit there), that you cannot conceive of another
  >equally possible (if not more so) interpretation.

Not at all.  Paul did indeed go to Thessalonica.  And now I'll revert
to part two of my understanding (since part I has been thrown out by
misunderstanding the facts) which is simply, "does the mode of communication
affect the authority of what is communicated?"  In other words, Paul
clearly states that what they heard was the word of God.  I have
shown that this should be understood as the word *from* God (genitive
of source - which is the way this phrase is still commonly understood
today, by the way).  Is it reasonable to think that what Paul wrote is
as authoritative as what he spoke?  Is there reason to believe that what
he said (if indeed this is talking solely about his spoken words) was
truly truth from God (since God does not lie and God is the source of
the words) and that what he wrote is not necessarily truth from God?

Creating a distinction here is what I call reaching.  There is no reason 
that I'm aware of to make such a distinction which appears to be
the distinction you're building your case on.

  >But the issue here is precisely whether Paul is claiming that
  >his writings are "word of God" in one sense rather than the other...

No, Bob, you are missing the point here.  The point is that if you
*claim* to preach the word of God, then you are claiming that what you
are preaching is unadulterated truth, regardless of whether this claim
is made today or 2000 years ago.  When Paul made this claim, he claimed
that the teachings were true because they were God's teaching.  If you or
I made this claim today, we would be claiming that they were true because
it was not *our* word, but *God's* word that was being proclaimed.  This
*exact* same phrase was used by prophets in the Old Testament to indicate
that what they were speaking was what God had told them to speak.  (Strong
statement follows.)  There is *no* indication in the Bible whatsoever
that the word of God was ever anything but truth.  There is every indication
throughout the Bible that the word of God is truth.

  >Give me a break, Collis -- you do this to almost every person
  >you disagree with.

I'm sorry I said what I said, Bob.  Please forgive me.

  >I really find it incredibly hard dealing with an attitude
  >that clothes yourself in effective inerrancy.

Don't deal with "inerrancy".  Just deal with the text, the context,
the grammar, etc. and see what it means.

Collis

    But, Collis, anyone could write in a document that it was the word of
    God (or from God, or any other variant...your choice).  Would that make
    it true???  Why do you *choose* to accept Paul's claims when (I'm
    assuming here) I don't think you'd accept the same claim form me.  
    
    What I'm hearing you try to do is make a logical case for Paul's
    writings being equivalent to God's words.  Between Paul's claims that
    what he wrote came directly from God and your choice to accept that has
    to be a leap of faith.  There is no logic to faith.
    
    Nanci

re: Note 18.119 by Collis,

�Re:  18.118
�
�  >Of course, the biggest hole in this line of reasoning is that
�  >the verse in question -- the one you quoted -- is from
�  >I Thessalonians, not II.  Now THAT'S a "reach"!
�
�Oops!  :-)  :-)  AS Rosanna Rosanna Dana would say, "never mind".

Actually, it was Emily Litella (sp?) who used to say "never mind"...

.-),

Jim

Re:  18.120

Nanci,

  >But, Collis, anyone could write in a document that it was the word of
  >God (or from God, or any other variant...your choice).  Would that make
  >it true???  

If we all got this far that Paul really claimed this, we have made
significant progress.  You are quite right, Nanci.  After we understand
that Paul did indeed making this claim, we need to ask whether or not
the claim is true.

  >Why do you *choose* to accept Paul's claims when (I'm assuming here) I 
  >don't think you'd accept the same claim form me.  

There are a lot of reasons which have been discussed in this conference
and in Golf::Christian.  To summarize, some of the reasons I believe this
are:

  - claims of the Bible being the word of God are made/assumed very many
    times throughout the Bible
  - fulfillment of prophecy
  - Jesus living in my heart
  - faith of others who were personal examples in my life
  - experience of Biblical principles being trustworthy when actually applied
  - etc.

I see accepting Paul's claim and accepting Christ as related matters.
At least, that is part of why I accept Paul's claim.  Certainly I did
not always accept Paul's claim even after I accepted Christ.  However,
I did not know nearly as much about the interelatedness of the Bible then 
as I do now (which is the primary reason I believe differently now).
    
  >What I'm hearing you try to do is make a logical case for Paul's
  >writings being equivalent to God's words.  

The original point I was making was that I thought Paul believed that his
words were truth from God.  I think this passage in I Thes. supports
this belief.

  >Between Paul's claims that what he wrote came directly from God and your 
  >choice to accept that has to be a leap of faith.  There is no logic to 
  >faith.

Is there logic to making a choice?  Depends on how you make a choice.  I
make many choices based on the facts as I perceive them and logic.  Certainly
not all, but some.  So the choice to believe can indeed by based (to some
extent) on logic.

Collis

    I'm sorry but I still don't understand.  You say that the Bible is
    interelated.  Yes, what's the point in terms of this discussion?  How
    does the Bible being interrelated prove that Paul's claims that *his*
    writings came from God.  What I hear the I Thes. verse say is that
    somebody else heard Paul claim that his words are God's which boils
    down to Paul making the claim for his own writings.  Again...if you're 
    going to use logic to prove your points I fail to see the structure of 
    your logic.  
    
    Yes, choices can be made on logic or faith.  In this case I guess the
    only *proof* I see is your faith.  Strong as it may be, it's still
    faith, not logic.  Paul's word that *his own* words are really God's
    are just not enough for me in terms of logic.  (Unless I'm seeing holes 
    where there are none.  Maybe I'm just incredibly dense today.)  :-)  I'm
    not asking you to prove to me that Paul's words are true (unless you
    want to try).  My point is that, even though a document makes certain
    claims, or a person makes certain claims about their words (written or
    spoken), unless you have some kind of proof, other than your own
    *belief* that those claims are true then your choice to believe those 
    claims are based on *faith* not *logic*.  This is where I think we (you 
    and I and some of the other participants of this file) get into trouble 
    with each other.  We claim that what we believe (have faith in) is true 
    because we've chosen to believe in it, not because there's any logic
    behind it.  But it's not logic that leads us to those conclusions, though, 
    it's faith.   By the way - I don't think there's anything wrong with a
    belief system based on faith...in fact I think that's what it
    eventually boils down to anyway.  What I'm trying to say here (in this
    incredibly awkward way) is let's call a spade a spade and not try to
    pass *faith* off as something that it's not.
    
    I'm probably getting off the topic here.  Moderators, feel free to move
    this to another topic if you'd like.    
    
    Nanci

re Note 18.123 by BSS::VANFLEET:

>     What I hear the I Thes. verse say is that
>     somebody else heard Paul claim that his words are God's which boils
>     down to Paul making the claim for his own writings.  

        Nanci,

        It really hasn't been established even that Paul is making
        this claim -- that the words he writes (or uses in a sermon)
        are God's and not his.  My reading is that Paul is claiming
        that the Gospel is God's message and not Paul's.  In fact,
        one of the translations I use (Jerusalem Bible) uses the
        translation "God's message" instead of "word of God".  This
        is very far from claiming word-for-word Divine authorship
        (and thus imputed inerrancy), but rather is claiming that the
        essence of the message -- the Gospel -- is indeed God's truth. 
        In no way does this claim or imply divine authorship for all
        that Paul writes on any topic that was preserved in the canon
        of Scripture.

        I have a problem with Collis when he generalizes a specific
        passage into a broad principle that supports his conclusion,
        inspired by his faith in that conclusion.  (Yes, we all do
        that at times;  what bothers me the most is when we do it and
        then call it "clear meaning.")

        Bob

Re:  18.124

  >I have a problem with Collis when he generalizes a specific
  >passage into a broad principle that supports his conclusion,
  >inspired by his faith in that conclusion.  

Thanks for explaining in more detail exactly how you interpret this
passage.  Perhaps you did so previously, but I didn't really grasp it
until now.

As I see it, I've done much more than just look at the passage and
extract a meaning which I already agree with.  I've done a word study
on "word of God".  I've gone into reasoning on whether this claim should
be considered a specific claim for a specific situation or whether it
should be an instance of a general principle.

As I see it, you have disagreed with my conclusions, but not to the logic 
that drove me to those conclusions.  You interpret "word of God" in a
way which is inconsistent with it's use elsewhere in Scripture as far
as I can tell - and yet do not provide Scriptural support for your
interpretation of "word of God".  You make a distinction between Paul 
talking to the people at Thessalonica and Paul writing to the people at
Thessalonica evidently because one is hearing and the other is reading - a
distinction of authority that I find no support for in Scripture (and for 
which no Scriptural support has been offered). 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Collis

Re:  18.123

  >I'm sorry but I still don't understand.  You say that the Bible is
  >interelated.  Yes, what's the point in terms of this discussion?  

The question I was answering for you was, "Is the claim that Paul is
making that his words were not the words of men but the words of God
really true?"  In determining the answer to this question, how the
Bible fits together is an important factor in that it gives credibility
to the claim if it fits together well and it removes credibility from
the claim if it does not.

  >How does the Bible being interrelated prove that Paul's claims that *his*
  >writings came from God.  

This one simple thing is not the basis of the proof.  However, it is
an important factor to consider.

  >What I hear the I Thes. verse say is that somebody else heard Paul claim 
  >that his words are God's which boils down to Paul making the claim for 
  >his own writings.  

That's not what I read.  Let's look at the verse again.

  "And we also thank God continually because, when you *received* the
  word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word
  of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in
  you who believe."

What this verse says is that Paul shared with them the word of God and
they accepted it as the word of God.  There is not a "claim" in this
verse that Paul told them it was the word of God when he preached to
them.  The claim *is* being made now in the letter.  But there is no
reference to a claim at the time of the people hearing.  (I'm not trying
to say there was not a claim; I'm just saying that this verse does not
say one way or the other if there was a claim when the message was
shared.)  So, the point of the verse is *not* that "somebody else heard 
Paul claim that his words are God's", but rather that they accepted what
they heard from Paul as the word of God.  There is a significant difference
between the two.  (Although I agree with you that the second leads to
the first.)

Now comes the question, "Why should these people in Thessalonica believed
what Paul said to be the word of God?"  There are two answers to this
question.  Bob has latched onto the first and I have latched onto the
second.  These answers are:

  - the "word of God" (which should be interpreted as "gospel" is true
  - what Paul says is the "word of God" since God has given him the words

Why believe the second rather than the first?  These (which is a critical
point which for some reason has not been well discussed) are my reasons.

  1)  Paul explicitly contrasts the "word of God" with the "word of men".
      This indicates that the issue here is who the words came from (God
      and not men) is the point being made and that "word of God" is not
      simply a phrase being used in place of "gospel".  This, by far, is
      the most important reason for accepting the second meaning as
      more likely.

  2)  The entire focus of I Thessalonians up to this point has been on
      Paul and his relationship with them.  Paul compares himself as both
      a mother and a father dealing with his children.  He noted the 
      obstacles that tried to prevent him from sharing the gospel with them.
      In other words, Paul was establishing his authority to speak as he
      had spoken.  This reference is the capstone on his relationship
      with them; he has been given the word of (from) God to speak to them.

  3)  What Paul was sharing certainly was the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Paul 
      could well have used the term "gospel" in the Greek (which he had
      already used twice).  However, he chose instead to say that he shared
      with them not the "gospel", but the "word of God" which was *not*
      the word of men.  Again, of is a genitive of source indicating that
      Paul's words were words from God.

  >Again...if you're going to use logic to prove your points I fail to see 
  >the structure of your logic.  

I believe you're saying this in response to whether or not we should
believe Paul's claim.  I have given exactly one response to this question
and that was to you.  I list 5 points hyphened out as to why I believe
this claim.  Are you saying that these points are irrelevant to the claim?
(i.e. you don't see any relevancy and therefore no logic?)  If not, I
don't know what you're saying.  If that is indeed what you are saying,
I can certainly show you the relevancy of these points to
the claim that Paul believed his words were Scripture.  Essentially,
the one point that links these all together is that you accept the
numerous implicit and explicit claims the Bible makes for itself as
inerrant, then it is clear that Paul's writing that is Scripture is
inerrant as well and that therefore the claim is true.  Each of these
points has helped me to accept this claim.

Colliis

Re: 91.189

    For some who call themselves Christian, it is more important to
    adhere to a volume of bound legislation than it is to be Christ-like.
    There's a Pharisaic quality to this, as well.  The Pharisees were
    very strict in their observance of the law.

    The early Christians, you will surely recall, were not known as
    "the people of the book" [another religion bears that nickname].
    They were instead known as "the people of the Way."


Peace,
Richard

Re 91.193

>Yes, indeed, Bob.  The conclusion that the Bible is not the express Word
>of God is one that many people hold to and I was not careful to give
>credence to in my response.  We certainly have to consider this option.

Collis,

	Are you saying here that one cannot hold that the Bible is "the
express Word of God" and also that "the Bible reflects the cultural biases
of its authors"?

Richard

I do indeed believe that one cannot hold that the Bible is the express
Word of God and also that it reflects the cultural biases of its authors.

I certainly do accept that it can and does reflect the style of the
authors (which is neither "right" nor "wrong").  But it cannot reflect
an "incorrect" bias of the author (although it could reflect a "correct"
bias of the author - but now we get into a gray area of when a bias is
a bias and when it is simply a truth).

Perhaps some of the confusion is with the word "express".  I take this
to mean an inerrant expression of God's Will.  In this expression,
there is no room for incorrect or wrong human bias.  There is plenty
of room for "neutral" expressions of individuality.

Collis

re Note 92.91 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> Of course, there is a slight part of the analogy I disagree with :-) (meat
> being sacrifed to idols (unimportant) = Bible is true (also unimportant),
> but it's certainly worth considering.  Thanks.
  
        One other stumbling block to cooperation is revealed in your
        equating "the Bible is true" with the issue I mentioned "the
        nature of Scripture."

        The latter focuses on issues such as God-authorship of every
        word and whether characteristics of the human author
        (including fallibilities and limitations) exist in Scripture.

        I happen to find that to equate "God breathed" with
        "inerrant, essentially God-authored", if I accepted it, to
        imply an untruth, since the books of the Bible are
        superficially the writings of human authors in historical
        human contexts.  The claim of inerrancy, to my way of
        thinking, would imply that the appearance of the Biblical
        writings is a lie, a facade, because it would then only
        appear to be written by people, much like me, who encounter
        God, much as I do, but given "inerrancy" it is really God
        sitting behind a mask.

        Thus I don't accept inerrancy precisely because I believe, in
        a very deep way that escapes my full comprehension, that the
        Bible IS true.

        Bob

    re: .130
    
    Bob,
    
    I'm not following this string much, 'cause I've discussed this
    subject recently enough to not want to get into it, but this
    caught my eye:
    
    >    Thus I don't accept inerrancy precisely because I believe, in
    >    a very deep way that escapes my full comprehension, that the
    >    Bible IS true.
    
    I like that, Bob!  I guess one of the things I find difficult to convey
    to others (both Christian and non-Christian) is that I can believe
    the Bible is *true* without believing it is totally accurate.  You have
    said it very well - Thanks!
    
    Nancy

Interesting, Bob.

I believe that Bible (i.e. the orignal writing by the original authors)
to be inerrant simply because it is true (i.e. what it says is true).
If there was falsehood in it, then I could not claim it was true.

It appears your definition of "true" and my definition of "true" are
somewhat different.  :-)

Collis

    
    RE: .132 
    
    >If there was falsehood in it, then I could not claim it was true.
    
    Collis, can you clarify this for me?  People make claims that things
    are true all the time.  That doesn't not necessarily make it so.
    What would prevent your from making the claim if there was falsehood
    in the Bible?
    
    Thanks,
    Carole

Carole,

Let me explain what I was trying to say a little about.

First off, you are quite right that I could amke the claim that the Bible
is true even if there was falsehood in it.  But that was not what I was
trying to address.

Bob believes (evidently) both that the Bible is true and that it is not
fully true.  I, on the other hand, do not think that I can claim the
Bible is true (since, in my view, this claim encompasses all the claims
of the Bible) if I believe that there is falsehood in it.

The truth that Bob is willing to accept for the Bible is a limited truth.
The truth that I insist on to call something true (in this case, the
Bible) is an unlimited truth.

Collis

    
    
    Thanks for your reply Collis.
    
    So, your statement in .132 really means 'If *I believed* there was
    falsehood in it, then I could not claim it was true'.  Right?
    
    The way you made the statement in .132 makes it sound like a paranormal
    force would keep you from the proclamation if there was a falsehood 
    involved.  I didn't think you believed in that kind of *stuff*. ;^)
    
    Carole

Carole,

You now understand me correctly.  :-)

    Are all parts of the Bible of equal weight?  Are some parts more
    important, and therefore, should be emphasized more than others?
    
    I wonder, what are the various ways of thinking on this?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
    	Richard,
    		I think a better phrasing of that question (assuming one
    	believes that 'any' of the Bible is important) is Are some parts
    	more 'relavent' than others.  Just like history is important, I
    	don't believe that there is any part of the Bible that is
        un-important.  Some parts are more relavent to my current
    	condition/position in life but all parts are profitable.
    
    	_ed-

    I've always been very confused around the section in Deuteronomy where
    the "rules and regulations" are layed out. Now,I have NO problem with
    the ten comandments,but,the various eating/sleeping/sex rules just
    seem ~far out~ in todays life.  I'm sure that the food rules were
    useful then....but....what do you do with them today? Throw them out?
    
    Marc H.

Marc,

Some of the purposes of the rules are:

  1) Laws for the proper running of the theocracy of Israel

  2) Laws that are meant as a type to be fulfilled by the anti-type

  3) Laws based on moral grounds that should always be obeyed (because
     our God is a moral God).

There is a very broad consensus amongst Christians on which laws fit
into which categories.  There are some laws (a very small minority)
which are debated as to which kind of law it is.

Since there is now a new covenant which has been written on our hearts,
laws that were meant as a type no longer need to be obeyed.

Likewise, since we are not living in a theocracy, laws that were simply
for the proper running of a theocracy should not be followed blindly,
but the principles behind these laws should be carefully considered and
preserved in making laws for the government we do live under.

Moral laws will never change.

Collis 

    Collis....thanks! Nicely said,now is there a reference for what
    sections go into what category or does the individual do this?
    
    Marc H.

No reference that I'm aware of that categorizes these from a Protestant
point of view.

The moral laws that are discussed in the Old Testament Laws are usually
elsewhere in Scripture as well.  Many of the laws (such as when you
may do something or when to observe a particular celebration) are
commonly seen either as type-antitype laws or sometimes theocracy
laws.  The Jubilee, for example, is a theocracy law.

Ceremonial cleanliness was very important, so almost all laws dealing
with being "clean" are ceremonial cleanliness laws which have been
fulfilled by the new covenant (e.g. vision to Peter in Acts).

Some laws, indeed, were given so as not to be offensive to others but
to be respectable.  (Appearances ARE important in the Bible.)  I'm thinking
more of the New Testament prohibition against excessive jewelry, hair
length and hair covering in this regard.

Collis

    Re: .141
    
    Marc,
    
    While Collis' categorization is tidy and logical, I would like to point
    out that his formula in .140 cannot be substantiated Biblically.  It is the
    product of doctrine (teachings, interpretations) concerning the Bible.
    
    Richard

Note 18.142

>Some laws, indeed, were given so as not to be offensive to others but
>to be respectable.  (Appearances ARE important in the Bible.)  I'm thinking
>more of the New Testament prohibition against excessive jewelry, hair
>length and hair covering in this regard.

You know, I have become increasingly conscious of how Paul, in particular, 
seemed to be so concerned about the public image of the early church.  I'm
certain his concern motivated a great number of the instructions in his
surviving letters.  And judging from at least one of Paul's letters, Peter
was even more concerned about appearances than Paul was!

Jesus, on the other hand, seemed less concerned about appearances.

Peace,
Richard

    I don't remember anywhere in the bible where it categorises the laws
    laid down in the old testament. That's probably where my confusion
    around the subject comes from. Any categorisation seems to have arisen
    out of carefully studying the new testament, and making inferences.

    RE: The laws of Duet.
    
                          A Christian doctor friend of mine expressed the
    opinion that if you were to take almost 4 million people into the 
    desert for 40 years and needed medical guidelines for the trip, then
    the laws put down in Duet. are *EXACTLY* what he would tell you.
    
    *I thought that was *VERY* interesting.
    
    
    Dave

Re:  .143

Richard,

I think you overstate yourself.  It is certainly true that what I have
responded with (which is certainly not primarily the result of my work
but has actually been used for many centuries) is not directly taught
in this manner by the Bible.  However, there is a great deal of Biblical
substantiation for these beliefs.  In fact, it was through the study
of the Bible that these principles were drawn in the first place.

If you would like, we could investigate much of this here.  Let me know
what your pleasure is.

Collis

    Re: .146
    
    Does that include the law that forbids the wearing of material made
    from two different sources? Care to give a valid medical reason for
    that one?
    
    Or for not eating pork? Provided it's well cooked, it can be eaten. I'd
    have thought cooking shouldn't be too hard in a desert.
    
    Or for the NT laws Paul added about women covering their heads in
    church, and men not having long hair?

    RE: .148
                    *Note:  I *JUST* knew I was "in trouble" with that
    one! :^)
    
                  The wearing of material made from two sources, I don't
    remember and if you could give me a reference I'll try and supply you
    with an answer.
    
                  The eating of pork is the *BIG* one.  Pork is hard to
    keep for any length of time and it does cause some bad problems if not
    handled properly.  This friend of mine said that even today with our 
    ability to refridgerate (SP), many still get sick as a result.
    
    
                  Women covering their heads I believe was an historical
    custom and a compromise with the Jews thoughts about women....wrong I 
    know but that the reason I have heard.  Men wearing short hair was for
    two reasons...cleanliness is one....the other is hard to explain but
    I'll try.  Men that followed Jesus were to set themselves "apart" and
    were encourager to wear their hair short very much like circumcision.
    
    
    Dave

RE: 18.149


	Dave, was all of this recorded in the Bible or was it something that we
humans came up with?


Glen

Note 18.147

>I think you overstate yourself.  It is certainly true that what I have
>responded with (which is certainly not primarily the result of my work
>but has actually been used for many centuries) is not directly taught
>in this manner by the Bible.

Collis, I'm not saying you're wrong.  I'm saying that you have suggested one
possibility.  When Jesus and Paul speak of the Law they do not divide the Law
into the categories you've suggested.

>However, there is a great deal of Biblical
>substantiation for these beliefs.  In fact, it was through the study
>of the Bible that these principles were drawn in the first place.

Doubtlessly.  Do you not find this at all questionable?

>If you would like, we could investigate much of this here.  Let me know
>what your pleasure is.

We can, of course, find substantial evidence to verify the categorization
theory, as you have outlined in .140.  I'm not sure I'd buy it, even though
all the pieces might neatly fit.  I don't want you to be disappointed if I
don't.

Peace,
Richard

    RE: .150   Glen,
    
                       The pork thing is a scientific fact.  Pork is hard
    to keep under ideal conditions, let alone in a desert.
    
                       The women and coverings is historical as is the
    short hair on men....I thought I said that?
    
    
    Dave

    Por, if cooked properly, and kept properly, is fine. I've been eating
    pork for years with no ill effects.
    
    Just recently there was the "listeria hysteria" here in the UK, with a
    warning about eating fried eggs. Then the was BSE in beef...

    RE: .153  SYSTEM::GOODWIN
    
                             Exactly...it has to be cooked properly.
    
    
    Dave

    Rep.153

            I hate to be the one to dispute your facts, but uncooked
        pork is easily cured for storage and is and has been a staple
        of the diet all over the world. Pork is no harder to safely
        preserve than any other meat.
            I have read that the prohibition against pork is because
        raising swine is incompatible with a nomadic lifestyle. Pigs
        simply will not breed if constantly moved about. They are critters
        that need a stable home life before they will reproduce.
           Also, the whole idea of pigs in the desert is something of
        a moot point. Pigs would quickly die of heat stroke if herded
        about the desert. They have no sweat glands.
          

                                                               Mike
     
                                                      ( A big fan of Pigs )

    Re: .154
    
    Uh?
    
    I thought the prohibition was against eating pork. Full stop. Cooking
    it properly wasn't mentioned at all.

Re: 91.459

>............their sin of failure to be obedient to God's 
>revealed Will.

Collis,

	I take it you mean perpetuating Paul's prejudices as addressed
in his letter to the gathering of believers in Corinth, that toddlin'
town of the ancient world.

	Personally, I believe the revelation of God's Will is not exclusive
to the pages of a book, not even the Bible.

Richard

Collis,

	You seem to be a little besieged with questions and issues
at the moment, so allow me to ask a question and don't feel obligated
to answer it with any great haste.

	Does every portion of the Bible glorify God?

Peace,
Richard

    Richard,
    
    I just happen to stick my head into this node, tracing topic to topic.
    I'm getting a little disoriented.
    
    with ref .158 "Does every portion of the Bible glorify God?"
    my answer is yes, if a passage is not lifted out of context.
    Do you have a different answer? Please share.
    
    Robin.

    
    Re: .159
    
    Robin,
    
    	Actually, I'm open to all answers to the question, "Does every
    portion of the Bible glorify God?"
    
    	But while we're at it, let's not fail to examine the book of Esther.
    God is not mentioned once in this book.  Also, let's consider the Song
    of Songs.  Were it not for a tradition of allegorical assignment, this
    erotic work of art would likely be dismissed as "secular".

	There are many other portions of the Bible where the matter of
    God's glorification is questionable.  My guess is that you can think
    of some of these yourself.

	I seriously question whether all portions of the Bible are even 
    specifically intended to glorify God.

    Peace,
    Richard

re Note 18.160 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     	But while we're at it, let's not fail to examine the book of Esther.
>     God is not mentioned once in this book.  Also, let's consider the Song
>     of Songs.  Were it not for a tradition of allegorical assignment, this
>     erotic work of art would likely be dismissed as "secular".
> 
> 	There are many other portions of the Bible where the matter of
>     God's glorification is questionable.  My guess is that you can think
>     of some of these yourself.
  
        "God's glorification is questionable"?  I would guess that it
        depends upon point of view.  Perhaps EVERYTHING, sacred or
        profane, beautiful or ugly, noble or ignoble, either gives
        glory to God or is an occasion for God's glory to be
        manifest.  Perhaps it is only we humans who have such a
        problem with some of the things that happen in this world
        God created, or with the things written about this world.

        Bob

    I believe that the holy can be found many places--in nature, in
    worship, in lovemaking, in birth, and in work.

    But I don't think I would agree that God is glorified in *everything*
    that happens in the world.  I don't believe that God is glorified in
    human evil (the Nazi holocaust, for example).  Part of this goes back
    to whether or not you believe that God is completely responsible,
    either directly or indirectly, for everything that happens in the
    world.  While I believe that God continually participates in all
    events in the world, I don't believe that God solely determines their
    outcome.  In other words, I believe that God works by persuasion rather
    than force, and that there are some kinds of evil that don't glorify
    God.

    -- Mike

In a sense I would have to disagree with you here, Mike.  

Over the weekend I took my daughter and nephew to the Museum of Natural
History in Denver.  There is a special exhibit that is going on about 
Anne Frank and the rise and fall of the Nazi movement in Germany.  As I
Walked through the exhibit I noticed the diversity of people and the
intensity with which each one exhamined the sometimes graphic photographs 
and decriptions of the crimes against humanity that went on at that time.
And in each face I noticed a horror and incredulity that these crimes 
against humanity could happen in the "civilized" world.  A phrase from Anne's
diary struck me particularly, "I cannot believe that God would allow this
to continue".  This ray of hope and unfaltering belief in God came from
a 14 year old girl who was hiding out in two rooms with her family and
friends.

I could see the inspiration and hope that Anne Frank believed in in every 
face at that exhibit.  So maybe every incident, every thought *does* glorify
God in ways that we could not possibly see from our limited perspectives.

More and more I find myself leaning toward the conviction and perception
of the presence of the divine in everything.

Nanci

Richard,

That's a good question - and a tough one.

I can say off the top of my head that one of the reasons that each of the
individual authors had for writing their particle portion of the Bible
was to glorify God.  Now the Bible does record many acts which were not
intended to glorify God and which, in fact, did not glorify Him.  (For
example, in Israelite king sacrificing his son to a god did not bring
God glory.)  

The Bible does make clear that we *are* to glorify Him in all we do.  Do
we succeed?  I don't.  And it really bothers (although not always enough
to make me change which is to my shame).

Collis

    ref .160:
    Richard,
    	To make the issue clear, let's distinguish between
    	(i) is every portion of the Bible written to glorify God?
    	(ii) does every act in the Bible glorify (or honor) God?
    		(for that matter, does our lives glorify Him?)
    
    To (i), my answer is yes. Though the book of Esther does not mention
    the Name of God, (Billy Graham commented this too), it cannot be
    ignored the all-obvious working of God in the lives of the Israelites
    and particularly Esther from the story - God is glorified, Amen?
    
    The Song of Songs (or Songs of Solomon) is written about the passion
    and love life of Solomon in his youth. Some Bible scholars have so
    beautifully described the love relationship between God and his Church
    from this book, you should read some of these yourselves.
    
    To (ii), my answer is no. Thanks, Collis (ref .164). Many acts recorded
    in the Book are described as evil, or wicked in the eyes of the Lord.
    It shows the disobedience of man, the sinful will of the human race,
    and these are written as lessons for us, not examples to follow!
    
    Thanks for the stimulating thought,
    Robin.

    Re: .163
    
    I saw the Anne Frank exhibit in Denver a couple weeks ago myself.
    I felt tears streaming down my cheeks as I studied an actual page
    from Anne's diary and read the English translation just below it.
    
    I was very moved.
    
    My only regret was that the exhibit only focused on the peril of
    the Jews.  Another 6,000,000+ people died at the hands of the Nazis
    who were not Jewish.  Among them were the physically and mentally
    challenged, gays, Gypsies, and many others who were considered
    inferior.
    
    Love,
    Richard

    Richard - 
    
    There was a portion of the exhibit that focused on the persecution of
    the handicapped.  That was something I had no prior awareness of and it
    was the part of the exhibit that hit me the hardest.
    
    Nanci 

Note 18.165

Robin,

	Thank you for sharing your thoughts.  I appreciate your beliefs.
Allow me to examine these 2 examples more closely.  And, please understand
that what I am about to say is not intended as a reflection on you personally.

>    To (i), my answer is yes. Though the book of Esther does not mention
>    the Name of God, (Billy Graham commented this too), it cannot be
>    ignored the all-obvious working of God in the lives of the Israelites
>    and particularly Esther from the story - God is glorified, Amen?
 
It would seem that when someone reads something into Scripture that's
not actually contained in the text, it's okay so long as it agrees with
traditional conservative teachings.
   
>    The Song of Songs (or Songs of Solomon) is written about the passion
>    and love life of Solomon in his youth. Some Bible scholars have so
>    beautifully described the love relationship between God and his Church
>    from this book, you should read some of these yourselves.

This is the traditional allegorical interpretation I spoke of earlier.
It would seem that when someone reads something allegorical into Scripture
it's okay as long as it agrees with traditional conservative teachings.
But, if the creation story, for example, were to be interpreted
allegorically, it would most likely be labeled a Satanic lie.

I find this utterly hypocritical.  And, I do not understand how conservatives
fail to see how they do the very thing which they scathingly accuse others.

Peace,
Richard

Richard,

You use the words "traditional" and "conservative" as if we should reject
something because it is either traditional or conservative.

I would appreciate it if you would go beyond the labelling of the
belief or interpretation and state the specific reasons why it is
wrong or incorrect (or hypocritical).

You are quite right in acknowledging that many people look at Scripture
in the light of the teachings of other Scriptures.  Particularly, those
who believe that there is only one author of Scripture - God (as is
taught by Scripture itself).  Since the "traditional, conservative
teachings" that you mention are based on this very principle, all you
have in fact done is to attack this principle (at least as I see it).

If you do indeed wish to attack the principle of interpreting Scripture
in light of other Scripture, perhaps you'd like to state your reasons.
If not, perhaps you can enlighten me as to what you are trying to do
and/or how my reasoning has failed me.

Collis

By the way, I tend to the more modernistic view of the interpretation
of the Song of Solomon where it is primarily a description of the love
affair between Solomon and his bride.

Collis

Note 18.169

Collis,

	My first inclination is to allow 18.168 stand on its own merits.
I believe I was very clear about what I said.  But, what the heck...here
goes....

>You use the words "traditional" and "conservative" as if we should reject
>something because it is either traditional or conservative.

	To the contrary, I personally believe that the traditional views
should be carefully considered, along with others, before rejecting or
embracing any particular point of view.  I am not sympathetic to *any*
views which are espoused as the only ones correct, valid, and according
to God.

>I would appreciate it if you would go beyond the labeling of the
>belief or interpretation and state the specific reasons why it is
>wrong or incorrect (or hypocritical).

	I cannot say whether the belief or interpretation is wrong or
incorrect.

	The hypocrisy occurs when someone assigns a non-textual meaning to
one segment of the Bible (Esther, for example), but refuses to accept it when
someone else assigns a non-textual meaning to another segment of the Bible,
claiming it to be "twisting Scripture."  The hypocrisy occurs when someone
assigns an allegorical meaning to one segment of the Bible (Song of Songs,
for example), but refuses to accept it when someone else assigns an
allegorical meaning to another segment of the Bible, claiming it to be
"twisting Scripture."

>You are quite right in acknowledging that many people look at Scripture
>in the light of the teachings of other Scriptures.

In 91.168, I don't see where I said this.  You feeling alright, Collis?

Richard

    Just a question to those who are of the 'innerant' school in re 
    the Bible.
    
    In Acts 2:1-11 there is a description of the coming of the Holy Spirit.
    
    "Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every
    nation under heaven."                                       ^^^^^
    
    
    Then the nations are listed (which I won't go into here). Now obviously
    the list does not include every nation under heaven. Rather the list
    is of those nations *known* to humanity at the time.
    
    My interpretation of this would be that *people* made the lists, and
    they only listed the nations they knew. i.e. the errors (ommitted
    nations) are humans not Gods.
    
    Bonnie

re Note 18.172 by WMOIS::REINKE_B:

>     Rather the list
>     is of those nations *known* to humanity at the time.
  
        You probably meant to say "those nations *known* in that part
        of the world at the time"?

        (Otherwise, there's a serious implication!)

        Bob

    Right Bob,
    
    those nations Known to those who wrote Acts.... the other nations
    that were unknown had humans also..
    
    thanks
    
    Bonnie

re.174

Perhaps, but the point is not the nations not named. Rather, the nations which
had Jews represented at Pentecost.


ace

Note 33.42

>        God hardens the Pharaoh's heart and then at one point kills all
>        the first born sons even though is God forcing the Pharaoh to act
>        as he did.

Mike,

	Actually, the way the Bible reads, Pharaoh had a change of heart
without any interference on the part of God.

	This, of course, does not negate the thrust of your message in 33.42.
I, too, have a difficult time reconciling the bloodlust of the Old Testament
with the New Covenant of Jesus Christ.

	A possibility worth considering (and one I anticipate will be
argued against as false) is that the Bible is a record of God's revelation
among humans; manifested most substantially in the person of Jesus of Nazareth,
and realized most intangibly in the proclamation that "God is love."

Peace,
Richard

    ace 
    
    you are avoiding the point of my question, I always assumed
    that the story in acts mean 'all the nations which had
    Jews represented at Pentecost'.....but were I a Bible literalist
    would I have to believe that there were no other nations on
    the earth at the time? that to me, is self evidently false
    and silly, so I assume it is a human error..
    
    but if folks believe taht the Bible is inerant, and dicated by
    God, then how do they deal with such a blantant error?
    
    Bonnie

    in re .176
    that is what I have been taught and belive
    Bonnie

re.177


Bonnie,

	It seems from God's perspective, that he considered those nations with
Jews to be the nations that mattered at that point for that incident.

	That passage is not intended to be a geography lesson!  8*)


ace

    That's an evasion Ace.
    
    BJ

Re:  18.171

  >The hypocrisy occurs when someone assigns a non-textual meaning to
  >one segment of the Bible (Esther, for example), but refuses to accept it 
  >when someone else assigns a non-textual meaning to another segment of 
  >the Bible, claiming it to be "twisting Scripture."

Perhaps what we need is (again) discussion on the interpretation of
Scripture.  Indeed, how to interpret Scripture is dependent on the kind
of writing (of which there are 5 - If I can remember them they include
historical, poetical, parables, instructional and prophetical), the
setting, culture and many other things.  To claim that it is inappropriate
for one to be interpreted allegorically and another not without dealing 
with all of these factors is somewhat irresponsible, in my opinion.  Now
you may indeed by right.  But since *some* writings are clearly properly
interpreted allegorically and *other* writings are clearly not, the
burden of proof is on you to show how the interpretations are improper,
rather than to just say "hypocrisy".

     >>You are quite right in acknowledging that many people look at Scripture
     >>in the light of the teachings of other Scriptures.

  >In 91.168, I don't see where I said this.  You feeling alright, Collis?

When you speak of "traditional conservative teachings", I showed you
how these teachings include as a strong premise that Scripture is to
be interpreted in the light of other Scripture.  Since you are not
disputing this, it seems to me that you have indeed acknowledged that 
this is the case.  Is this clearer?

Collis

Bonnie,

Proper interpretation is not dependent primarily on the common dictionary
meaning of a word.  Rather, it is highly dependent on the meaning of a
particular word in a particular context.  That's part of what makes
interpretation so difficult; words have so many meanings and we use
them very frequently.

In the case of the word "every" in Acts 2, there are several possibilities
which seem reasonable to me.

  1)  Every "major" nation in the area

  2)  Every "known" nation in the area

The problem is not so much with the word "every", but rather with the
unspoken second qualifier which is assumed.  (I use unspoken qualifiers
in my speaking - and writing - every day and expect that you do too.)
Why are we to expect an unspoken (unwritten) qualifier?  Because of
the context.  Indeed, many nations are listed (perhaps all, perhaps
not all).  We are aware that 1st century Jews were not aware of "all"
of the nations on the earth.  (Even today we are not aware of all the
"nations" on the earth.)  Proper interpretation requires that we interpret
within the existing context.

I hope this helps.

Collis

    Sounds like a fancy way of saying that they didn't know everything
    at the time, i.e. the Bible is not inerrant.
    
    Bonnie

    Re:  .182
    
    If I may butt in, I believe that Bonnie's saying that once you acknow-
    ledge the need for "interpretation", you've opened yourself up to a
    process that gets one (potentially) far away from a strict literalism. 
    
    How is it, for example, that one arrives at only five kinds of writing? 
    Is THAT in the Bible?  (yes - refer to TAXONIMICUS 5:5 ;^)
     
    Couldn't I create a taxonomy that describes six, eight or four kinds?  
    (Yes, TAXONIMICUS 4:1 - 8:8)
    
    And if I can infer from syntax and word usage that more than one person
    wrote a particular book, is it not legitimate to "interpret" portions
    of that book differently, depending on which presumed author wrote
    what?  One person's interpretation is another's mis-construction, so to
    speak.
    
    Bonnie's point, I believe, is that literalist interpretation exists
    only in the minds of those who are ignoring the facts as presented in
    the Bible, or who are comfortable with a welter of apparent contradic-
    tions, or who have fooled themselves into believing that their "inter-
    pretation" is a literal "interpretation."   As for me, I am quite
    comfortable with the contradictions.  It seems to mirror life as I
    experience it pretty well.
    
    If I rely on the Holy Truth of the Spirit as I study the scriptures, is
    that not sufficient?  Jesus said that by their fruits you shall know
    them.  Should we apply that to the various interpretive disciplines?
    
    DR

    Thanks Honey, you know what I'm trying to say better than I do myself,
    (is that what 25 years of marriage gets us? :-) )
    
    Bonnie

re Note 18.184 by WMOIS::REINKE:

>     Bonnie's point, I believe, is that literalist interpretation exists
>     only in the minds of those who are ignoring the facts as presented in
>     the Bible, or who are comfortable with a welter of apparent contradic-
>     tions, or who have fooled themselves into believing that their "inter-
>     pretation" is a literal "interpretation."   As for me, I am quite
>     comfortable with the contradictions.  It seems to mirror life as I
>     experience it pretty well.
  
        A very well-written summary of where I come from in reading
        Scripture (and I haven't even met you! :-).

        Amen!

        Bob

    re - .185/.186

re.181

Bonnie,

	What Collis said (.182)  8*) 

	I'll add a further explanation for this case...

	In the Bible there are at least two viewpoints of a particular
subject. For instance, according to Romans 7 there is a battle raging
between the law of sin in our members and our will to do good. However, the
book of Ephesians says that we are seated with Christ in the heavenlies. So
which is it? Are we in the heat of battle or are we already victoriously
seated with Christ in the heavenlies? The answer is both. In our daily life
we are in a battle (our human viewpoint), but from God's viewpoint we are 
*already* seated with Christ in the heavenly places and the battle is already 
won by Him. Is there a contradiction? No, it is a matter of which viewpoint 
(man's or God's) is being discussed. I use this an an example of the different 
viewpoints the Bible presents to us. (Both viewpoints are inspired scripture)

	Now in this case in Acts 2, it is important to understand the 
circumstances (or the context) to gain the correct understanding of what was
being said. In God's initiation of His New Testament economy, He first brings
in the nation of Israel (Acts 2) through the pouring out of the Spirit at
Pentecost. Then in Acts 10 He pours out His Spirit upon the Gentiles (Act 10) 
thereby signifying that both Jew and Gentile are now one in Christ as members of
His Body. Therefore distinction between Jew and Gentile is annulled by Acts 10,
but in Acts 2 the Lord was fulfilling the promise to the Jew *first*. Therefore, 
this context helps us to understand (or at least me 8*) that from God's 
viewpoint, the nations where Jews inhabited were represented at Pentecost and 
are the center subject of the passage and the only nations that mattered in His
economy. 

	If you read the Bible looking for "Aha's!" you find them. The
unfortunate part is that unless you take the context you will not interpret
it correctly and your understanding will be superficial. Acts 2 is not a
geography lesson and to apply it as such and then question its authority based
on what you perceive to be a disconnect (when it is actually not) will result
in endless questionings and reasonings without spiritual profit. This has been
my experience as well.

Regards,
Ace 

    I think that's the point, isn't it?  Acts 2 isn't a geography lesson,
    just as (for example) Genesis 1 isn't a science lesson.  To focus on
    these details of the Bible is to miss the forest for the trees.  The fact
    that the Bible is not always accurate in matters of historical or
    scientific detail does not detract from its theological value.  The
    same can be said of the morally ambiguous (or, in the case of the
    genocidal atrocities in the book of Judges) sections of the Bible,
    which do not invalidate the Bible as a whole.

    -- Mike

re.189


>The fact
>    that the Bible is not always accurate in matters of historical or
>    scientific detail does not detract from its theological value. 

I would say "...does not detract from its authority."

regards,
ace

...or as John Rohmer (sp?) kept pointing out in his 6 hour series _Testament_ 
reconciling the Bible with archaeological and historical evidence:

	The question is not "is the Bible wrong?"  
	but rather "in what way is the Bible right?"

The authors clearly lived through the times they wrote about.  They had 
intimate detail of the intricacies of life in that era.  They worked to 
share their experiences as honestly as they could, to build upon the insights 
of those who went before them, and come to a clearer, fuller understanding and 
knowledge of God working in the world.

It is not simply a rule book, if it were so, it would not still be relevant 
today.  It is the exploration of a panorama of individual and corporate 
relationships with God, expressed through histories, poetry, novel and short 
stories, documentaries, myths, proverbs and parables.  It is indeed a whole
library of books. 

I find the authors of the Bible to be not so different from myself.  They were 
born into a confusing world of pain and joy, chaos and order, hope and 
despair; and worked to make sense of it, to search for the Divine.  I am 
grateful that their stories have been passed on for me to read and hear, to 
ponder and identify with.

My simple opinion, Peace,

Jim

p.s.

I can make a 6-hour mode VHS video tape of the series _Testament_ available 
for those who are interested.  While the later episodes seem to drag a bit (in 
my opinion), overall I can recommend it.

    That was well stated, Jim.
    
    -- Mike

Re:  .184

DR,

I do not and have never promoted literalism, strict or otherwise.  The
Biblical claim of inerrancy is what I accept.

As far as relying on the Spirit for all understanding, in practice this
does not always seem to work out well.  Two equally Spirit-filled Christians
can find major differences in a passage.  It seems that God has given us
not only his Spirit but also a mind to help us interpret.  :-)

Collis

    RE: The Bible...
    
                    To me the Bible has *NO* errors...our understanding and 
    application of it does.   IMHO...of course :-)
    
    
    Dave

Re:  .189

And yet, Mike, the Bible is actually fully accurate in Acts 2.

Collis

    So you say.
    
    -- Mike

Re: 18.181

>Perhaps what we need is (again) discussion on the interpretation of
>Scripture.

Please, Collis.  It is not necessary on my account.

>Indeed, how to interpret Scripture is dependent on the kind
>of writing (of which there are 5 - If I can remember them they include
>historical, poetical, parables, instructional and prophetical), the
>setting, culture and many other things.

While these considerations seem sensible and noteworthy, their inclusion
cannot guarantee that Scripture will not be misinterpreted, or can they?

>But since *some* writings are clearly properly
>interpreted allegorically and *other* writings are clearly not, the
>burden of proof is on you to show how the interpretations are improper,
>rather than to just say "hypocrisy".

Yes, some writings seem to be clearly properly interpreted allegorically and
some do not.  Still other writings are not so clear.  For example, some
interpret the Genesis creation story, Job, Jonah, the Revelation and many
other portions of the Bible quite literally.  Others do not.  Doubtlessly,
you have reached your own conclusions about whether these portions are best
understood allegorically or literally.

Now, I am not out to prove one interpretation is right, and the other, wrong.
I believe I made it clear that this was not a part of my intent in 18.171.

>When you speak of "traditional conservative teachings", I showed you
>how these teachings include as a strong premise that Scripture is to
>be interpreted in the light of other Scripture.  Since you are not
>disputing this, it seems to me that you have indeed acknowledged that 
>this is the case.  Is this clearer?

There may be some validity to interpreting Scripture against Scripture.
Though I have interpreted Scripture in light of other Scripture myself on
occasion, I do not find it to be especially satisfying or convincing.  So,
while I'm not disputing it, neither am I, by my silence, endorsing it.

Richard

Re:  18.183

  >Sounds like a fancy way of saying that they didn't know everything
  >at the time, i.e. the Bible is not inerrant.
    
Bonnie,

Do you think that inerrancy is dependent on the authors of Scripture
knowing "everything at the time"?  Perhaps you have a different view
of what inerrancy is than I do.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    there are to, my mind, errors in the Bible that are the results
    of the human vessels that recorded the history of human interaction
    with God that we now call scripture.
    
    I do not believe that every word was dictated by God to human scribes
    (which is what assume you mean when you say inerrant.)
    
    It is a record by *people* of God's moving through the world,
    of God's love for us, of the laws God wants us to live by, of
    the life and resurection of Jesus Christ, and a testimony to
    His miracles. 
    
    It is not, to my mind, a document dictated or directly inspired
    in every 'jot and tittle' by God himself. There are errors
    in geography (due to lack of knowlege) there are examples
    of human bias which are less than loving (some of the examples
    of genocide in the old testament are examples of this), there
    are examples of human prejudice (Paul on women or some of the
    writings on homosexuality are examples), there are errors in
    geological time and the origins of living species, and so forth.
    
    To me, Occam's razor is one tool to use here. If there is a simple
    explaination, i.e. there is a human element in the Bible that
    accounts for a lot of the material that would other wise seem
    inexplicable, I find that a far more reasonable understanding in
    light of my knowledge of Jesus and God than to have to play
    complex theological games to twist things around to prove that
    God really dictated the whole thing and we have to believe every
    word.
    
    I don't know if this makes any sense to you.
    
    Bonnie

Bonnie,

What you say makes perfect sense and is, in fact, the most logical
believable explanation.  At least I found it that way until I dug
deeper and had to confront the constant, consistent claim throughout
the writings that they were 1) from God 2) without error and 3) totally
dependable.  I had to make a choice.  I either had to decide that
it really was what it claimed or, like the prophet who is not 100%
accurate, it was not from God.  Any other choice is totally inconsistent,
although it is a choice that many people make (and defend).

I hope that this makes sense to you.

Collis

	I think it was Peck who asserted that real heresy occurs when
any perspective is suppressed.

	Peck's reasoning is that truth frequently encompasses competing,
and even contradictory, perspectives.  Therefore, the dismissal of some
component of truth becomes genuine heresy.

	Perhaps our focus should be more on what perspectives we're possibly
overlooking and less on which perspective is the singularly valid and
legitimate one.

Peace,
Richard

    Re: .200
    
    As I recall, there's only one place the bible makes any statement about
    itself - and it refers to scriptures which could mean just the OT. I
    don't remember seeing a consistant theme throughout that stated or
    implied the bible was inerrant.
    
    Pete.

    Pete,
    
    Me neither..
    
    Bonnie

    Jesus also had a comment on at least Genesis.  He stated that His
    Father had never yet rested, so neither would He.   This in spite of
    the fact that the Pharasees could point to chapter and verse ....
    
    DR
    

| What you say makes perfect sense and is, in fact, the most logical
| believable explanation.  At least I found it that way until I dug
| deeper and had to confront the constant, consistent claim throughout
| the writings that they were 1) from God 2) without error and 3) totally
| dependable.  I had to make a choice.  I either had to decide that
| it really was what it claimed or, like the prophet who is not 100%
| accurate, it was not from God.  

	What about the prophet, who is not 100% accurate was God inspired when
he wrote his part of the Bible?

| Any other choice is totally inconsistent,
| although it is a choice that many people make (and defend).

	What would be inconsistant about that. The way the Bible has been used,
wrongly interpreted one would have to think that many meanings (both good and
bad) can be found when reading the Bible, which would keep it consistant with
the fact when we humans talk or write in this file, many interpretations can be
found, some true, some which are incorrect. I think they call it the human
factor. What do you think?


Glen

Re:  18.205

  >What about the prophet, who is not 100% accurate was God inspired when
  >he wrote his part of the Bible?

The Bible is quite clear that if the prophet claims to prophesy (speak)
for God and his prophecies do not come true, he is a liar and did NOT
speak for God.

     >>Any other choice is totally inconsistent, although it is a choice 
     >>that many people make (and defend).

  >What would be inconsistant about that?

It is inconsistent to acknowledge that:

  1)  The Bible claims to be totally accurate

  2)  The Bible claims that what is not accurate is not from God (explicitly
      claimed in the case of prophets, an excellent case can be made for
      this same claim in the case of the Bible)

  3)  And then to say that the Bible is not totally accurate but is from
      God.

A little more about prophets from the Bible:

  Deut 18:19  If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks
    in my name, I myself will call him to account.

  Deut 18:20  But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name *anything*
    that I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the
    name of other gods, must be put to death.  [emphasis mine]
    [see also Deut 13:1-5]

  Deut 18:21-22  You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message
    has been spoken by the LORD?"  If what a prophet proclaims in the name
    of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the
    LORD has not spoken.  That prophet has spoken presumptuously.  Do
    not be afraid of him.

Collis

Bonnie, Pete, others

What claims ARE you aware of that the Bible is inerrant?

  and

If you discover that there are many and various claims that the Bible
makes that you are not aware of, will you consider changing your views?

Collis

Re: .206 Collis

>It is inconsistent to acknowledge that:
>
>  1)  The Bible claims to be totally accurate
>
>  2)  The Bible claims that what is not accurate is not from God (explicitly
>      claimed in the case of prophets, an excellent case can be made for
>      this same claim in the case of the Bible)
>
>  3)  And then to say that the Bible is not totally accurate but is from
>      God.

Is this really inconsistent?  I don't think so.  Let's assume for the sake of
argument that the Bible is not 100% accurate but is from God.  Then the claims
of the Bible in (1) and (2) might be inaccurate, and can't be used to disprove
statement (3). Thus, there is no inconsistency.

				-- Bob

    There has been one scripture verse that I've seen quoted that
    is commonly used to 'prove' the Bible is inerrant. I do not
    at the moment recall where it was from. I'd be interested in
    seeing what verses you feel support such a claim.
    
    BJ

There have been a few recent notes entered in this topic that lead me
to believe that some apply reasonings of psychology in interpreting the 
Bible.

Such activity is futile. 

The Holy Spirit reveals God and His purpose to us. The fallen reasonings of 
mankind are hopeless to even begin to grasp God. How pitiful is the ant who
thinks it understands humans. So are those who attempt to use the limited human
mind with all its inadequacies to interpret God's Word.


regards,
ace

    ace,
    
    God gave me this mind, and I suspect like the parable of the talents,
    he expects me to use it..
    
    in fact I find your sort of arguement (which is often used against
    evolution for example) to be unacceptable. I can read texts written
    by people who have studied the Bible, I can make up my mind if
    what they say rings true, and I can make a decision for myself.
    
    Bonnie

 
    RE: .210 Ace
    
    I just don't get this perspective.  How can the Bible be held
    as the final word when it was written by people whose personal
    biases and cultural biases are so apparent?  If the Bible was
    inspired by God, then He/She used these people with all of their 
    human components.  Doesn't it seem appropriate that God would	
    still work through people today to interpret these writings as
    they apply to that particular person?
    
    > Such activity is futile.
    
    Certainly not to the person who feels inspired by God to do this.
    
    >The Holy Spirit reveals God and His purpose to us. 
    
    Yes, and does so with the people of *today* in *today's* world.
    
    It is not so much the 'grasping of God' that people are discussing
    here but rather where the bible fits into their lives.
    
    God's word is alive and well, in each of our hearts.

    RE:  .207
    
    Would a verse in the Bible lead me to believe the Bible is inerrant?
    
    		No - Circular logic.  
    
    My faith is in God.  God is above all things - even the Bible. God has
    given us the Bible; could not He/She choose to give us another one at
    any time, just like Jesus observed that God could raise up children of
    Abraham from the very stones?
    
    As great and awesome as the Bible is, it is still very small, compared
    to the vastness.
    
    DR
    

I'm not sure where the question was asked, but this is probably as
appropriate a topic as any to put the answer.

Earlier, I have made the claim that there are three institutions set
up by God which are the church, government and family.  I further went
on to say that the responsibilities of these institutions include
discipline (or correction possibly involving punishment) whereas the 
individual is not to discipline but rather to discern and to love.
Here are some Scriptures from which these principles (which are not
mine but which rather have been passed down to me and confirmed through
my studies of the Scriptures) were derived:

Individuals:
  Matt 7:1,2  Do not judge, or you too will be judged.  For in the same
    way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you
    use, it will be measured to you.

  Romans 12:10  Be devoted to one another in brotherly love.  Honor one
    another above yourselves.

  Romans 12:14  Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.

  Romans 12:17-21  Do not repay anyone evil for evil.  Be careful to do what
    is right in the eyes of everybody.  If it is possible, as far as it
    depends on you, live at peace with everyone.  Do not take revenge, my
    friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written:  "It is
    mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.  On the contrary:  "If
    your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to
    drink.  In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."  Do
    not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

  Lev 19:18  Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your
    people, but love your neighbor as yourself.  I am the LORD.
    [Neighbor can be defined using the Old Testament as the interpreter
    as anyone with a need.]

Church:
  Matt 18:15-17  If your brother sins against you, go and show him his
    fault, just between the two ofyou.  If he listens to you, you have
    won your brother other.  But if he will not listen, take one or two
    others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony
    of two or three witnesses.  If he refuses to listen to them, tell
    it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat
    him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Government:

  Ro 13:1-7  Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities,
    for there is no authority except that which God has established. 
    The authorities that exist have been established by God.  Consequently,
    he who rebeles against the authority is rebelling against what God has 
    instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.  For 
    rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.
    Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority?  Then do what 
    is right and he will commend you.  For he is God's servant to do you 
    good.  But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword 
    for nothing.  He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment 
    on the wrongdoer.  Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the 
    authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of 
    conscience.  This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are 
    God's servants, who give their full time to governing.  Give everyone 
    what you owe him:; If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, 
    then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honr.

Family:

  Prov: 13:24  He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who lves him
    is careful to discipline him.  [See also Prov 19:18, 22:15, 23:13, 29:17]

  Prov 15:5  A fool spurns his father's discipline, but whoever heeds
    correction shows prudence.

In general, the Old Testament books of Exodus and Deuteronomy are filled
with instructions to both the nation of Israel which are, in a theocracy,
a combined government/church relationship.  There are many verses which
indicate the families responsibility for raising their children, including
discipline (as indicated above).  Individuals are to show love, not
judgment.

Collis

Is there no one with the Biblical knowledge to at least understand why
there are people like me who seem to believe that the Bible claims
(explicitly and implicitly) that it is true?

Collis

re Note 18.215 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> Is there no one with the Biblical knowledge to at least understand why
> there are people like me who seem to believe that the Bible claims
> (explicitly and implicitly) that it is true?
  
        Collis,

        I think I understand why people think like you do, and I've
        seen the arguments and evidence over and aver again in the
        CHRISTIAN conference.

        I also think that the bulk of such arguments and evidence are
        ambiguous except to those who hold very tightly to, or whose
        world-view depends upon, a particular set of conclusions.  It
        is possible to choose one's perspective so that the
        ambiguities disappear or become less important.

        (Certainly this was one of the notions that led to the word
        "perspective" in this conference's name.  The perspective
        from which one views Christian experience and literature has
        a pivotal role in determining what one derives from them.  To
        simply claim "this is what there is" but to not acknowledge
        where one has started, nor to acknowledge that others who
        start from different points see a different, yet equally
        valid, view is either dishonest or naive.  It is not worthy
        of somebody who really is seeking truth.)

        An extensive Biblical passage which is frequently cited in
        support of traditional conservative views of the Bible is
        Psalm 119.  I personally have read it many times, and I come
        away not with support for the traditional equation "word of
        God == Bible" but rather support for the very different
        conclusion "word of God == all God has wrought".

        Bob

Thanks for responding, Bob.  At least I didn't get silence.

Since people are (apparently) looking for specifics (generalities
don't seem to be too convincing), did you want to mention any
specifics that you feel conservatives misunderstand in their 
belief that the Bible is inerrant?

Collis

Note 18.215

>Is there no one with the Biblical knowledge to at least understand why
>there are people like me who seem to believe that the Bible claims
>(explicitly and implicitly) that it is true?

Collis,

	Spoken like someone who feels like they're a voice crying in the
wilderness. ;-}

	I'll be so bold as to say I have some measure of Biblical knowledge.
And, I continue to derive considerable truth and insight from the Scriptures.

	I've noticed, though, that most of the folks I know who place the
greatest stock in the Bible, and consider the Bible to be God's ultimate
and final word, seem to be people who yearn for the comfort of possessing
some non-variable, external standard.

	Surely you've seen the bumper sticker:  "God said it.  I believe it.
And that's all there is to it!"

	Verily, verily, I say unto you, the one who submits to the authority
of the Holy Spirit will indeed sometimes err.  Communication on a physical
level is far from an exact science.  How much more so is it in perceiving
the still, small voice of God!

Peace,
Richard

    Re: .207
    
    One that I can think of: "for all scripture is inspired by god,
    suitable for correction...". My problem is what does 'all scripture'
    mean? At the time of writing it might have included the OT, but that
    may have been slightly different than the bible we have today. It
    certainly couldn't have included the NT.
    
    I've read a lot of the various claims the bible makes, and I've seen
    they are very tenous indeed. There's a book by Josh McDowell (is that
    his name) that is hard work to read, but I descovered with some of the
    simpler justifications he used there was a LOT of room for doubt.
    
    In a later note of yours, you seem to be implying that there is a lack
    of biblical knowledge. I'm no bible expert, but I've seen enough, and
    read it enough times to have a pretty good idea what's there.
    
    What I notice some people doing is going beyond what's written and
    adding another explanation in order to make it all work.
    
    Pete.

    I've read through the NT and a couple of books of the OT.  Didn't
    bother with the books of laws, but the ones that told (often gory)
    stories, plus I've sat through as many Sunday scripture readings as
    most folks in the file.  However, I don't consider myself an expert,
    nor do I really use the BIBLE (as opposed to my current knowledge of
    it) in my daily life.
    
    So far as I'm concerned, God has never stopped revealing His/Her
    wisdom.  God grant me wisdom this day.
    
    DR

Note 18.219

>    One that I can think of: "for all scripture is inspired by god,
>    suitable for correction...". My problem is what does 'all scripture'
>    mean? At the time of writing it might have included the OT, but that
>    may have been slightly different than the bible we have today. It
>    certainly couldn't have included the NT.

Also see 18.71 & 18.78.

Richard

RE.210

>   God gave me this mind, and I suspect like the parable of the talents,
>    he expects me to use it..

	Of course. God created man with a mind that man may understand God.
But not finite mind's *reasonings and opinions* about the infinite God. To 
understand the infinite God your mind must be renewed (Romans). Unregenerated
minds will never understand God. And yes, you must choose, for God gave us a
will that we might choose Him. But there again, multitudes do not choose Him,
but choose psychology, philosophies, religion, principles of conduct, etc. or
the people behind them. God also gave us an emotion to love Him but how often
our love is for ourselves, our thoughts, our desires, etc.


RE.211

> How can the Bible be held
>    as the final word when it was written by people whose personal
>    biases and cultural biases are so apparent?

	People often confuse the inerrancy of the Bible with the authority of
the Bible. If you're traveling down the Mass Pike and a trooper steps out in the
middle of the road and points at you and signals you to stop, most likely you 
will stop. Why? Because he is authority. (Of course, after you stop you will 
argue with him/her 8*). Actually it is the uniform that makes you stop. If a man
in Bermuda shorts tried to do the same thing on the Mass Pike he'd make the
statistics for the month. Whether or not the trooper is "inerrant" makes no 
difference. You may plead your case in court, but if you decide not to stop
because you think he/she is inerrant, the you will most likely end up in the
tank for the evening with other law breakers. You would be without excuse.

	The Bible is God's authority for it is the embodiment of His constant
word. If you were to disregard it's authority because you noticed cultural
bias, or a mistranslation, etc. then you may end up in "the tank" for eternity
with other's who did not obey it for whatever reasons they held to. You again
would be without excuse.

	I use this as an illustration.

Regards,
Ace 
 

| | The Bible is God's authority for it is the embodiment of His constant
| | word. If you were to disregard it's authority because you noticed cultural
| | bias, or a mistranslation, etc. then you may end up in "the tank" for eternity
| | with other's who did not obey it for whatever reasons they held to. You again
| | would be without excuse.

	Ace, I like the trooper story! :-) One question though... well probably
a few.

	The Bible was wriiten by man, but with the Holy Spirit guiding them it
came out as God's book, with no flaws, right?

	The Holy Spirit also made sure that throughout the centuries the Bible
remained in tact, right?

	If this is so, could you please explain why there are so many different
versions of the Bible? True, some might be slight, but some vary a great deal.
Why wouldn't the Holy Spirit have made it so this didn't happen?

	If the Holy Spirit was what guided the authors/translators, why do we
have a problem with what the Bible says today? The Holy Spirit would have
yeilded away any confusion, right? (BTW, I'm not saying satan had anything to
do with the Bible.)

	My point is this, I'm not saying the Bible wasn't God inspired, but
that God, seeing He gave us free will, also left that free will into the
writings, translations, etc. Could it be that maybe what God really wants is
for us to belive in Him? The book may be a guide, but it is God, and not the
book that should be held up as 100% correct.


Glen

Re: .222  Ace

What if the "trooper" were actually an actor dressed up in a costume?  Would he
still possess authority?

				-- Bob

re: Note 18.222 by Ace "...A River...bright as crystal" >>>

>	Of course. God created man with a mind that man may understand God.
>But not finite mind's *reasonings and opinions* about the infinite God. To 
>understand the infinite God your mind must be renewed (Romans). Unregenerated
>minds will never understand God. 

Ace, could you explain this further for me please?  It sounds like you're 
saying that a finite mind cannot understand an infinite God, but that a 
"renewed" mind can.  Can a "renewed" mind's *reasonings and opinions* 
comprehend God?  (My understanding of your sentense fragment.)  Is a "renewed" 
mind no longer finite?  Is that the same as being infinite?  Is that possible?

I'm not sure I can accept that any of the minds that God created can fully 
understand the Creator.

Peace,

Jim

re.223

	Glen,

	I'll explain the Bible and understanding it this way...

	Firstly, there must have been the *original inspiration* from the
	Holy Spirit through the particular individual whom documented His
	speaking. That we have in the books in the Bible. 

	Secondly then, there is the need of a *translation* since most of us 
	don't speak Hebrew or Greek or Aramic (a few passages). I think a good
	translation can be had nowadays that come very close to the original. I
	would also add though that most translations say almost the same thing.
	There are some treasures to be mined out of God's word through finer
	translations of certain words but generally the key points of God's
	economy can be seen from almost any translation.

	Thirdly, there is the need for *interpretation*. Any translation will
	do you no good if there is not an interpretation of its meaning. Here
	is where human opinion and reasoning are useless. The Lord provides
	gifts to His Body to provide interpretation for edification. This
	however is never meant to be an individual exercise but a corporate
	exercise, that is, the practice of the Body life. We can gain much
	help from mature believers in the Lord.

	Fourthly and last, we need the proper *understanding*. For this we must
	we must be before the Lord with a pure heart, seeking His will alone, 
	and yielding to His Spirit within to obey the Law of Life. If our heart
	is filled with anything else than Christ alone, He will not fill it.
	We must be emptied, then He will fill us, then we will understand.

	In summary:

		1) Inspiration
		2) Translation
		3) Interpretation
		4) Understanding

Regards,
ace
	
	

	

re.224

Bob,

>What if the "trooper" were actually an actor dressed up in a costume?  Would he
>still possess authority?

	Test it next time and let us know what happens..  8*)  8*)

ace

re.225

Jim,

>Can a "renewed" mind's *reasonings and opinions* 
>comprehend God?  (My understanding of your sentense fragment.)  Is a "renewed" 
>mind no longer finite?  Is that the same as being infinite?  Is that possible?

My explanation is as follows...

	Man was made in three parts..  spirit, soul, and body. (Thess, Hebrews)

	When a person becomes regenerated they are re-born in their spirit.
"That which is born of Spirit is spirit" John 3. However, our mind which is
part of our soul is yet damaged and fallen. In order to understand the things
of God (i.e. the Bible) requires our mind to go through a transformation...

	Romans 12:2 And do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by 
the renewing of the mind that you may prove by testing what the will of God is, 
that which is good and well-pleasing and perfect. 

	This is a life long process, requiring our full submission to God. As
we grow in the divine life the Lord reveals more and we are able to understand
God and the things of God more. IN essence, we grow. As we grow we are able
to set our mind upon our regenerated spirit, that is the part of us where the
Lord dwells initially. Of course, our mind has habitually set itself on the
flesh from physical birth. So our mind requires a shift in focus, a change in 
dependency, and must exercise to turn its attention to our regenerated spirit...

	Romans 8:5-6 For those who are according to flesh mind the things of the
flesh; but those who are according to spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the 
mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the spirit is life and 
peace.

	So I would not say that the renewed mind becomes infinite. But it does
become one with the infinite One who indwells our spirit. As we grow in the
divine Life, our minds master is our spirit, not our flesh.

Regards,
Ace

    Re: .222
    
    Your example is one of authority by virtue of legitimate office.
    The Bible qualifies more as an authority by deference.
    
    Richard

    Bonnie, I agree with your comments about the validity and usefulness of
    reason in the realm of religion.  I don't have much use for a "don't
    confuse me with the facts" posture that, in my view, only serves to
    equate Christianity with ignorance in the public eye.  To a great
    extent, it was this perception of Christian hostility to reason,
    philosophy, and science that led me to become an atheist in my younger
    days.  It was only when I came to realize that reason and religion are
    compatible that I was able to return to an interest in religion,
    particularly Christianity.

    Actually, "natural theology" has a long and time honored history in
    Christian theology.  Thomas Aquinas and St. Anselm both come to mind as
    examples of this.  I believe that reason and religion are compatible,
    rather than hostile or at least contradictory.  I believe that it is
    only when religion becomes so embroiled in dogma that it fears the
    consequences of reason that religion becomes incompatible with reason.

    -- Mike

re: Note 18.228 by Ace "...A River...bright as crystal"

Hi Ace,

Thanks for your explanation.  That is something I can more readily embrace, 
though it sounds quite different to me from what you said in .225 .-)

I certainly accept the revealing process of God, it sure makes life 
interesting and wonderful!

Peace,

Jim

| Firstly, there must have been the *original inspiration* from the
| Holy Spirit through the particular individual whom documented His
| speaking. That we have in the books in the Bible.

	I fully agree. There had to be the inspiration.

	I think secondly though you have to write what has been inspired. Thus,
this is where human emotions, feelings and predjudges come into play.

| Secondly then, there is the need of a *translation* since most of us
| don't speak Hebrew or Greek or Aramic (a few passages). I think a good
| translation can be had nowadays that come very close to the original. 

	I guess this is were we view it a little differently. *I* feel that the
translation, being done by humans can be close to the origional, but I don't
believe that nothing could have been lost or changed in the time of
translating.

| I
| would also add though that most translations say almost the same thing.
| There are some treasures to be mined out of God's word through finer
| translations of certain words but generally the key points of God's
| economy can be seen from almost any translation.

	Would you say that there aren't any translations that you don't find
all that different?

| Thirdly, there is the need for *interpretation*. Any translation will
| do you no good if there is not an interpretation of its meaning. Here
| is where human opinion and reasoning are useless. 

	I agree with you 100%! The only thing is that it is a human who is
interpreting it, it is a human that takes that interpretation and uses it in
their daily life. So free will does come into play. Just look back in time. Do
you feel the Bible was interpreted correctly when they were burning witches?
Slavery? The Spanish Inquisitions? The treating of women as secnond class
citizens? I don't particularly think so. But at the time this was going on the
majority of the people thought these things were right. They were proven wrong.
I'm sure we'll see other things that have been wrongly interpretated in the
future. Why? Because we're human. We make mistakes, we have free will. 

| The Lord provides
| gifts to His Body to provide interpretation for edification. This
| however is never meant to be an individual exercise but a corporate
| exercise, that is, the practice of the Body life. We can gain much
| help from mature believers in the Lord.

	Who defines a mature believer? Humans? There can be some who say that
person X is a mature believer. Many would agree. Many would disagree. Who would
be right? Sorry, there were some who thought Jim Baaker was a mature believer.
and look at what he did. Now, you may say that God picks the mature believers,
but in reality, it is human reasoning that chooses. If you don't believe in
what someone is saying, even though they may be saying they have God's
authority, you still won't believe, right? You would just call that person a
false prophet. Some may feel that someone who you feel is a mature believer is
nothing more than a false prophet. Then it just goes around and around and
around. The end result? We get nowhere.

| Fourthly and last, we need the proper *understanding*. For this we must
| we must be before the Lord with a pure heart, seeking His will alone,
| and yielding to His Spirit within to obey the Law of Life. 

	If it is HIS law, then yes, we should obey it. But some say the holy
spirit kept the bible intact. Why not keep ALL interpretations intact as well?
It's because of free will. The same thing that went into the writing of the
bible (imho). Therefor, how do we follow the Lords laws when they could have
been written by man?

Glen

Re: .227 Ace

>>What if the "trooper" were actually an actor dressed up in a costume?  Would he
>>still possess authority?
>
>	Test it next time and let us know what happens..  8*)  8*)

Well actually I did test it a couple of years ago in Ohio, and while I'm not
absolutely sure that he wasn't just an actor dressed up in a state trooper
costume, I decided to give his pal who was waiting a mile down the road the
benefit of the doubt...

Was I without excuse?  Not entirely.  "Sorry officer.  I'd never seen that kind
of speed trap before and I got confused."  It was the best I could come up
with under the circumstances.  At least I didn't end up in jail - I just had to
pay (by credit card) the $50 fine for speeding and I was on my way again to
my sister's wedding in Indiana.

So the first question this brings up is: is God less merciful than the Ohio
State Police?  If the police gave me a break why won't God?

The second question is: don't I have a much better excuse if the Bible turns
out to be true?  After all, I've *seen* people get pulled over by the police
before.  I haven't seen anything to suggest that the Bible is actually true.

				-- Bob

Re:  .233

  >I haven't seen anything to suggest that the Bible is actually true.

Maybe if you think real hard, Bob, you can come up with *something*.  :-)

Collis

I think that far more important than a proper translation of the Bible 
is a good relationship with it.

Peace,

Jim

    in re .232
    Glen, 
    
    your thoughts are very close to mine..
    
    Bonnie

    also, Collis, and Ace, I look on your words as an example of *human*
    authority.... and if what you say contradicts the voice of God I hear
    within, then I do not accept your words no matter how much you tell
    me you are God's spokes person..
    
    BJ

Collis,

Perhaps I should restate it: I haven't seen anything which suggests *to me*
that the Bible is entirely true (e.g. that God actually exists, gave
commandments to Moses, etc.).  Other people have made the suggestion, of
course.

True, there have been reports of miracles, but I've never seen a miracle.
There is nothing in my experience that has made me stop and think "now wait
a minute: maybe the Bible really is true after all".  By contrast, I *have*
seen the police in action (first hand, in fact).

				-- Bob

re.232

	Hi Glen,

	Even though inspiration, translation, interpretation, and 
understanding are the crucial steps to apprehending God's Word I also would
add that the Bible is *not* primarily for theological or doctrinal thought,
though it is useful for that (Timothy).

	Primarily, the Bible is for feasting. "Man shall not live on bread alone
but on every word which proceeds out through the mouth of God". It is
spiritual food. If you totally analyzed every meal before eating it you would
starve to death! Some translations have bones, some interpretations burn
the chicken. But mostly there is meat in every translation, and after you
become familiar with food, you know when it has been burned, when it's not
cooked enough, and when its spoiled. Some interpretations burn the food,
some don't cook it enough, and some serve spoiled old food. After a while,
you understand when the food is prepared right and when its not. "Just taste
and see that the Lord is good". The Bible may considered as God's pantry.

Regards,
Ace

re.238

Bob,

	Of course if you do not believe that God exists, then you will not
believe that the Bible is God's Word. 

	
ace

re Note 18.226 by LEDS::LOPEZ:

> 	Secondly then, there is the need of a *translation* since most of us 
...
> 	Thirdly, there is the need for *interpretation*. Any translation will

        The above has me a bit confused.

        Although I have never worked in the area of translation, I do
        work in the area of computational linguistics and have
        followed the work on automated translation over the past 20
        years.

        Mechanical approaches to translation that don't require a
        full understanding of the source text generally fail. 
        Translation seems to require an understanding of the meaning
        of the text.  Modern approaches to machine translation start
        with an attempt to understand the source text semantically
        (obviously, very difficult).

        Isn't "understanding" the same thing you have been calling
        "interpretation"?

        (Or by "interpretation" do you mean "application"?)

        Bob

re.241  

	Bob,

	Dios = God, that is spanish translation (i'm sure you knew that 
already!). But the correct interpretation of "God" according the Bible is 
that He is Triune (3-1), Father, Son, and Spirit yet One. Now whether or not the
reader of that interpretation understands that is individual. I understand that
interpretation, but another may not. However, you do bring up an excellent
point...

>(Or by "interpretation" do you mean "application"?)

...that is, *application*. We may understand the Bible or certain aspects of
it, but do we apply it? What's the point of gaining an understanding of God's
Word but not being able to apply it to one's life? God wants us to know that
we may apply. So I distinguish application as yet another aspect. 

regards,
ace

re Note 18.242 by LEDS::LOPEZ:

> 	Dios = God, that is spanish translation (i'm sure you knew that 
> already!). 

        So far, so good -- but you cannot successfully translate a
        majority of sentences simply by a word-for-word lookup of a
        word with equivalent meaning.

        (If artificial intelligence has discovered anything of
        fundamental value, it is that what people think they do, as
        in the case of translation, is rarely what they actually do.)

        Bob

The Spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.
                   |
                   V
The vodka is strong but the meat is rotten.

Translated from English to Russian and back again...


.-),

Jim

| Even though inspiration, translation, interpretation, and
| understanding are the crucial steps to apprehending God's Word I also would
| add that the Bible is *not* primarily for theological or doctrinal thought,
| though it is useful for that (Timothy).

	I agree. 

| Primarily, the Bible is for feasting. "Man shall not live on bread alone
| but on every word which proceeds out through the mouth of God". It is
| spiritual food. If you totally analyzed every meal before eating it you would
| starve to death! 

	You've never eaten at our facility then, right? ;-) I have to disagree
with this and I'll explain why. You see, if I am to live my life a certain way,
a way told to me by someone else, then yes, *I* feel that one should analyze
every meal to make sure that this is right for me. If I didn't, I'd just be a
puppet and someone else would be controling the strings. If that someone was
God, then yes, that's ok. If it's a book (even a God "inspired" one), then no, 
it won't happen. Why? Because it was written by humans with free will (IMHO).

| Some translations have bones, some interpretations burn
| the chicken. But mostly there is meat in every translation, and after you
| become familiar with food, you know when it has been burned, when it's not
| cooked enough, and when its spoiled. 

	Hmmmm...... you may know it for that version of the recipe, but other
recipe's vary (can we get away from food? I'm getting hungry :-). What may be
good for you may be burnt to someone else. Think of steak. How many different
versions of cooking it are there? All are simular, but none the same. Also,
once you become familiar, and as you have put it (making my mouth water) know
when the food has been burned, not cooked enough and when it's spoiled, you are
making a conclusion using human free will. You feel that this food is <insert
cooked level here>. Therefor you are coming to a conclusion based on what you
believe. Is it a correct one? You feel it is. Only God knows for sure. We are
all far from being close to the level of God (and frankly, I don't think I
would want the job the way this world is), and shouldn't try to play Him by
impossing our own human rules on each other. In other words, I feel that the
Bible is God inspired, but human free will written.

| Some interpretations burn the food,
| some don't cook it enough, and some serve spoiled old food. After a while,
| you understand when the food is prepared right and when its not. "Just taste
| and see that the Lord is good". The Bible may considered as God's pantry.

	Many thought the food was cooked enough during the Spanish
Inquisitions, while burning witches, making women 2nd class citizens.
What did it get them? Poisoned food. You see, when we humans start telling
the world just what this and that means, we can lose a lot of the actual
meaning behind it. It is just my opinion, but I'd like to share it with 
you. God inspired the Bible. He wanted His words remembered. He also gave
humans free will. To better understand the Bible this free will was kept
in tact while writing the Bible. If you read the Bible there is a reacurring
theme throughout it. God loves us. He loves us so much that He gave up His son!
That's a lot of love! God wants us to share that same type of love with others,
regardless of who they are. God's love has no limits, and neither should ours.
To me, that is the most important thing that the Bible has to offer. Think
about it, if we loved others as much as God loves us, how many sins would we
really be committing?

	Great topic Ace!


Glen

    Re: .244
    
    That's very revealing.  It has me thinking.  Thanks, Jim.
    
    Richard

re.245

	Hi Glen,

	RE: Inquisition - Yes, the Lord warned against pulling up the tares,
because many wheat would get pulled up also (matt 13:24-30). At the end of
the age the Lord will deal severly with the tares Himself (Matt 13:36-43) for
He is most qualified to do so.

	You are correct. God loves us, gave His only begotten Son for us,
and saves whomsoever will accept this by faith. You got this from the Bible.
This word was sown into your heart (Mark 4), and you believed. Very good.

	Now we must go on to see more of God's revelation to us according to
His word. We cannot stay in our initial experience of salvation. We must go
on from there. Why? Because the purpose of God's salvation is not that 
we would get saved and go to heaven. Rather, the purpose of God's 
salvation is much higher than that. God desires a builded church (Matt 16:18) 
for His dwelling on the earth (Eph 2:20-22). God desires an army to defeat His 
enemy Satan (Gen 1:26, Eph 6, Rev 19:14) and recover the earth from the fall
(Romans 8:21, Eph 1:10). God desires a Bride as His eternal counterpart(Gen 2, 
Rev 21:2). The revelation of the Bible is much higher than our eternal
salvation. Of course, we are delighted with our salvation! And we rejoice,
over each new recovered soul, but we must go on to see to God's desire.

With our salvation, we are satisfied, but is God satisfied? God will never be
satisfied until He gains His dwelling place on the earth (the builded church),
an army to defeat His enemy, and His Bride as His counterpart. God is 
seeking those who are willing to yield completely to Him. Consider yourself
as raw material 8*). You must be willing to be "fitted" into the building of
God.

	Therefore another aspect of the Bible is to reveal God's eternal
purpose to us. May God enlighten the eyes of our hearts to see His eternal
purpose.

Regards,
ace

Hi ace!



| You are correct. God loves us, gave His only begotten Son for us,
| and saves whomsoever will accept this by faith. You got this from the Bible.

	From the Bible and 11 years of CCD. 

| This word was sown into your heart (Mark 4), and you believed. Very good.

	The word itself isn't what gave me the belief though. It was the things
that have happened to me in the past that have brought me to REALLY believe
that statement. There is a song out by the rock band extreme called, "More than
words" (they're from Hudson Ma). The song itself is talking about love, real
love, not just spoken love. It talks about showing your love and not just
saying you love someone. Anyone can speak the words, but few really mean it.
That philosiphy is what I seem to follow with my life. When I see things
happening, it's hard NOT to believe the outcome is true. Now I follow this
philosiphy for things that are important to me. God's words, love, things like
that. For *me*, this is how I find the words that were God inspired and put
into the Bible as being true, and not just someone's opinion.

| Now we must go on to see more of God's revelation to us according to
| His word. We cannot stay in our initial experience of salvation. We must go
| on from there. Why? Because the purpose of God's salvation is not that
| we would get saved and go to heaven. 

	I agree with what you are saying ace. I think what you just wrote makes
a lot of sense.

| Rather, the purpose of God's
| salvation is much higher than that. God desires a builded church (Matt 16:18)
| for His dwelling on the earth (Eph 2:20-22). God desires an army to defeat His
| enemy Satan (Gen 1:26, Eph 6, Rev 19:14) and recover the earth from the fall
| (Romans 8:21, Eph 1:10). God desires a Bride as His eternal counterpart(Gen 2,
| Rev 21:2). The revelation of the Bible is much higher than our eternal
| salvation. 

	Would you agree that the one way that would really help us achieve his
goals is also the hardest to do? I believe they call it love. ;-) With love, we
can all work towards God's goals. Trying to out do someone else on a material
level wold end, envy would go away and sins would start to diminish leaving us
with the enemy destroyed, by an army armed with love. With the enemy gone,(sin)
you would see the others fall into place. But it seems to *me* anyway that it's
harder to love someone, not just say it, but show it, than it is to show any
form of hatred (anything from looking down upon someone to your worst thought).
God does show us the way to love, but there are times in everyones life where
we just don't seem to follow it. I guess it has to do with free will, huh?

Glen

re.248
	Glen,

	Matt 22:36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law. And He
said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all 
your soul, and with all your mind, This is the great and first commandment. And
the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two
commandments hang all the law and the prophets".

	John 17:25-26 "Righteous Father, indeed the world had not known You,
but I have known You, and these have known that You have sent me. And I have
made Your name known to them, and will make it known, that the love with which
You have loved Me may be in them, and I in them.

	1 John 3:23 "And this is His commandment, that we should believe in the
name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, even as He gave a commandment
to us. And He who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And in 
this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He gave to us"

	Here are three verses concerning the aspects of love revealed in the 
Bible. Of course there are others. The Bible reveals to us, as you pointed out,
the importance of love. There are many definitions of love in this world, so
it is important for us to determine the definition according to God's thought.
In Matthew, the Lord Jesus said that the "great commandment" was to love the
Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your 
mind. If our hearts are loving the Lord with all our hearts, our souls, and our
minds our whole person would be wrapped up in God. Your feelings, your thoughts,
your thinkings, your will, would all be under the governing of God. Where you 
go, what you say, what you watch, what you do would all be under the divine 
regulation. In fact, you would avoid participating in anything that had the 
*appearance* of evil. Why? Because you love the Lord God with all of your being.
 You would never dishonor Him. 
	The second commandment is like it (though not it). You should never
confuse the second commandment with the first commandment. Though they are like
each other, they are not each other. Our "touchstone" is the first
commandment. If we are in the reality of the first commandment, we will
be ushered into the second commandment. If we are loving God with all of our 
being, we will have a proper loving relationship with other persons. God cannot
gain His purpose without these two aspects.
	From John we can see that the love with which God loves us, is not
the worldly love. The worldly "love" is too low. We should be clear that when 
the Bible speaks of love, it is not a love according to the world. It is not a 
sensual love, it is not a human love, it is a godly divine love. The way to
experience this love is for the Son to make the Father's name known to us. What
is the Father's name? It's simply "Father". To know God as our Father is to
know God's love. There is no other way. If someone claims to love you, and yet
does not have the Son in them making known the Father's name to them, then they
do not have the divine love. People use the term love very loosely, but the
biblical definition is the true definition. *To know love we must know the
Father, and to know the Father we must have the Son indwelling us making the
Father's name known to us.* There is no other way. For only this way maintains
God's righteousness ("Righteous Father") and displays His love

	With this divine love we can experience 1 John in a living way. We can
love one another as He commanded us because we have the real divine love. We 
could never have divine love issuing forth from us to others, if we don't 
believe in the Son.

The nature of the Bible is to reveal God's love to us, to dispense God into
us that we may have the proper love towards one another. This is the proper
spirit to accomplish God's eternal purpose. 


Regards,
Ace

Re:  21.67

  >Have you seen/read the original text that was "God-breathed"?

If by original you mean the original, physical document then the
answer is clearly no.

If by original you mean the orignal words (text?), then then answer
is a qualified "yes" (since the Greek I have seen is not 100%
accurate - let's call it 98% accurate by word count) and most of
the Hebrew I saw I didn't understand anyone (one semester does not
a Hebrew scholar make).

If you mean have I obtained the meaning originally meant when God
breathed it (since you may or may not have been considering
the various languages that this was written in), then again the
answer is a qualified "yes".  Much of what is written I simplisticly
understand correctly.  Much more remains to be understood (which
will modify some of what I now understand).

    RE: 21.66
    

    >There are no errors in the original text breathed by God; 
    
    
    Collis,
    
    How do you know this?
    
    Carole

    The bible is NOT an example of automatic writing. God didn't possess
    some prophet whose hand proceeded to spit out a book.
    	"Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. they
    put it down in their own words as they saw it. Its meaning for you may
    not be the same as for them. The Holy Spirit must influence your mind
    in order for you to understand it correctly. In fact without the Spirit
    the bible is like a mixture of arsenic and milk.
    
    john

John,

I couldn't agree more that the Bible is not automatic writing.

Likewise, I totally agree that "holy men of God spoke as they were moved
by the Holy Spirit", i.e. God.  It is God Himself who guided men to
write the truth that He wished proclaimed and kept it from error.

Carole,

  >How do you know this?

I do not know it of my own knowledge; I simply believe the many
explicit and implicit claims of the Bible itself, because I have
found God to be a dependable God and the Bible to be a dependable
guide.

The evidence that the Bible itself gives are many and extensive.  A
few of the areas that show this are:

  - explicit claims (e.g. II Tim 3:16)
  - saying that what was said by a prophet was said by God
  - saying that what was said by God was said by a prophet
  - the nature of God (totally true; no darkness in Him at all)
  - the use of the Scriptures by other prophets
  - the use of the Scriptures by Jesus

For a detailed understanding of this most important subject, there
are several books I can recommend to you including Benjamin
Warfields "The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible" written
about 100 years ago (and still valid today).

| Likewise, I totally agree that "holy men of God spoke as they were moved
| by the Holy Spirit", i.e. God.  It is God Himself who guided men to
| write the truth that He wished proclaimed and kept it from error.

	But wasn't it man who decided which books to use and which to not use?



Glen

    yes, Glen it was. and it was often the 'winners' of a power struggle
    between different theologies that kept the books that supported
    their point of view and removed the ones that supported the positions
    they opposed.
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie .256,
    
    > ...and it was often the 'winners' of a power struggle between
    different theologies that kept the books that supported their point
    of view... <
    
    I disagree on a minor point Bonnie.  Imho, the "winners" are *always* 
    the ones that write/keep the books that support their 'point of view.'  
    Is there an instance otherwise?                         
    
    ;^)
    
    Karen

>There are no errors in the original text breathed by God;

I think it's kind of odd that God failed to maintain zero error tolerance
in the quality control of the copies and translations.

Actually, yours is a pretty safe statement since no original texts are
known to exist.

The 3 oldest known manuscripts of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus,
the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex (can't-remember-the-name-at-the-moment),
are all copies.

8-}
Richard

I believe the Bible is God's Word.

However, I use of the word "Word," in the same sense that I would use
it in asking, "What's the good word?" or "Any word from Karen?"  To me
the word "Word" has become synonymous with word "message."

I must admit I do not prefer the designation: God's Word.  Too many
connotations.  Too many implications.

Besides, according to Gospel of John, the Word was the Logos; the Christ,
not a manuscript.

Peace,
Richard

    
              I believe that the Bible is a guide to God.  The "word" of 
    God is in your/my heart.  To say that the Bible is the "final" word
    I believe is not allowing God to speak directly to ones heart but is
    allowing a "book" to be a kind of God.
    
    
    Dave  

In the Episcopal congregation where I worship, Bible readings are usually 
postfaced  (like "prefaced", only afterwards.-) with the phrase

			"The Word of the Lord!"

I like that.  The Word *of* the Lord.  
              The Word 
		       *from, 
			owing to, 
			associated with, 
			adhereing to, 
			belonging to, 
			connected with, 
			centered on, 
			directed towards, 
			produced by, 
			issuing from, 
			with reference to, 
			about...* 
				  the Lord.

Peace,

Jim

    
    I'm hoping that you folks here can answer a couple of questions for me
    regarding the Old Testament.
    
    .  When was the Old Testament written?
    
    .  Was it always 'one package' as it is today?
    
    .  What language was it/were they written in?
    
        
    Thanks much,
    Carole

Note 18.262

    .  When was the Old Testament written?

Over a *long* period of time.  The first 5 books, called the Pentateuch,
are considered the oldest.  Deuteronomy is a little suspect, though.
    
    .  Was it always 'one package' as it is today?

No.
    
    .  What language was it/were they written in?


Hebrew.  But, the language changed over time, as it still does.

Richard

Re:  18.262

From an inerrantist' point of view, here are the answers:

  >When was the Old Testament written?

Mose is Biblically credited with writing almost all of the
Pentateuch and he lived (according to the early date theory which
I subscribe to) from 1526 B.C. to 1406 B.C.  So, this writing should 
have primarily occurred between 1446 B.C. and 1406 B.C.  It is
possible the Job was written before this; the general dating
of Job is the 2nd millenium B.C. (i.e. between 2000 B.C. and
1000 B.C) due primarily to the lack of other references and the
style of Hebrew used.

King David reigned from 1010 B.C. to 970 B.C. and he wrote many
of the Psalms.  His successor, son Solomon reigned until 930 B.C.
and is credited with the Song of Songs (Solomon), Proverbs
and Eccliastes.  

Most of the prophets wrote their own books from approximately
850 B.C. to 450 B.C.

There are no Biblical books from 400 B.C. until the New Testament.
    
  >Was it always 'one package' as it is today?

The Pentateuch was stored in the Ark of the Covenant, so these
five books have always been 'one package'.

Since who was/was not a prophet tended to be well-recognized
(at least it appears that way from the Bible), writings by prophets
were probably accorded very high esteem during the lives of the
prophets (which is why we still have a copy of them today).

It may be worth noting here that the Scriptures were thought
so highly of that a scribe copying Scripture was not to let
himself be interrupted - even by the King.  This may give you
an idea that having new writing classified as "Scripture" was
not a trivial thing at all.

It is clear that the Old Testament as a group was together when
the Septuagint (translation from Hebrew to Greek) translation
was started around 250 B.C. and that what constituted the
"Old Testament" was very well-defined during Jesus' lifetime
(which is not to say that there was not any controversy just as
there continues to be controversy in some circles about what should
be in the Bible today).
    
  >What language was it/were they written in?

Primarily in Hebrew (99%?) with a little bit of Arabic thrown
in (in Daniel, for example).
    
Collis

    Carole, I would highly recommend Friedman's book "Who Wrote the
    Bible?".  This presents the Documentary Hypothesis, which is accepted
    by most serious scholarship .  In this view, the Pentateuch was
    developed over time, involving several "sources", which are identified
    by the letters J, P, D, and E.  The last book to be written was Daniel, 
    sometime around 167 BC.  The Old Testament probably spanned about 1000
    years, and was not always one package.  The canon was not really well
    defined at the time Jesus lived, and thus we have a difference between
    the Catholic Church's Old Testament, which includes the Apocrypha, and
    the Jewish Bible, which was formally defined after the Christian Church
    defined its own Old Testament.
    
    For more information, see topic 117.
    
    -- Mike

Carole,

	Something to also consider -- the oral tradition.

	For numerous generations many parts of what we now call the Old
Testament were repeated orally, committed to memory without ever being
written down.  This knowledge offers another set of possible implications,
does it not?

	Also, the Pentateuch, though traditionally attributed to Moses,
could hardly have been written by Moses -- at least not in its entirety.
For one thing, you see, Moses dies at the end of Deuteronomy.  One's own
death is an event yet to be recorded autobiographically. ;-}

Collis,

	Thanks for jogging my memory about Job.

Richard

re Note 18.266 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> 	Also, the Pentateuch, though traditionally attributed to Moses,
> could hardly have been written by Moses -- at least not in its entirety.
> For one thing, you see, Moses dies at the end of Deuteronomy.  One's own
> death is an event yet to be recorded autobiographically. ;-}
  
        Richard,

        Well, the obvious answer is that Moses had prophetic
        foreknowledge of his own death.

        Once you hold a position that the Bible is, in its entirety,
        the result of a truly miraculous and one-time intervention by
        God in human literary affairs, then literally anything is
        possible and any apparent inconsistency is easily explained
        away, and, in fact, MUST be explained away.

        I have no doubt that the Bible records miraculous events
        (from the viewpoint of the writer), but most Biblical
        sections do not claim that they themselves (the entire text)
        are a miraculous event,* and in many ways the Bible is
        written as an entirely human document recording, from the
        same viewpoint we have, what God has done in the world.

        I personally think that is wonderful, and that is what makes
        the Bible such a treasure.  (I also think that lends to its
        authority.)

        Others seem to think that that would be horrible, and so have
        suggested a very different meaning of "inspired" or "God
        breathed."

        Bob
        ---------
        * contrast this with the Islamic view of their Koran, which
        is God-written-before-all-time.  Also contrast with the
        Mormon view of the Book of Mormon, in which miraculous events
        are claimed for its existence.

re: Note 18.266 by Richard "Watch your peace & cues" 

>Carole,
>
>	Something to also consider -- the oral tradition.
>
>	For numerous generations many parts of what we now call the Old
>Testament were repeated orally, committed to memory without ever being
>written down.  This knowledge offers another set of possible implications,
>does it not?

Speaking of oral traditions...I thought this was an interesting perspective:

I'm reading _The Design of Everyday Things_ by Donald A. Norman, and there's 
an interesting passage titled "The Power of Constraints" in which he uses oral 
tradition and epic poetry as examples.

    "Back in the good old days of oral tradition (and even today for some 
    cultures), performers traveled around reciting epic poems thousands of
    lines long.  How did they do it?  Do some people have huge amounts of
    knowledge in there heads?  Not really.  It turns out that external 
    constraints exert powerful control over the permissible choice of
    words, thus dramatically reducing the memory load."

Mr. Norman cites the work of Albert Bates Lord, who studied memory and epic 
poetry in Yugoslavia where some people still follow the oral tradition.  (A. 
B. Lord (1960), _The Singer of Tales_ (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 
Press), 27.)

According to this study, the person who learns such tales and repeats them is 
really recreating them, composing poetry on the fly.  Following the 
constraints of rhythm, theme, story line, structure and such, each telling is 
similar, but different.  A fantastic feat to be sure, but it is not rote 
memorization.  Not every jot and tittle is preserved, yet the listener would 
perceive the telling as the same, even if the second version were twice as 
long as the original, because they *are* the same in the ways that matter to 
the listener; they tell the same story, express the same ideas, follow the 
same rhythm, et cetera.  They are the same in all the ways that matter to the 
culture.

The idea that someone should be able to recite word for word is relatively 
modern, and is possible only after printed texts are available, otherwise, who 
could judge the accuracy of a recitation, and more importantly, who would 
care?

    "All this is not to detract from the feat.  Learning and reciting an 
    epic poem such as Homer's _Odyssey_ or _Iliad_ is clearly difficult 
    even if the singer is recreating it:  there are 27,000 lines of verse 
    in the written version."  

In fact Lord points out that the exceptional length of the written version is 
probably due to the circumstances of it's creation, where Homer (or some other 
singer) dictated the story slowly and carefully to a scribe.  Usually the 
length is varied to cater to the particular audience, and no normal audience 
could sit through 27,000 lines.

So, what we currently picture as oral tradition may be far different from 
actuality.  Have some books of the Bible changed since their creation and 
recreation in the oral tradition?  I'd say probably yes.  Did the meaning or 
intent change in that process?  No, not for the people of that day and age.  
Do we _fully_ understand what were the important aspects of meaning and 
understanding of those people?  I don't think so.  

Peace,

Jim

Re:  292.64

  >Based on your statements in this and previous notes it appears that you 
  >are focussing on "which words in the Bible are clear enough that I can 
  >pronounce them as truth and justify my position.  

If these is a focus on words, then it is because words are how
we express thoughts and get a meaning across.  If this was not
the case, there would not be sucn a focus on words (in this context).  
I certainly agree with you that the important issue is to acquire the 
meaning from what was said.  

However, there is more to consider here as well.  God has clearly
given a special place for His Word.  Isaiah 40:8 tells us that
the Word of our God shall stand forever.  Jesus is the Living Word.
According to the Bible, there are only 3 (4) things that last forever 
- God, people (and angels), and His Word.  So I am understandably
reluctant to relegate God's Word to the status you appear to have
for it.

  >To me this represents a primary focus on the "word" rather than the 
  >"spirit."  

I did not mean to shortchange the Holy Spirit's role in interpretation.
Indeed, this is quite critical (according to God's Word :-) ).

I view the rest of what you say as an excuse to not properly
understand the context and meaning of what was said/written.  Indeed,
the Spirit can and sometimes does give us the meaning of a passage
from the Bible.  But to rely on this to the exclusion of doing the
groundwork of understanding as best we can what the words say is
not the intention of God.  We are to do both - pray that God
will give us His Spirit to illumate His Word as well as understand
as best we can with the tools we have at our disposal what the
words mean.  Either one without the other does not properly
glorify God.

Collis

Re: .269 (Collis)

> I certainly agree with you that the important issue is to acquire the 
> meaning from what was said.  

?????  Do you really?  I don't think so given some of your other comments.

> Isaiah 40:8 tells us that the Word of our God shall stand forever.  

I agree.  Our understanding of the meaning, however, will continue to 
change and evolve until we "get it."  Knowing only the words and 
accepting them as truth is not enough.

> Jesus is the Living Word.

I have no doubt that Jesus embodied God's Word.  He did this because He 
understood and exemplified the *meaning*.  If the meaning is understood, 
any number of words (which are only symbols for underlying meaning) will 
suffice.  Are there not places in the Bible where Jesus used different 
words, perhaps at different times, in an attempt to convey one idea?  I 
don't know, but I would be surprised if this is not the case.

> According to the Bible, there are only 3 (4) things that last forever 
> - God, people (and angels), and His Word.  So I am understandably
> reluctant to relegate God's Word to the status you appear to have
> for it.

You are reluctant to relegate God's Word to having meaning?  

> I view the rest of what you say as an excuse to not properly
> understand the context and meaning of what was said/written.  

I don't know why you choose to do this.  Understanding the meaning was 
the whole point.  Can someone else help me with this?  Am I not 
understanding what Collis is saying?  Or is anyone else seeing my words 
as Collis does?

> Either one without the other does not properly glorify God.

I said nothing about ignoring the words if the meaning is still being 
sought.  I said the words become unimportant if the meaning is known.
If you embodied God's Word as Jesus did, do you think God would care 
whether or not you paid any attention to a lot of literary symbols on a 
piece of paper?

Jeff

    Jeff,
    
    Your approach to understanding the Bible and creating meaning from the
    words therein is very similar to mine.  In strictly human terms I see
    meaning, like truth, as an affair of relativity.  I think one of the 
    basic differences is that you view God as being both immanent and
    transcendent, which provides inner revelation with a great deal of 
    meaning and value in your life.  
    
    If I understand Collis' view correctly, God is transcendant only, so 
    "inner revelation" does not carry the same meaning or value as it does 
    with you.  This may be the underlying essence of the current impasse.  
    You each arrive at meaning in ways that have some areas of convergence, 
    but for the most part, some might say you are approaching each other 
    from "opposite ends of the spectrum".  I prefer to think of it as your 
    approaches are from different points along the spiral. fwiw. 
    
    peace,
    Karen                                          

Re:  18.270

Hi, Jeff,

     >> I certainly agree with you that the important issue is to acquire the 
     >> meaning from what was said.  

  >?????  Do you really?  I don't think so given some of your other comments.

Yes, I do.  I'm not sure why you don't think I have said this.
Certainly my intepretational work points out the importance I
attach to finding the best meaning of a word, sentence, paragraph,
etc.

  >I agree.  Our understanding of the meaning, however, will continue to 
  >change and evolve until we "get it."  Knowing only the words and 
  >accepting them as truth is not enough.

Yes, but there is a "true" meaning - the one that God meant when
He breathed out Scripture.  Agreed that our understanding of the
meaning can and does evolve.  I agree also (and have made this point
in the past few weeks) that knowing words without meaning is not
only not enough, but actually useless and deceives ourselves.

     >> Jesus is the Living Word.

  >I have no doubt that Jesus embodied God's Word.  

Is this really what Jesus being the Living Word means? 
Perhaps it means more than this.  Since the Bible goes so far as
to call Jesus the Word of God and place give such a high place for
God's Word (which, for example, created the universe), I am
skeptical that we should ignore the word except for the meaning.
This seems to me to be inconsistent with the importance of the
word given to it by the Bible.

  >Are there not places in the Bible where Jesus used different 
  >words, perhaps at different times, in an attempt to convey one idea?  

Yes!!

  >You are reluctant to relegate God's Word to having meaning?  

I am reluctant to relegate God's Word as *only* being useful because
of meaning, yes.  Because the Bible does not.

     >> I view the rest of what you say as an excuse to not properly
     >> understand the context and meaning of what was said/written.  

  >I don't know why you choose to do this.  Understanding the meaning was 
  >the whole point.

As I understood you, you discounted interpreting what was said within
the context it was given (instead prefering to take the phrase out of
context and ask what it would mean) and desired to rely primarily on
the spirit for interpretational guidance.  Now I agree with you
fully that God's Spirit is very important in this process (as I already
said), but I disagree strongly as well that taking words out of context
is an aid to getting the proper meaning.  Do you see now why I was
objecting to what you were doing?

  >If you embodied God's Word as Jesus did, do you think God would care 
  >whether or not you paid any attention to a lot of literary symbols on a 
  >piece of paper?

The Bible refers to God's Word as *much more* than simply "a lot of
literary symbols on a piece of paper".  If that is all that it was,
then I am in full agreement with you.

Karen,

Thanks for your comments.

Collis

    
    Could someone help me here?  What is actually meant by "God's Word"?
    Sometimes people refer to the bible by this term, and sometimes people
    refer to Jesus by this term.  Which is it?
    
    Collis, I really try to understand your perspective but sometimes it
    just feels like you are going around in circles!  After I've read a
    few of your notes, I'm more unclear about your point than I was before
    I started!  Help!
    
    Carole

Re: .272 (Collis)

Hi Collis, and thanks for your response.

> Yes, I do.  I'm not sure why you don't think I have said this.
> Certainly my intepretational work points out the importance I
> attach to finding the best meaning of a word, sentence, paragraph, etc.

I may be infering more *meaning* in the word "meaning" than you are :-), 
which could possibly be part of the problem.  I'm not sure exactly how 
you see it.  From the statement above I would view your usage as being 
synonymous with the word "definition," which isn't really what I am 
refering to when I use that word.  "Definition" implies (to me) a 
literary meaning, whereas I use the word meaning to more directly 
reference the underlying substance or intention to which a definition 
attempts to point.  Other times, though, you seem to use the word just 
as I do.  I'm not sure it matters; I think I understand what you are 
trying to convey.

> Yes, but there is a "true" meaning - the one that God meant when
> He breathed out Scripture.  Agreed that our understanding of the
> meaning can and does evolve.  I agree also (and have made this point
> in the past few weeks) that knowing words without meaning is not
> only not enough, but actually useless and deceives ourselves.

Yes, I think we are viewing this very similarly.

  >>I have no doubt that Jesus embodied God's Word.  

> Is this really what Jesus being the Living Word means? 

I thought that was what *you* were saying it meant.  

> Perhaps it means more than this.  Since the Bible goes so far as
> to call Jesus the Word of God and place give such a high place for
> God's Word (which, for example, created the universe), I am
> skeptical that we should ignore the word except for the meaning.
> This seems to me to be inconsistent with the importance of the
> word given to it by the Bible.

I agree with Carole that it is often times difficult to know to what 
people are referring when they use the term "God's Word."  I think it is 
used in numerous ways.  I thought you were distinguishing "God's Word" 
(meaning the Bible) from "the Living Word" (meaning Christ), thus my 
comment.

I see "God's Word" being used in three primary ways:

  1. The impulse or breath of God which brought forth creation.
  2. The Bible
  3. Christ

I don't see these things as being synonymous, or equally symbolized with 
the words "God's Word."  The first definition above, to me, refers to 
all of life as God's Word made manifest.  The second definition, to me, 
refers to God's *message* to Humanity.  The third definition, again to 
me, refers to the embodiment of that message, and a perfected form of 
God's breath of creation. It can be confusing (as Carole pointed out) 
when this term is used interchangably with the above definitions.  Fwiw.

> As I understood you, you discounted interpreting what was said within
> the context it was given (instead prefering to take the phrase out of
> context and ask what it would mean) and desired to rely primarily on
> the spirit for interpretational guidance.  

No, I didn't intend to convey that.

Jeff

P.S. Thanks, Karen, for your comments... interesting insight.

    Re: Last couple notes in the string.
    
    Sorry folks...I have lost the thoughts being presented.  Can a brief
    summary be stated...in more ~simple~ terms?
    
    Thanks,
    Marc H.

re Note 18.274 by SHALOT::LACKEY:

> I see "God's Word" being used in three primary ways:
> 
>   1. The impulse or breath of God which brought forth creation.
>   2. The Bible
>   3. Christ
> 
> I don't see these things as being synonymous, or equally symbolized with 
> the words "God's Word."  

        Actually, #1 and #2 ARE the same thing, for as John wrote in
        verse 1:3:

        "All things were made by him; and without him was not any
        thing made that was made."

        Bob

Re:  18.273

  >After I've read a few of your notes, I'm more unclear about your point 
  >than I was before I started!  Help!
    
:-)

Re: 18.274

  >Other times, though, you seem to use the word just as I do.  

That's what I meant.  :-)

      >>>I have no doubt that Jesus embodied God's Word.  

    >> Is this really what Jesus being the Living Word means? 

  >I thought that was what *you* were saying it meant.  

But did I mean it? :-)

  >I see "God's Word" being used in three primary ways:

  >  1. The impulse or breath of God which brought forth creation.
  >  2. The Bible
  >  3. Christ

  >I don't see these things as being synonymous, or equally symbolized with 
  >the words "God's Word."  The first definition above, to me, refers to 
  >all of life as God's Word made manifest.  The second definition, to me, 
  >refers to God's *message* to Humanity.  The third definition, again to 
  >me, refers to the embodiment of that message, and a perfected form of 
  >God's breath of creation. It can be confusing (as Carole pointed out) 
  >when this term is used interchangably with the above definitions.  Fwiw.

The Bible talks about all three of these as the Word (of God).  I
agree that they are not synonymous, but I believe that there is a
relationship between all of these which is why the Bible speaks of
them in these terms.  I view each of them as "part" of God's Word,
I guess.  I agree that it is somewhat confusing to have the one
description for these three, but I don't feel comfortable isolating
them from each other either.

Collis

Re:  18.275
    
  >Can a brief summary be stated...in more ~simple~ terms?

I doubt it.  :-)
    

    
	Can anyone cite some scriptural references that equate the 
	Bible with the Word?


	Thanks,

	Joe

Re: .276 (Bob)

 >> I see "God's Word" being used in three primary ways:
 >> 
 >>   1. The impulse or breath of God which brought forth creation.
 >>   2. The Bible
 >>   3. Christ
 >> 
 >> I don't see these things as being synonymous, or equally symbolized with 
 >> the words "God's Word."  

>        Actually, #1 and #2 ARE the same thing, for as John wrote in
>        verse 1:3:
>
>        "All things were made by him; and without him was not any
>        thing made that was made."

I don't think so.  Being the same thing would imply that the Bible is 
the source of creation.  Creation came first.  We can't, by consenus,
date creation; we can date the Bible.  Your quote from the Bible 
doesn't support it either.  It says that God created everything, 
including the Bible (as well as all other scripture, since everything 
else is part of "everything").

Jeff

re Note 18.281 by SHALOT::LACKEY:

> Re: .276 (Bob)
> 
>  >> I see "God's Word" being used in three primary ways:
>  >> 
>  >>   1. The impulse or breath of God which brought forth creation.
>  >>   2. The Bible
>  >>   3. Christ
>  >> 
>  >> I don't see these things as being synonymous, or equally symbolized with 
>  >> the words "God's Word."  
> 
> >        Actually, #1 and #2 ARE the same thing, for as John wrote in
> >        verse 1:3:
> >
> >        "All things were made by him; and without him was not any
> >        thing made that was made."
> 
> I don't think so.  Being the same thing would imply that the Bible is 
> the source of creation.  

        OOOPS!  The infamous "off by one" error, the bane of all
        programmers!

        I meant to write:

        Actually, #1 and #3 ARE the same thing,
                          ^
                          ^

        Bob

Re: .282 (Bob)

>        I meant to write:
>
>        Actually, #1 and #3 ARE the same thing,

Oh, that makes more sense.  I still don't consider the three to be 
exactly identical.  I agree with Collis that they are closely related 
and intertwined.  I view the relationship similarly to the relationship 
of the Trinity.  They create three aspects of a triangle, and the 
triangle can be viewed as one whole, yet the three points remain 
distinctive.

Jeff

Joe,

I'm sorry that I have no time for research at work (I no longer have
an on-line concordance handy), but these are verses that I have seen 
in the Christian notesfile since you asked your question (copied as
they were found):

  Hebr. 13:7   Remember them which have the rule over you,
  who have spoken unto you the *word of God*: whose faith follow,
  considering the end of their conversation. 
     
  Luke 4:4   And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man
  shall not live by bread alone, but by every *word of God.*
     
  Exod. 24:4   And Moses *wrote* all the words of the LORD, and rose up
  early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve
  pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. 
     
  Exod. 34:27   And the LORD said unto Moses, *Write* thou these words:
  for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and
  with Israel. 
     
  Num. 33:2   And Moses *wrote* their goings out according to their
  journeys by the commandment of the LORD: and these are their journeys
  according to their goings out. 
     
  Deut. 17:18   And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his
  kingdom, that he shall *write* him a copy of this law in a book out of
  that which is before the priests the Levites: 
     
  Deut. 31:9   And Moses *wrote* this law, and delivered it unto the
  priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the
  LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel. 
     
  1Cor. 14:37   If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual,
  let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the
  commandments of the Lord.
     
  John 10:35   If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came,
  and the scripture cannot be broken;
     
Collis

With regard to the oral tradition, memorization of magnitude does seem like
an astonishing feat by what is considered average and normal memory abilities
by contemporary standards.

At one time though, all business transactions were committed to memory and
then recalled verbally once a year during what is still called an "audit,"
which means "to hear."

The printing press eliminated much of the necessity for memorization.  The
computer has lessened the need for memorization by rote exponentially.

It is said without exaggeration that if George Fox, the first Quaker prophet
who lived in the 1600's, had lost his Bible, he could have rewritten the
whole thing from memory.

Richard

    
    Thanks for the answers to my questions in .262!
    
    Carole

    Carole .286,
    
    If I'm not being too nosey, what was it that prompted your questions?
    
    Richard

    
    Hi Richard,
    
    I have a few minutes here, so I'd be happy to answer your question.
    I asked mine because there are many times when people say that Jesus
    (and others?) in the New Testament referenced the Old Testament, and
    I was wondering just *what* the Old Testament was at the time they
    were referencing it.  It's obvious that it is not the same Old
    Testament that we have today.  Unfortunately, as often happens, these
    ideas/questions come into my head and then I don't have the time to
    really investigate it to a final conclusion.  8^%!
    
    Carole 

Note 23.46

>As you have quite properly pointed out, there are Scriptures that
>teach us to respond non-violently.  The ball's in your park, Richard.
>How do you reconcile the Scriptures that teach non-violence and the
>Scriptures that teach violence? 

Collis,

I touched on this a bit in Note 396.3, which I quote in part below:

>>Early on in the Bible, one learns that the cultural norm for justice is
>>utter annihilation.  The earliest that I recall recorded is the story of how
>>Dinah's father, Jacob, and her brothers wipe out the entire male population
>>of Hamor, the father of Shechem.  Shechem is Dinah's rapist (Genesis 34).
>>This act of vengeance is performed not without deceit, and is topped off
>>by a spree of looting.

Now, I don't believe the slaughter of Hamor and his male relatives was a
particularly righteous thing to do.  Neither do I believe it was very cricket
of Jacob's household to go on a frenzy of pillaging after their deceitful
bloodbath.  This in no way condones the behavior of Shechem.  Rape is an
act of violence, also.

There's an interesting and highly amusing book entitled something like
"Scoundrels and Saints."  I've forgotten the author's name.  The book
identifies (and rightly, in my mind) Jacob as one of God's scoundrels.

The Bible is loaded with acts of senseless bloodshed, sometimes through
military force, sometimes not.  In the Bible, particularly in the Old
Testament, God is sometimes portrayed as One who is merciless and bloodthirsty.

Indeed, this portrait of God is incongruent with the portrait of the
Incarnated One.  And so, in the end, my standard is the One who was called
Jesus of Nazareth, the most accurate picture of the true nature of God we've
ever known.

Peace,
Richard

Re:  18.289

    >>As you have quite properly pointed out, there are Scriptures that
    >>teach us to respond non-violently.  The ball's in your park, Richard.
    >>How do you reconcile the Scriptures that teach non-violence and the
    >>Scriptures that teach violence? 

  >Now, I don't believe the slaughter of Hamor and his male relatives was a
  >particularly righteous thing to do.

Neither do I.  I see you chose to ignore the (according to Scripture)
God-ordained examples of violence and only respond to an example of
violence where there is no mention of God's Will.

  >Indeed, this portrait of God is incongruent with the portrait of the
  >Incarnated One.  And so, in the end, my standard is the One who was 
  >called Jesus of Nazareth, the most accurate picture of the true nature 
  >of God we've ever known.

I can only conclude from your remarks that you dismiss the Scriptures
which support God-ordained violence as wrong.  You do not reconcile
them, at least from what you've said; you seem to ignore them and/or
repudiate them.  If this is in fact your position, perhaps you'd like
to state so clearly (so I'm not left to infer what you are really 
saying)?

Collis

Note 18.290

Collis,

I don't think I can say it any better than this:

Ultimately, my standard is the One who was called Jesus of Nazareth, the
clearest, most accurate portrait of the true nature of God we've ever known.

Peace,
Richard

    How does the book of Genesis fit in with something called "Holy
    Scriptures".  There is lots of violence, rape, and other bizarre
    behavoir there.  I would prefer that Holy scripture started with
    Ancient Crete, with the peaceful, egalitarian society that lived there
    until wiped out my the violent society that followed.  
    
    Pat

re Note 18.292 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN:

>     How does the book of Genesis fit in with something called "Holy
>     Scriptures".  There is lots of violence, rape, and other bizarre
>     behavoir there.  

        Pat,

        Well, the short answer is that you just don't understand
        holiness.

        Bob

Note 18.292

>    How does the book of Genesis fit in with something called "Holy
>    Scriptures".  There is lots of violence, rape, and other bizarre
>    behavoir there.

Pat,

	What else have you read in the Old Testament?  It gets worse.

Peace,
Richard

    Bob,
    
    I guess that I don't understand Holiness as you define it.  It is sort
    of like the song "Holy, Holy, Holy, only God is Holy"  I want to change
    it every time I hear it to HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, all of life is Holy.
    
    Pat

    Richard,
    
    My reading in the OT have been limited to Gen, Exodus, Job, and some of
    the Psalms.  Perhaps my next venture will be the Phophets where I am
    hoping to find something inspirational.  This is because I have been
    inspired by Martin Luther King who relied on the Prophets and the
    Gospels as a foundation against oppression.  
    
    Any suggestions for where to start.  I am in need of something
    positive rather than negative.
    
    
    Pat

Note 18.296

>    My reading in the OT have been limited to Gen, Exodus, Job, and some of
>    the Psalms.  Perhaps my next venture will be the Phophets where I am
>    hoping to find something inspirational.  This is because I have been
>    inspired by Martin Luther King who relied on the Prophets and the
>    Gospels as a foundation against oppression.  

Pat,

	This is a tough one.  You almost need a Dan Berrigan to dig deep
beneath the surface of the Old Testament in order to extract the diamonds.
I didn't truly appreciate Joel until I read Berrigan's understanding of
Joel.

	As far as prophets go, I guess I'd recommend starting with Amos
and Isaiah.  Try to get as much background info as possible before reading
them, however.

>    Any suggestions for where to start.  I am in need of something
>    positive rather than negative.

	If you really want something consistently positive in the Old Testament,
read Song of Songs.  I suspect the New Testament is more what you're looking
for.  I'd recommend starting with the gospel according to Luke, then moving
on to the first letter of John and the letters of Paul to the Philippians,
Galatians and Ephesians.

Peace,
Richard

    Re: .295
    
    Pat,
    
    	Uh,...I suspect from Bob F's title, you should read .293 with
    a wry sense of humor.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Re:  402.25

  >Yet, in Genesis 2:7, God breathed a very fallible result:

  >"And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and
  >�breathed� into his nostrils the �breath� of life; and man
  >became a living soul."

  >In both of the above, there is no question that some essence
  >of the character of God is in the object of the breathing: 
  >Scripture in one case, and human beings in the other. 
  >Likewise in both of the above, there should be no implication
  >of inerrancy.

Ah, but Bob, you prove the point!  Adam *was* breathed perfectly by
God.  It was only later that Adam, by his free will, chose sin.

If you wish to claim that the words in the Bible later chose sin
after they had been written and somehow perverted themselves, your
point would be valid.  Somehow, I don't think you'll go that far.  :-)

Collis

Re:  402.27

  >I have been told that the Bible is God-breathed. I have been told ALL
  >of it is, and not one iota is by a human.

Not quite, Glen.  All of the Bible claims to be God-breathed and all
of it claims to be written by humans.

  >I forget the exact passage, but I remember reading one of the letters 
  >Paul wrote where he said the following thing he was going to say was not 
  >from God, but it is his own opinion.

Not quite, Glen.  Paul says, 

  I Cor 7:10:  "To the married I give this command (not I, but
     the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband)"

  12:  "To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord):  If any brother
     has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live
     with him, he must not divorce her."

  25:  "Now about virgins:  I have no command from the Lord, but I
     give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy."

It is generally accepted (although you may wish to disagree :-) )
that what Paul is talking about when he refers to the Lord is Jesus'
commands given while he was on earth.  It does not mean that Paul's
commands are not divinely breathed (which contradicts other Scriptures
which claim that they are), but only that Jesus did not address
these issues while on earth to the best of Paul's knowledge.

  >With this in mind, wouldn't one have to question the validity of 
  >the Bible being God-breathed? 

Oh, you don't need any issues at all to question whether or not the
Bible is God-breathed.  Many people don't accept it simply because
they prefer to believe it isn't.  :-)

  >If God agreed with the opinion, then why didn't He just breathe the 
  >words Himself to keep the Scriptures entirely under the God-breathed 
  >statement? 

Even if God were to raise people from the dead, they would not believe.
Even if God were to write the entire Bible (and not just the Ten
Commandments) with his finger, they would not believe.  Do you seek
miracles, signs and wonders?  Indeed, they are there.  But they are
not a prerequisite for belief.

Collis

    Bob,
    
    re:293  I missed reading the tittle to your reply and therefore misread
    your answer.  Forgive my sharp reply.
    
    
    Richard
    
    Thanks for pointing out the miscommunication there.
    
    
    Pat

    Richard,
    
    Genesis has perplexed me enough to keep me digging.  Once I can fully
    accept that the book was written by primitive man to explain reality to
    him and that the god identified was created by the author then I can
    begin to appreciate the literature and myth.  I read Reanne Eisler's
    book Chalice and the Blade at the same time.  Eisler identifies the new
    finding regarding the worldwide findings relating to the Mother Goddess
    and how she was believed in for thousands of years prior to the
    historic time.  The mythology of Genesis is definately geared to
    overcome the Goddess workship.  Understanding that Genesis was written
    and re written up until about 400 BCE also says alot.  The extent of
    the merging of the Goddess and God religion has been covered over by
    the rewriting.
    
    Trying to understand these issues is helpful.  The Book, Rescuing the
    Bible for Fundamentalism by John Spong has also  been very helpful. 
    That is a very easy to read book identifying the history of the bible
    and suggesting new  interpretations.
    
    I did reread the four GOSPELS and so far believe that those are the
    heart of the Bible.
    
    Onward to AMOS and ISIAH.
    
    
    Pat

    Pat,
    
    A great book to use in studying the prophets is "The Prophets" by
    Abraham J. Heschel (NY: Harper & Row, 1955).  (Note that it was
    written before inclusive language was an issue and before either
    gender-neutral or gender-inclusive language for God was considered
    important.)
    
    From his chapter on Hosea:
    
    	Hosea's prophecy dealt primarily with the Northern Kingdom of
    	Israel -- its religion, morals, and politics -- and his favorite
        name for the land was Ephraim....
    
    	It is Hosea who flashes a glimpse into the inner life of God as He
    	ponders His relationship to Israel.  In parables and in lyrical
    	outburts the decisive motive behind God's strategy in history is
    	declared.  The decisive motive is love.
    
    	God is conceived, not as the self-detached Ruler, but as the
    	sensitive Consort to Whom deception comes and Who nevertheless goes on
    	pleading for loyalty, uttering a longing for a reunion, a passionate
    	desire for reconciliation....(Hosea 11:8-9)....
    
    	Hosea is able to express as no other prophet the love of God for
    	Israel in its most varied forms -- as compassion (11:8), as a mother's
    	tenderness (1:6-8; 2:3,6,21,25; 11:1), as love between husband and
    	wife (3:1ff).  From the perspective of the fundamental disposition
    	of love, it is understandable that healing and reconciliation, not harm
    	and destruction, finally prevail.  The central idea put before the
    	people is not a divine repugnance to cultic worship in general, but
    	the provocation caused by idolatry as well as God's plea for a
    	renewal of the covenant (2:16 ff)....
    
    	To Hosea, marriage is the image for the reationship of God and
    	Israel.  This is one of the boldest conceptions of religious
    	thinking....Israel is the consort of God. [This] is one of the most
    	important ideas in the history of Judaism... and foreshadows the
    	traditional interpretation of the Song of Songs.
    
    	....Idolatry is adultery...a betrayal of God...lewdness.  Israel
    	is like a wanton wife, the Lord like a faithful, loving, but
    	forsaken husband....
    
    	The contrast between Amos and Hosea is seen both in what they
    	condemn and in what they stress.  To Amos, the principal sin is
    	*injustice*; to Hosea, it is *idolatry.*  Amost inveighs against
    	evil *deeds*; Hosea attacks the absence of *inwardness.*  In the
    	of Amos:
    
    		I hate, I despise your feasts,...
    		I will not accpet your sacrificies....
    		But let justice roll downlike waters,
    		And righteousness like a mighty stream. (Amos 5:21-24)
    
    	In the words of Hosea:
    
    		For I desire love [hesed] and not sacrifice,
    		Attachment to God rather than burnt offerings.  (Hosea 6:6)
    words

| >I have been told that the Bible is God-breathed. I have been told ALL
| >of it is, and not one iota is by a human.

| Not quite, Glen.  All of the Bible claims to be God-breathed and all
| of it claims to be written by humans.

	I guess a bad choice of words Collis. What I meant is that even though
it was written by humans, there was no free will involved according to some.

| >I forget the exact passage, but I remember reading one of the letters
| >Paul wrote where he said the following thing he was going to say was not
| >from God, but it is his own opinion.

| Not quite, Glen.  Paul says,


| 25:  "Now about virgins:  I have no command from the Lord, but I
| give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy."

	Collis, I don't know what Bible you are quoting from, but let me show
you two different Bible's interpretation of that passage:


NEW AMERICAN STANDARD
---------------------

	Now concerning virgins, I have no command from the Lord, but I give an
opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.



GOOD NEWS BIBLE
---------------

	Now, concerning what you wrote about unmarried people; I do not have a
command from the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is
worthy of trust.

	That to me Collis spells out opinon. How can an opinion be God-breathed
since it didn't come from God?

| It is generally accepted (although you may wish to disagree :-) )
| that what Paul is talking about when he refers to the Lord is Jesus'
| commands given while he was on earth.  It does not mean that Paul's
| commands are not divinely breathed (which contradicts other Scriptures
| which claim that they are), but only that Jesus did not address
| these issues while on earth to the best of Paul's knowledge.

	Collis, if the authors wrote the Bible under the dirrection of the Holy
Spirit, then the Holy Spirit would have known exactly what Jesus had said,
wouldn't He? He would have conveyed the words to Paul so that he would know
this was from God, wouldn't He? If Paul thought that this was an opinion, then
was his will completely under the Holy Spirit or in this case did he use his
free will? It would seem that someone's opinion isn't from God.

| >If God agreed with the opinion, then why didn't He just breathe the
| >words Himself to keep the Scriptures entirely under the God-breathed
| >statement?

| Even if God were to raise people from the dead, they would not believe.
| Even if God were to write the entire Bible (and not just the Ten
| Commandments) with his finger, they would not believe.  Do you seek
| miracles, signs and wonders?  Indeed, they are there.  But they are
| not a prerequisite for belief.

	Collis, God knew back then that people would question someone's
opinion, didn't He? Why would He allow someone's opinion to be kept in a book
that is supposed to be 100% God breathed?



Glen

	"A major function of fundamentalist religion is to bolster deeply
insecure and fearful people.  This is done by justifying a way of life
with all its defining prejudices.  It thereby provides an appropriate and
legitimate outlet for one's anger.  The authority of an inerrant Bible
that can be readily quoted to buttress this point of view becomes an
essential ingredient to such a life.  When that Bible is challenged, or
relativized, the resulting anger proves the point categorically."

				-Bishop John Shelby Spong
				 from "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism"

Re:  18.305

  >"A major function of fundamentalist religion is to bolster deeply
  >insecure and fearful people."

But what does it do for the other 90%?  :-)

Certainly, Richard, you can see the propoganda that this statement
is spreading.  I certainly agree with the general idea that certain
people are more comfortable in some settings and others.  Some
want more rigid authority and others want less authority.  However,
he seems to assume that:

  1)  people are fundamentalists because of their emotional desire for
      authority (rather than a reasoned conviction)
  2)  fundamentalists are primarily insecure and fearful people

Likewise, the claim (on the basis of just as much evidence as he
uses) could be made that liberals are where they are because they
will not accept God's clear authority in their lives and instead
are swept around by the latest societal fad.  Their fears and
insecurities are driven by their need to be accepted by others rather
than by God as well as their desire to be in control of themselves
and their destiny.  

Both have (IMO) some grain of truth, likewise both have a *lot* of error.

By the way, since I'm not a fundamentalist (but have some sympathies
with their point of view), I can speak from a relatively neutral 
position.  :-)

  >The authority of an inerrant Bible that can be readily quoted to 
  >buttress this point of view becomes an essential ingredient to such 
  >a life.  When that Bible is challenged, or relativized, the resulting 
  >anger proves the point categorically."

The reaction by those who insist the Bible is not inerrant seems
to be similar when dealing with those who use the Bible as the 
inerrant basis of the discussion.  Does this prove a different
(albeit similar) point categorically?

Collis

Remarks concerning 18.305 may be addressed to:

	Bishop John Spong
	Newark Diocese of the Episcopal Church
	24 Rector
	Newark, NJ 07102

You may wish to read these excerpts within the context of his book
"Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" first, however.

Richard

    I keep meaning to read Bishop Spong's book.  Thanks for posting the
    quote, Richard.
    
    -- Mike

    The book is available at Walden Book.  It was one of the most inspiring
    books I have read.  Bishop Spong's thesis is that the Bible really is a
    wonderful book, however too many people have been pushed away from the
    Bible because a literal interpretation leads to conclusions that our
    not valid for living today.  The book shows how to find real meaning
    within the bible once we free ourselves from the need to interpret it
    literally.
    
    Bishop Spong is one of the reasons I am reexamining Christianity as a
    religious response for myself.  My beliefs are very much in line with
    what he has written in that book.  I left the Christian Church at the
    age of 17-18 because I could not accept the literal interpretation of
    the Apostle's Creed.  It was revealing to find that there are Christian
    Leaders who have struggled with the same issues as me and have come to
    terms with that struggle.
    
    Pat 

   I'll have to read Bishop Spong's works.  Though I went through a more
   haphazard process I came back to Christainity as a result of the same 
   style of thinking in my late teens.

   My path was through a rather unusual Highschool English elective, 
   "The Bible as literature".  It was unusual as it wasn't pushing 
   Christian beliefs.  It studied the Bible as if it were not unlike
   Shakespere or Homer, items of historical significance were tied to
   other reading like plays, poetry, written histories, and even 
   anthropolgy.  The result was to place a significant book in the 
   context of the time of its writing.

   If I weren't Christian, I'd still say it is an exciting book to read
   and learn from.

   The Bishops work would have been welcome back then

   Allison

Re:  .307

I'll confine my remarks to this conference and address
them to those who either quote the material or believe
the type of propaganda (I finally looked up how to spell
it) that he wishes to spread.

Perhaps others with a more liberal viewpoint would also
wish to acknowledge that his statements in effect label
all fundamentalists as insecure and fearful people?  That
would be a good starting point for a commentary on his
writing.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    I don't know what to think of the quote that Richard quoted other than
    it is interesting.  The significant part of the book for me was an
    overview of the writing of the different parts of the bible, a
    discussion of the material in relationship to the world view of when it
    was written, I discussion of some of the inconsistencies, the different
    purposes and world views of each of the Gospels and an extention  of
    the thoughts in the Gospel to our search as spiritual women and men
    today and how the bible can help that search.
    
    I will be the first to admit that I don't understand what makes a
    person a fundamentalist or how someone could believe the bible to be
    inerrant given what we know about Science and the contradictions in the
    Bible.  It seems to me like a deep seated need to hold onto authority
    in spite of overwhelming proof against inerrancy.  
    
    I would not be as bold as to use the language Bishop Spong does.
    
    Pat
    

    Of course, it all depends on how you identify a "fundamentalist".  My
    own use of the term may not coincide with the way others do, or the way
    others label themselves; many who call themselves fundamentalist are
    more open minded and tolerant than many who don't.  In any case, as I
    would define the term, I  don't think that Spong is saying that all
    fundamentalists are insecure people.  He is pointing out, quite
    accurately, something that characterizes fundamentalism as a
    theological perspective; however, the way that individual
    fundamentalists relate to its basic appeal depends on each individual.
    
    You can't characterize all fundamentalists in the same way, because
    many fundamentalists have within themselves the capability of changing.
    They may or may not be able to bury the uncomfortable and nagging
    questions indefinitely.  Some eventually grow out of a belief in total
    biblical inerrancy into a more mature theological outlook; others may
    realize that they were had, and out of bitterness reject religion
    altogether (which is a tragedy); and still others cling steadfastly to
    the fundamentalist dogmatism that serves their psychological needs so
    well.  When a person moves out of fundamentalism, it isn't because they
    suddenly changed from being an insecure person to a secure person; what
    remains constant is the appeal of fundamentalist theology.

    So I suspect that what Spong is really characterizing is the theology,
    and its appeal, rather than each and every one of those who may for
    whatever reason subscribe to that theology at a given period of their
    life.  And in that sense, he is absolutely on target.

    -- Mike

    "While I can still enter imaginatively into the
    conservative-evangelical thought world through which I once passed, and
    can appreciate and respect the traditional orthodoxy which I once fully
    shared, I would not now wish to return from the larger to a smaller
    vision.  I can also remember my own resentment at those who raised
    awkward questions which might upset the established orthodoxy and can
    understand the similar resentment obviously felt by some more
    traditional churchmen and theologians today.  But I believe that anyone
    either born or "born again" into the conservative-evangelical thought
    world, and who has a questioning mind, will find that he has to face
    challenges to the belief system within which his Christian faith was
    first made available to him, and that he will almost certainly be led
    by rational or moral considerations to modify or discard many of its
    elements.  The response to Jesus Christ, as one's lord, and as one's
    savior from alienation from God, may remain the same; but the body of
    theological theories associated with it in one's mind will usually
    change, and surely ought to change, in the light of further living,
    learning, and thinking."

                                John Hick
    			"God Has Many Names", pages 15-16

        We "liberals", if that's what I am, are not really that
        different from the stereotypical fundamentalist in our
        psychological needs.

        While the "fundamentalist" may cling to Scripture (or some
        other source of authoritative truth) because of a need to
        cling to truth, they choose the particular object to cling to
        because they really understand it to be true.

        A liberal with respect to Scripture is really reacting out of
        similar human needs for truth.  On the other hand, we just
        don't see the words of Scripture themselves as the sum and
        substance of the absolute truth -- our similar need results
        in our clinging to something else as the sum and substance of
        the absolute truth.  For me it is the living God;  for others
        it may simply be "the Truth."

        We "liberals" have to be honest to ourselves.  It is easy to
        examine the flaws of the fundamentalist position -- after
        all, it is written down!  Our position is much more nebulous
        and harder to subject to examination.  We might be fooling
        ourselves -- but we know for certain that the fundamentalists
        are fooling themselves! :-)

        Bob

    Bob .315,
    
    Thank you for pointing out the similarities between fundamentalists and
    liberals in terms of one's psychological needs for 'truth.'  I think
    you are right on.  Liverals do have to be honest with themselves, we
    each tend to cling to our respective 'paradigms,' come h*ll or high
    water, and the fundamentalist's position tends to be much easier to
    analyze and criticize because it is written down in one place.
    
    I picked up Spong's book some time ago right after Mike Seabury
    recommended it a few months ago in C-P and have read about half of it. 
    As Mike Valenza mentioned, I feel similarly that the thrust of Spong's
    treatise is directed toward the theological considerations and
    interpretations that form the foundation of fundamentalism, the
    religious "institution," if you will.  
    
    I myself do not believe that all fundamentalists are necessarily by 
    definition, a group of insecure people, at least no more insecure than 
    the rest of the population.  (In fact I know a fundamentalist who is one
    of the most tolerant, open, loving persons I've ever met.)  We all
    suffer from the same insecurities and ambiguities in life and seek to
    answer them to the best of our ability.  
    
    I also feel, however, that signs such as the ones which were seen in 
    Boston depicting messages of God's wish to "kill" fags is an indication 
    of grave distortions occuring in *some* (not all) fundamentalist Christian 
    faiths and are getting far, far removed, from the core message and 
    teachings of their messiah and savior, Jesus Christ.  This is a great 
    travesty, imo.  I fear that the Satan they so despise and project upon
    others is living and thriving well amoung their own ranks, and they 
    don't see it....
    
    Karen

Re:  18.312

Pat,

  >I will be the first to admit that I don't understand what makes a
  >person a fundamentalist or how someone could believe the bible to be
  >inerrant given what we know about Science and the contradictions in the
  >Bible.

It has been my desire for well over a year now to list all the
evidence of Biblical inerrancy.  It is hard to believe that once
someone surveys all the evidence that they would reject it.  But
some do.  Anyway, if I get to this (and just entering this should
help prompt me to get started), it will at least allow for more
informed discussion in an area where most people are ill-informed.

Collis

Bob,

I appreciate your reply in .315.  It certainly has some
of the balance that I've been looking for.

Collis

I just reread .305.  Does the quote say that all fundamentalists are
insecure?  No.

Does it say anything that would apply to all fundamentalists across
the board?  No.

Richard

Re:  .319

I expect then that I am free to use plenty of inneundo without
being chastised for it?

Are you kidding?  Even when there is NO intended inneundo in what
I write in this notesfile, people are up in arms about what I didn't
say.

If that quote is typical of Bishop Spong, then he is obviously
grinding his axe.  It is not that there is no truth to what he
says - there certainly is some truth to it.  The worst deception
is build on half-truths, not lies.  It is a question of balance and
perspective.  There is no balance and perspective in any of the quotes
so far entered from Bishop Spong.  Or perhaps Bishop Spong does offer
balance and perspective but the readers just select the parts that
they like to hear?  You tell me.

Collis

    It might be instructive to take a look at why Spong was accurate in
    characterizing the appeal of fundamentalism.  Consider these words from
    Edward J. Young, a fundamentalist apologist, in his book "Thy Word is
    Truth: Some Thoughts on the Biblical Doctrine of Inspiration" (emphasis
    by all caps is mine):

        To assume that God could speak a Word that was contrary to fact is
        to assume that God Himself cannot operate without error.  The very
        nature of God is at stake.  If we assert that the autographa of
        Scripture [the original writings as they came directly from the
        hands of their human "authors"] contain error, we are saying that
        God is guilty of having told us something that is not true.  It may
        be a matter which we ourselves could call minor, but in this case a
        minor error is no less an error than a major one.  A person who
        continues to make so-called trifling mistakes is not one whom we
        can trust.  And one who constantly slips up on lesser points is one
        whose words may well be brought into question when greater matters
        are involved.  If God has communicated wrong information even in
        so-called unimportant matters, He is not a trustworthy God.  IT IS
        THEREFORE THE QUESTION OF BIBLICAL THEISM WHICH IS AT STAKE.  If
        the autographa of Scripture are not infallible, we can never be
        sure at what points they are trustworthy and at what they are not. 
        We would then have no sure position for the defense of
        Christianity.  If, as a matter of fact, the revelation of God is
        not free from error, the message of Christianity must ever remain
        in doubt.

    We thus have it from a fundamentalist's own words.  This view is often
    echoed elsewhere by other fundamentalists, so Young is not alone here. 
    We can see here the fear that is at work here.  The very faith itself
    is at stake; any deviation from total inerrancy thus must be resisted,
    because otherwise the entire theological foundation will collapse.  Any
    scientific fact, any finding of biblical scholars, anything
    intellectual endeavor that calls into question biblical inerrancy
    necessarily, in this view, calls into question the Christian faith
    itself.  The fear is that, once they admit that the Bible has errors,
    the entire faith is called to question--a very scary thought indeed
    when your faith is important to you.  We can thus see why
    fundamentalism clings so tightly to its belief structure, and why it
    rationalizes away all the uncomfortable questions.

    Ultimately, some people grow beyond this mode of thinking.  The
    uncomfortable questions continue to nag, and it isn't easy for those
    people to simply bury them.  The question is then what happens to their
    faith--do they become angry and bitter over having been had, and reject
    religion altogether?  Or do they evolve into a more rational faith?

    -- Mike

    "Oddly enough, the fundamentalist has an affinity with the view of the
    secular humanist whom, these days, the fundamentalist loves to hate. 
    Both believe that there is only one way to read the Bible, and that is
    literally.  Of course, the fundamentalist believes that reading it thus
    literally gives us the reliable word of God, while the secular humanist
    believes that it gives us a merely human witness of no greater import
    than that of other human achievements in world literature.  I want to
    insist that both are partly right and partly wrong.  If the secular
    humanist is right in rejecting the claim made by the fundamentalist for
    biblical inerrancy, he is wrong to assume that the only way to read the
    Bible devoutly is the way the fundamentalist reads it, and to reject
    out of hand any claim for ultimate significance made on the Bible's
    behalf.  If the fundamentalist is right in reading the Bible with
    ultimate concern, he is wrong in assuming that if biblical inerrancy is
    rejected, the only alternative is irreligious skepticism."

    		- LLoyd J. Averill
    		"Religious Right, Religious Wrong:
    		 A Critique of the Fundamentalist Phenomenon"

Re:  18.321

  >Consider these words from Edward J. Young, a fundamentalist apologist...

  >We can see here the fear that is at work here.  

Wait one minute.  You take the entire logical, rational argument
and - without refuting a single element of the argument - say that
it is based on fear.

Please, Mike, first plainly refute the argument.  Then you have a
basis for your claim.  If the argument is not refuted, then it is not
only possible, it is likely that fear is not the motivator for the
argument, but rather logic itself.

It is true that, given the argument, it can be faith-shaking to
find errors that cannot be accounted for.  This, however, does not
affect the logic of the argument.  It is is logical or it is not.
If it is not, please point out the fallacy.  

I think that the opposite is also true.  That it is knowledge of
this reasoning that *keeps* people from believing in inerrancy.  Who
wants to make their foundation something that they only half-heartedly 
believe and something that, in their mind, my fall away completely
underneath them.  It is *fear* that keeps people from believing the
Bible's claim of inerrancy - sometimes.

Ah, there's a balanced perspective.  Sometimes fear drives people
to believe in inerrancy; sometimes it drives people to not believe
in inerrancy.  Gives you pause to think, doesn't it?

Collis

Corollary:
Sometimes it is logic that drives people to believe in inerrancy
(e.g. myself), sometimes it is logic that drives people to not believe
in inerrancy (e.g. yourself?).

    Collis, you are not seeing the forest for the trees.  My reason for
    citing Young's comments was to provide an example of the fundamentalist
    perspective on biblical inerrancy, not to "refute" his comments.  The
    validity or lack thereof of the logic of his argument is irrelevant for
    purposes of the discussion.  Whether we assume that his point was
    correct--that Christianity necessarily depends  on the inerrancy of the
    Bible--is a whole other rathole.  The point is that, from his
    perspective, this assumption *is* correct.  Since he operates from that
    assumption, it is instructive to view what he says on his own terms. 
    What characterizes fundamentalism, given this assumption, is that
    belief in biblical error must be opposed, not because they may or may
    not be actual errors, but because their existence threatens the
    religious faith.  Young's whole passage centers not on the  independent
    validity of these errors, but on their relationship to the doctrinal
    structure.  Here we see confirmation of Spong's point, that, given this
    perspective, biblical "errors" are perceived as a threat to Young's
    fundamentalist faith. 

    This point about "balance" that you raise is simply a canard.
    Fundamentalism and other variants of Christianity (including what I
    call "conservative" Christianity) are not symmetrical, and thus the
    "balance" you seek is inapplicable.  This quest for "balance" assumes
    that the two theologies are simply different theological perspectives
    that apply the same techniques to produce different viewpoints.  This
    is simply  not the case; fundamentalism is an intrinsically different
    approach to theological understanding than other forms of Christianity. 
    As such, it needs to be analyzed on its own terms.  This is what Spong
    and Averill have pinpointed about fundamentalism; it is not just one
    Christian perspective among many, but a special theological approach to
    Christianity, characterized by a dogmatism and an intolerance, both for
    other types of Christianity and for nagging and uncomfortable
    questions.
    
    -- Mike

        As a moderator, I'd like to suggest to the participants on
        both sides of this issue (including myself!) a cooling-off
        period.

        Try not to repeat yourself, but only add new ideas or
        directly respond (only) to the new ideas of others.

        Bob

    .156
    
    The prohibition was against certain classes of animal meat. The meat 
    has to come from an animal which
    
    	1. Has a split hoof
    
    	2. Has a ruminating stomach and regurgitates its cud.
    
    
    Thus the Swine and Camel are not proper. The swine has a split hoof but
    does not chew its cud. The Camel chews its cud, but does not have a
    hoof (its feet are pads, very good for going about on sand)
    

    reply to basenote and priors
    
    I have been using the search command in this note and I have not seen
    any mention of the Oral Traditon.
    
    The Tanach (T--orah, N--vi'm, C--tubim) (OT to you Christian guys) is
    *not* in itself complete. G_D also imparted a set of teaching which
    expanded and explained what was written. This set of teachings was
    transmitted orally from Moshe to the elders of Israel and Joshuah, from
    them to the Prophets and from the Prophets to the leaders of the great
    Synagogue in Bavel during the Dispersion. 
    
    Thereafter the Oral tradition was set down in a set of "Cliff Notes"
    used by students in the Y'shivot.  These constitute the Mishnah Torah,
    the Bri'tot, and the Sifre (writings).  Later this was compiled along
    with several rabbinical glosses into the Talmud (Bavli and
    Y'rushalami). Of the two, the Bavli (Babylonian) Talmud is considered
    more authoratative.
    
    Even with these collections of the Oral tradition into written form
    along with the commentaries and commentaries on commentaries there was
    some teaching lost in the process. Several questions considered in the
    Talmud were deferred until the Tishbite  (Elijah) comes. That is to say
    some of the questions will not be answered untill the time of the
    Meshiach (Messiah). First comming for us guys, second for you guys.
    
    In the absence of the Oral tradition it seems futile to talk about the
    absolute inerrancy of scripture. How can an incomplete work be
    considered inerrant?
    
    

    Kolker,
    
    Welcome to Christian-Perspective, and thank you for the 
    information in .326 & .327!
    
    Karen                     

What does the completeness of the work have to do with
the question of whether errors exist in the material
that is there?

The commentaries on the Old Testament are certainly
important, but they do not claim inerrancy (that I am
aware of).  According to Jesus, some of these teachings
were so far off as to nullify the Word of God that they
were supposed to be elucidating.  Perhaps this is why
they have been given little attention when we struggle
to even reach agreement on what the self-proclaimed
inerrant Word teaches.

Collis

P.S.  It is your contention that the Old Testament works
are incomplete, but many (both Jew and Christian) believe
otherwise.  I could compare it to saying that those who
do not have a study Bible with the commentary in it have
an incomplete Bible.

    The completeness of the work may not relate to the existence of errors
    (although it is worth pondering under what circumstances an incomplete
    description is an inaccurate one), but it does have to do with the
    ability to interpret that work accurately.

    One could argue that the traditions associated with a work are part and
    parcel of its proper interpretation.  This implies, of course, that the
    primary material is open to interpretation, and that the additional
    traditions provide the means for that interpretation.  The Catholic
    Church rejects the doctrine of sola scriptura for that reason, and
    claims the sole authority, justified by its historical role as role as
    keeper and formulator of Christian traditions, to interpret scripture
    in the light of those traditions.  I seem to recall that Islam has a
    similar concept of traditions having been passed down from the time of
    Mohammed--I don't recall the details, however.  So it seems like this
    concept of associated traditions as a guide to interpretation is fairly
    common in a lot of religions.

    -- Mike

    
    RE: .326
    
    I would really like to know the 'spiritual' reasons behind these
    prohibitions.
    
    
    This is purely a rhetorical statement on my part.....unless someone
    has come across some esoteric text somewhere that explains this?
    
    
    Carole

    Carole,
    
    I've always assumed that, at least in the case of shell fish and
    pigs, that the prohibition was a way of enforcing good hygene since
    both pork and shellfish were not safe foods to eat at that time.
    
    A lot of the reasons for the prohibitions in the Judaic faith was
    a way of living their covenant with God, of defining themselves
    as a separate people, chosen of God.
    
    Bonnie

re: Note 18.327 by DKAS::KOLKER "Conan the Librarian" 

>                      -< What about the Oral Tradition.? >-
    
>    I have been using the search command in this note and I have not seen
>    any mention of the Oral Traditon.

First, greetings! And thank you for your informative notes.

Second, I invite you to read note .268 of this string.  In it I shared some 
interesting information I've read on the concept of oral traditions.  I'd be
interested in reading your thoughts and perspective regarding it. 

Peace,

Jim    

    RE: .331  Carole,
    
    			I once talked to a Christian doctor about this very
    issue.  He said that were he to ask prox 4million people to spent some
    40 years as nomads his advice would be very simular to the laws God
    handed to the people.  Given the technology and such, the laws only
    made sense.  Pig meat is very hard to "keep" for very long and really
    not worth the effort when on this kind of journey.
    
    
    Dave

    
    Thanks for the replies Bonnie and Dave.
    
    I can understand pig meat, but are pigs the only cloven hoofed animal
    used for food, and what about the cud-chewing animals?
    
    Thanks,
    Carole

    Carole,
    
    I don't know of any other cloven hoofed animals that are commonly
    used for food. Can anyone help with this? I do know that some Jewish
    people when they travel to exotic parts will refuse to eat certain
    local animals that are commonly served because they are cloven
    hoofed. Also they can't eat fish that have no scales if they are
    to be kosher. In the later case I don't know of a reason for this.
    What in particular do you want to know about cud-chewing animals?
    
    Bonnie

  Jehovah commanded Moses and Aaron to speak to the Israelites and tell them 
which animals they could and couldn't eat. At Leviticus 11:3 NWT "Every 
creature that splits the hoof and forms a cleft in the hoofs and chews the 
cud among the beasts, this is what YOU may eat." Then verse 6 points out
that a hare is unclean Lev. 11:6 NWT " Also the hare, because it is a chewer
of the cud but it does not have the hoof split. It is unclean for YOU."

An interesting point I found out was that because of this verse some critics
thought the Bible was in error. Of course they were wrong. The hare or rabbit 
chews it's food over and over. This action has often been referred to as 
chewing of the cud. The Hebrew term used here for chewing literally means 
"bringing up". As this differs slightly from chewing over and over one might 
wonder if the Bible still is in err. But no... In 1882 Frenchman Morot 
discovered that rabbits reingest up to 90% of their daily intake. If anyone
is interested in more details of the process send me E-Mail. I'll take the 
time to type in the digestive process etc. and how the hare's caecum is
actually designed for this. Ps 104:24 "How many your works are, O Jehovah! 
All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions."

     Robin
   

    re: .331

    'Spiritual reasons'?

    Isn't the love of God and obedience to His will a sufficient reason?

    
    Hi Bonnie,
    
    I asked about the cud-chewing animals because they were mentioned
    in the original note I referenced.  I am curious as to what it is
    about these animals that would prohibit eating them.
    
    Carole
    P.S.  Personally, I am cutting down on the amount of meat in my own
    diet, with a goal of eventually not eating any at all.  It's not the
    easiest thing to do when you've been raised on it and love the
    flavor!

    
    Hi Patrick,
    
    Guess I should have phrased it 'spiritual meaning'.  I am just
    wondering if the prohibition might have behind it, on a deeper level,
    the kind of spirit that inhabits these animal forms.  I'm probably
    delving too far into the esoteric for this topic, however.
    
    Carole

    On Earth, only men and women have spirits or souls according to the
    Bible, non-human animals (in some translations "beasts") do not.
    
    Men and women are created in God's image.

    
    RE: -1 
    
    Patrick,
    
    Do we really know if 'souls' and 'spirits' are one and the same thing?
    
    Carole

    Since spirits and souls are, by definition, beyond nature, the
    scientific method of determining if they are one and same can't be
    applied.

    I don't believe that there is a distinction made in Christian theology,
    but if there is one, it's probably to make a distinction between beings
    who exist in spirit only, namely God and the angels, and humans who,
    when alive, consist of body and soul, and when dead, the soul alone,
    until the end of time, when the body is restored in a new, glorified
    form.

    Soul v. spirit is a linguistic issue, not a doctrinal one.

    To my knowledge there is a distinction made in the Bible between
    soul and spirit, but I don't recall exactly what it is or where 
    it is found.  It would be interesting to know the Greek, Hebrew, or
    Aramaic words in the Bible from which soul and spirit were translated.
    
    Karen

    Let me offer this, for whatever it's worth.
    
    When I was a child in parochial school, I was taught that spirits and
    our soul were identical entities.  
    
    Mike

    Is the Holy Spirit a soul?
    
    Karen

    In what way doesn't .343 answer .346?

>    On Earth, only men and women have spirits or souls according to the
>    Bible, non-human animals (in some translations "beasts") do not.
 
     The discussion of spirit/soul/living being etc. was discussed to some 
    extent in the archived Christian-V5 conference in Note 593.13 on...

    for those interested,  robin

    Patrick,
    
    You offered your own hypothesis as to the distinction between soul and
    spirit which is good food for thought.  However you also stated that you
    didn't "believe that there is a distinction made in Christian theology"
    yet followed up with more certainity saying "Soul v. spirit is a 
    linguistic one, not a doctrinal one."   
    
    I'm curious to know if there IS a Christian doctrinal or theological 
    distinction between soul and spirit, and I'm interested in listening to
    other's views on this.  
     
    Karen                                  

Most Christians accept the concept of a three-part
human being - phsysical, spirit and soul.  A small minority
are dualistic - physical and spirit/soul.

There is a reference in the Bible to a sword dividing
between spirit and soul, but without a concordance I'm
unable to find it.  I thought it was in the 5th or
6th chapter of a letter by Paul...

Collis

    
     Collis,
    
    I think the verse you were refering to re: a sword dividing the spirit
    and soul is Hebrews 4:12; refering to the power of God's word.
    
     robin

Thank you, Robin

    last few,
    
    I've used the words spirit and soul more or less interchangeably
    as well.  Thanks for the references Robin and Collis.  
    
    I'd still be very interested if anyone has any knowledge of how 
    the Greek, Hebrew and/or Aramaic versions of the word spirit and 
    soul differed.  Conan or Alex, is this something you've come across?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Karen

 RE.334


  Dave:
         Actually pork is fairly easy to cure and keep in a hot
        climate and I would point out to you that cured pork products
        are a staple in most of the worlds tropical climates and that
        the pig is held in high esteem in these areas.

          If you think about it swine herding is incompatible with
        with a nomadic lifestyle. Especially if you are going to be
        wandering in the desert. Pigs can quite literally die from
        sunburn. Pigs wallow to coat themselves with mud to protect
        their skin.

         Jeff my roommate when I lived in NYC is Jewish and he said
        that the explanation that his rabbi gave him regarding much
        of the law was that there was no practical reason for much of
        it other than to test the obedience of Israel. God made up rules,
        many of which made no sense at all, but expected obedience none
        the less because he was God.

          The other reason for much of the law was to require practices
        which set the Jews apart from other people. Again these laws 
        may not make any sense in practical terms, but did serve the
        purpose of creating a unique cultural identity for Jews that
        set them apart.

          This point of view makes far more sense to me that many of
       the elaborate explanations I have heard and read that attempt
       make sense out of the Old Testament laws.


                                                            
                                                               Mike 
 

.354

>          The other reason for much of the law was to require practices
>        which set the Jews apart from other people. Again these laws 
>        may not make any sense in practical terms, but did serve the
>        purpose of creating a unique cultural identity for Jews that
>        set them apart.

	This is in synch with what I've been taught, Mike.  I don't
pretend to understand why God would want to do this though and none
of the answers I've heard are very satisfying.

Peace,
Richard

    Most of the replies since my one sentence summary in 91.1488 which had
    seven denials, go only as far as denial (2) in the "Christianity and
    Gays" note.
    
    (2) I deny the Bible to be the revelation of the Word of God and the
    authority for teaching on faith and morals.
                                   
    OK, if the Bible is denied as the revelation of the Word of God and the
    authority for teaching on faith and morals, and you profess belief in
    Jesus as Lord, then, for you,  what is the revelation of the Word of
    God and the authority for teaching on faith and morals ?
    
    What common ground, if any, does this create for you and other
    Christians to have a dialog regarding faith and morals?

    re .356
    
    Historical inquiry, reason, and experience. 
    
    Patricia

    Patricia, is it your argument then, that any belief that you hold as a
    consequence of your historical inquiry, your reason, and your
    experience on matters of faith and morals is a Christian belief?
    
    And if not, what then, is the distinction between mere "belief" and
    "Christian belief" on faith and morals?

    Patrick,
    
    I am still uncertain as to what Christianity means to me.  Having
    discovered liberal Christians such as James Luther Adams, Bishop Spong,
    and Harvey Cox each representing three different traditions UU,
    Episcopal, and Baptist I am relooking my attachment to Christianity.  I
    left Christianity 20 years age because at that time all I knew was a
    conservative approach to Christianity and that approach defining the
    apostles creed as the litmus test of Christianity was defining things
    that common sense told me we not true.  My common sense tells me that
    no Birth occurs without a mother and a father and that a physical Body,
    no body comes back to life after it is dead.  Therefore I do not
    believe in the "real presence of a physically resurrected Jesus
    Christ".  20 years ago I decided that then I must not be a Christian
    and left the church.
    
    My finding the UU church has been a return from the loneliness and
    alienation of not having a defined "Ultimate Concern" greater than
    myself.  I find it wonderful to find committed Theologans who have
    struggled with the same issues that I have struggled with.  In finding
    Paul Tillich I have found a mainline theologan who states that doubt
    and despair are a important part of the religious encounter.  Doubt and
    Despair represent serious Faith.  And even Paul who I have major issues
    with states that Faith is in those things not seen.  If we are certain
    about our faith than it is not faith because if the objective of our
    faith was that evident there would be no room for faith.
    
    Faith is not inconsistent with Science, Reason, or Empirical evidence. 
    What is is.  
    
    Scriptures for me include the Bible, but they also include all the
    other great masterpieces of literature as well.
    
    Tradition is hard for me because the Judeo-Christian tradition has
    oppressed women for 3000 years.  As a women a big part of my decision
    to accept or reject Christianity is to understand whether it was
    something fundamental to Christianity(i.e. a male only trinity) that
    has caused caused this oppression or historic accident.  The redeeming
    feature is that within Christianity itself is the seeds of liberation
    from this oppression.
    
    It is my intellect, and my feelings, and my relationship with myself,
    my world, and the divine within and around me that will provide the
    critical fulcrum for me to know Goddess/God and to know how to order my
    life.
    
    Critical to my thinking right now is that Jesus asks us only to love
    God with all our hearts, souls, and minds, and to love our neighbors as
    ourselves.  If I decide to embrace Christianity that is the fundamental
    principle upon which I choose to embrace it.
    
    Patricia
     

    Patricia, In your theology is Jesus 
    
    (a) a fraud (for knowing (c) to be false and teaching it)
    
    (b) a lunatic (for teaching (c) and not knowing it to be false)
    
    (c) or the God who died for us sins, rose from dead, and will come
    again in glory

> Having discovered liberal Christians such as James Luther Adams, Bishop
> Spong, and Harvey Cox each representing three different traditions UU,
> Episcopal, and Baptist I am relooking my attachment to Christianity.

I can assure you that Bishop Spong is not a representative of Episcopal
tradition; he is a representative of permissiveness towards sin and a
complete heretic, in clear violation of the vows of his ordination and
the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church.  If the rest of the
bishops had any guts, he would be required to either conform to the Catholic
Faith or be removed from office.

/john

    John,
    
    But  the greatest of Bishop Spong is that he has inspired a heretic
    like me to give Christianity another chance.  I will have more faith in
    the Anglican church because they support Bishop Spong.
    
    Patricia

    Patrick,
    
    You don't understand my view on the Bible.  I believe
    
      None of us knows except by faith who Jesus was.  The bible tells us about
    1-3 years of his life.  It was written in pieces from 25 to 100 years
    after he died.
    
    Except by faith We don't even know for absolute sure whether he even
    lived. I do believe there is enough historic evidence to support he did
    but there are those who would argue.
    
    The bible written by at least five different men is inconsistent.  "And
    who do you say I am" is a question he could ask Matthew, Mark, Luke,
    John, and Paul and get wonderfully different answers.  wonderful only
    if you can accept these differences without it creating a problem of
    faith.  Since you believe the bible to be the word of God you cannot
    accept that the differences are real differences.  Since I do not
    believe the bible to be the word of God, I need to discern the truth
    from the ambiguity.  It seems to me that you as well as others who need
    it to be internally consistent need to rationalize the ambiguities.
    
    I do not think jesus is a fraud, nor do I think he is the God who died
    for our sins, rose from the dead and will come again.  
    
    I do think that Jesus is a role model who inspired me.  I do think that
    whatever the Jesus event really was the event and or peoples perception
    of the event has shaped history.  Christianity is important to everyone
    living today because it has so shaped the History of the modern world.
    Much of that shaping has been positive.  Some of it has been negative.
    
    One final thought.  Perhaps there is an element of the lunatic in all 
    truly courageous women and men.
    
    
    Patricia

>    But  the greatest of Bishop Spong is that he has inspired a heretic
>    like me to give Christianity another chance.  I will have more faith in
>    the Anglican church because they support Bishop Spong.

Sorry, but the Anglican church doesn't support Bishop Spong; the other
Bishops know that he is teaching heresy, but don't have the guts to remove
him from office.

The teaching of the Anglican Church is formulated in the Bible and the
historic creeds.

Spong denies these.  Spong will not last.

/john

                                    CRISIS
                                     OVER
                        THE AUTHORITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

The several crises present in the Episcopal Church (and in many of the
"mainline" churches) today stem from one basic crisis -- the issue of the
authority of Holy Scripture.

Many of our Church leaders claim that since our society is "Far advanced
over that of the primitive, patriarchal society of the Bible," the Church
should be able to modify, change, ignore, or eliminate certain passages of
the Bible which do not support the prevailing `modern" ideas.  A close look
at the Lectionary will show that those passages which refer to the roles of
women in the church, homosexual behaviour, the reality of sin and the need
for radical repentance, etc. have aiready been eliminated from the daily
and the Sunday readings. (1)

The Bishop of Newark, in a book published in 1991, has gone so far as to
question "how we Christians could continue to call the Bible the Word of
God ..." (2)

However, in the Word of God we read: "For whatever was written in former
days was written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by the
encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope." (Romans 15:4) 
And: "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for
reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, that the man of
God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17) 

The Episcopal Synod of America upholds the Holy Scriptures as the Word of
God, His Revelation of Himself, written down by human beings for human
beings, for the transformation of our hearts, minds, and wills so that we
might be conformed to the nature of Christ.

	� This is the Bible's own view of itself, 
	  in both Old and New Testaments. 
	� This is the view of Jesus, expressed 
	  consistently throughout the Gospels. 
	� This is the view of the Church, from the 
	  beginning until now.' (3)

Belief in the authority of Holy Scripture is a basic tenet of Christianity
itself, which the Episcopal Church has always upheld. The Book of Common
Prayer documents this commitment in several places: 

The Articles of Religion, hammered out in the 16th Century to define
certain tenets of the Faith in the face of certain controversies, states
in Article VI: 

	"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to 
	 salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor
	 may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any 
	 man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith
	 ...." (p. 868)

The first article in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888, adopted by
the House of Bishops to define the essential pillars of the Faith, affirms
"the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as `containing all
things necessary to salvation,' and as being the rule and ultimate standard
of faith." (p. 877)

When a man is ordained to the priesthood or consecrated bishop, he vows, 
"I solemnly declare that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and
New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary
to salvation." (p. 526, 513)

At every celebration of the Eucharist, after the reading of the Scriptures,
we affirm them as "The Word of the Lord."

DO WE MEAN WHAT WE SAY?  We in the Episcopal Synod of America answer a
resounding WE DO!  And so, we ask God through the Scriptures to teach us,
guide us, correct us, mold us, so that, in heart and mind and will we are
conformed more and more to the image and likeness of Christ.

A person who seriously reads and meditates on the Bible will know and
understand at a deep level the living power of the Holy Scriptures:

	� that the Bible speaks to all of us no matter who
	  we are, no matter what our station in life, no matter 
	  what our experience, no matter what areas of sinfulness
	  we suffer 

	� that all of us will be spoken to by different parts of 
	  the Bible at different times of our lives

	� that a passage which at one time made no sense at 
	  all now has meaning for us 

	� that the passages which challenge and even offend 
	  us (because they tell us what we don't want to hear)
	  are the very passages we _need_ to hear

	� that if our lives do not conform to the Scriptures.
	  we need to change our lives, not the Scriptures

As God tells us, through His prophet Isaiah, "The grass withers, the flower
fades; but the word of our God will stand for ever." (Isaiah 40:8)

The Episcopal Synod of America stands firm on the authority of Holy Scripture
as the Word of God.

-----

(1) A list is available from Chris Fouse through the ESA office.

(2) John Shelby Spong. "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism". (San 
Francisco: Harper, 1991). Preface, p. ix. 

(3) Peter C. Moore, "The Authority of Scripture". Episcopalians United. 

Note 18.361

>I can assure you that Bishop Spong is not a representative of Episcopal
>tradition; he is a representative of permissiveness towards sin and a
>complete heretic, in clear violation of the vows of his ordination and
>the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church.

While I respect the opinion expressed here, I would be quick to remind the
reader that doubtlessly a number of Jewish authorities held much the same
opinion towards Jesus of Nazareth; that Jesus was not a representative of
their tradition, that he was permissive towards sin, etc..

Now I'm not say that Spong is comparable to Christ, but I *am* saying that
those who are stuck in their thinking, even when they are in the overwhelming
majority, are not always right and in keeping with the will of God.

Peace,
Richard

    But in this case, John is right, and Bishop Spong holds beliefs in
    conflict with  Christianity as it has been taught by the apostles and
    bishops for nearly 20 centuries.
    
    If the word heretic gives you a problem, then so be it.

I have no problem with the word heretic.  At the same time I find it intriguing
that one of the definitions of the word apostle is "one who initiates or first
advocates a great reform," and one of the definitions of the word heretic is
"one who dissents from the dominant theory or opinion."

Sounds like one person's heretic is potentially another's apostle.

Richard

The apostles were doing what God commanded them to do.

Bishop Spong is doing what God commanded him not to do.

/john

    .369,  That's your judgment (which you are entitled to).  Not mine.
    
    Richard
    

My opinion is based on Jesus's words in the Bible.  My opinion is based
on the fact that Bishop Spong denies those words.

What is yours based on?

Note 18.371

>My opinion is based on Jesus's words in the Bible.  My opinion is based
>on the fact that Bishop Spong denies those words.

Your fact concerning Spong is somewhat less than entirely accurate.

>What is yours based on?

I didn't give an opinion.

Peace,
Richard

Have a pleasant rest of the weekend, jc.

>Your fact concerning Spong is somewhat less than entirely accurate.

Oh?

To me, the teachings of Jesus must take precedence over other inclusions in the
Bible, ie, the teachings of Paul, the writings of the Old Testament.  I do not
give the entire Bible equal value or equal weight.

This is not to say that I believe that parts of the Bible are altogether
valueless.

Peace,
Richard

    Do you believe there to be an irreconcilable conflict or contradiction
    between what St. Paul taught and what Jesus taught?  If there is none,
    then what does "take precedence" mean here?  If there are some, then
    what is an example of one?

    As Jesus came to replace the Old Covenant with the New Covenant,
    differences between the OT and NT are obvious and expected.

    "This is not to say that I believe that parts of the Bible are
    altogether valueless." Can this statement be phrased without three
    negatives?

Note 18.375

>    "This is not to say that I believe that parts of the Bible are
>    altogether valueless." Can this statement be phrased without three
>    negatives?

I suspect it can.

(Also, I come up with only two negatives.)

    Richard,
    
    The question is sincere.  If you want to be snide and sarcastic when I
    address your replies then that will insure that I ignore them.
    
    The negatives I saw were "not", "altogether", and "valueless".  Perhaps
    it is a problem with my comprehension of your writing style, but I
    don't know what you mean.
                                                                  

Re:  564.77

    >and yet you wish to rely on information provided.

  >Did I say that?  

By rely I mean:  to depend or to trust confidently

If you "depend" on the information by using it to support an
argument or a decision, then you are relying on it (as I would
use the term).  Since you have done this in discussions in this
conference, in my opinion you have "relied" on Scripture to some
extent.

  >Another point of confusion seems to be over the question of God
  >speaking to people.  I stated that I believed that knowledge of God is
  >not a binary condition--that it is not correct to say that people
  >either know God or they don't...

Again, I agree.

But, on any *single* piece of information that it is *claimed* that
God revealed to an individual, I think we can either say the claim
is valid or the claim is not valid.  This is not to say that we
don't have differing amounts of knowledge of who God is - we do.
But does this mean that we cannot evaluate the truth of a single
claim?

  >I believe that God speaks to you; I believe that God speaks to me.

The prophets are (often) not talking about God "generally" speaking to them.  
How many times does it say in the Old Testament, "The word of the Lord
came to me" (or a phrase which means the same thing).  Well, did it?
Or did it not?  We're not talking about general revelation here.  We're
talking about a specific claim that God revealed something specific
to the individual.  Is it true?  (All of this does not mean that prophets
did not also have general revelation which I also accept as inerrant
in Scripture.  However, there is no need to deal with general revelation
if we can't even agree on specific revelation.)

  >I was also trying to figure out how you can agree with me that knowledge
  >of the divine is not a binary condition and yet believe that the
  >prophets are without error in their expressions of divine knowledge.

The prophets *claim* that God told them many specific things.  Did He
or did He not?  I am not talking about general revelation here, but
rather specific revelation.  Again, are the prophets telling the
truth, are they lying, are they deceived or are they crazy?

  >From my point of view, if their knowledge is incomplete, how could they
  >*not* make errors in their pronouncements?

Paul claims that Scripture is breathed by God.  How could it possibly
have errors if God (not the prophet) is the ultimate author of Scripture?

You continue to assume that the prophets somehow gained knowledge of
God and wrote from this knowledge.  Yet the prophets claim that they
often received knowledge directly from God and that this information
was *totally* reliable.  In fact, if the information was incorrect that
they preached/shared/revealed with us, then they were *false prophets*
and the message did not come from God (according to what at least
one prophet wrote and other prophets accepted).  Your belief of how 
information was transmitted and where the information came from does not 
conform to  what the prophets revealed.  Who is correct - you or the 
prophets (or, of course, some other explanation)?  Your whole framework 
is disputed by what the prophets themselves have declared.  

  >I am only guessing here, and perhaps you believe yet a third thing 
  >I haven't come up with.  

I accept the clear teaching of the Bible on where the prophets gained
their information and the validity with which they shared it.  Hopefully,
I've made myself clear in the above explanations.  BTW, if you find
that I've misrepresented the Bible's teachings at all, I'd be happy
to conform my understanding to what the Bible actuallly does teach in
those areas where I've misunderstood it.

Collis

>If you "depend" on the information by using it to support an
>argument or a decision, then you are relying on it (as I would
>use the term).  Since you have done this in discussions in this
>conference, in my opinion you have "relied" on Scripture to some
>extent.

    You are mistaken in your understanding of my position.  I may quote
    from the Bible if it expresses a position that I agree with, just as I
    may quote from Alfred North Whitehead or Carl Popper, but I never agree
    with something solely because it is expressed in the Bible, any more
    than I agree with anything anyone else writes or says simply because it
    was they who said it.  I may also offer a biblical quote in conjunction
    with a discussion about what "the Bible says"; once again, that doesn't
    have anything to do with why I agree or disagree with something that
    "the Bible says". 

    A couple of points are worth reiterating.  I have stated on several
    occasions that I am not a Christian.  The Bible is not uniquely
    special to me.  There are parts that I enjoy, parts that express wonder
    and joy that I find very appealing.  There are other parts that do
    nothing for me.  I start by approaching the Bible from the same
    perspective that I approach any other religious work, whether it be the
    Koran, the Upanishads, or anything else.  While I am in sympathy with
    and respect those Christians who turn to the Bible as the normative
    source of their faith, that is not a perspective that I personally
    have.  It amazes me to be characterized as someone who "relies" or
    "depends" on the Bible.  This is only true to the extent that I "rely"
    or "depend" on any other work that I happen to read, many of which
    contain information that I disagree with.  I treat the Bible in this
    respect no differently than I treat any other work that I might read. 
    Some works may be more instructive than others, but I don't believe in
    an argument by authority alone.

    Consider the world of philosophy.  Alfred North Whitehead once said
    that the history of Western philosophy consists of nothing but a series
    of footnotes to Plato.  I suspect he was engaging in a bit of
    hyperbole, but the importance of Plato to the history of philosophy in
    the West cannot be underestimated either.  The fact that Plato was
    important does not mean that he was right on everything he wrote.  I
    can admire Plato as a great thinker who offered interesting and
    valuable insights without reading his "Republic" as a cookbook on how
    to create the ideal society.  Far from it--his "Republic" would be a
    terrible society, one that I would fundamentally oppose trying to
    establish anywhere on earth.  You might say that since Plato was wrong
    on certain things, that implies that he was "deceived" and therefore
    not of any value to us.  But I don't believe that anyone who is
    seriously interested in philosophy would say that.  And it might be
    useful for you to ask yourself how it is that Plato, DesCartes, Kant,
    and others could all be mistaken--"deceived", if you will--on many
    points, and yet be valuable and instructive to us.  And you might also
    want to consider if the fact that many of them were so utterly
    convinced that they were right, and that this convincement of their
    rightness permeated what they wrote, somehow negates the value of their
    contributions to philosophical thought.

>The prophets are (often) not talking about God "generally" speaking to them.  

>We're not talking about general revelation here.  We're
>talking about a specific claim that God revealed something specific
>to the individual.  Is it true?  (All of this does not mean that prophets
>did not also have general revelation which I also accept as inerrant
>in Scripture.  However, there is no need to deal with general revelation
>if we can't even agree on specific revelation.)

    Ah, now you are making yourself clearer.  This is what I am talking
    about with respect to the problem of communication--I had no idea until
    now that you were making a distinction between "general" and "specific"
    revelation.  I'm not sure what you mean by "general"
    revelation--perhaps you mean some sort of pure experience of God's
    presence with no information, possibilities, or valuations actually
    conveyed to us as part of that revelation.  If that is what you mean,
    then I disagree.  I believe that when God speaks to all of us, She is
    not merely offering some sort of vague "general" experience, reserving
    only "specific" revelation at certain times to specific people.  I
    believe that God offers valuations and possibilities to us at all
    times.  And I believe that all of us are limited in our finite human
    capacity for understanding the ongoing revelations that God offers to
    us at all times, and that is why we often don't quite get it right.  It
    is an ongoing process.

    In other words, if by "specific" revelation, we mean that God offers
    to us the moral and proper thing to do at every occasion, then I
    believe that God is offering specific revelations to us at all times. 
    God may want me to apologize when I wrong another person, for
    example--that is a specific valuation for a specific instance in my
    life.  God may tell me that the genocide in Bosnia is a bad thing.  If,
    on the other hand, we believe that God may issue a divine order to
    climb Pikes Peak, strike two stones together, and wait for them to turn
    into satellite dishes that will broadcast Pat Robertson's family
    channel to all the homes of the earth, then my answer is no, I don't
    believe that is the sort of specific revelation that God gives. 

>Paul claims that Scripture is breathed by God.  How could it possibly
>have errors if God (not the prophet) is the ultimate author of Scripture?

    I don't believe that God is the ultimate author of Scripture.  I
    believe that humans are the ultimate author of Scripture.  I have
    described the Bible as a record of human expression of their
    understanding of God, not something that God authored.  I believe that
    these authors recorded what they understood, no more and no less.  I
    also believe that you and I and the authors of the Bible all have had
    in some sense specific but direct knowledge of God.  The mere fact that
    some of the people who wrote this down had their written words
    collected into a canon is not for me sufficient justification for
    taking everything written at face value.

>if the information was incorrect that
>they preached/shared/revealed with us, then they were *false prophets*
>and the message did not come from God (according to what at least
>one prophet wrote and other prophets accepted).

    I think the key point there is the "according to" passage at the end of
    that sentence.  I am fully aware of the distinctions between true and
    false prophets that are offered at various parts of the Bible. 
    Obviously, I disagree. The distinction I make is not between false and
    true prophets, but between false and true *prophecy*.  Unfortunately, I
    suspect that those prophets came from dogmatic times, and were unable
    to perceive revelation in that way.

    >Your belief of how 
>information was transmitted and where the information came from does not 
>conform to  what the prophets revealed.  Who is correct - you or the 
>prophets (or, of course, some other explanation)?

    Obviously, I think I am.  If I didn't believe that I was right, I
    wouldn't believe what I did, would I?  :-)

Thank you, Mike.

I apologize for my mistaken impression of what you believed and
were arguing for (especially since you have stated some of these
things before).  You have made it clear that you do not rely
on the Bible nor do you consider it reliable.  In going back to
my original categorization, I believe that is a very logical
position to take.

Collis

    No problem, Collis.  Both of us needed to clarify our understanding of
    the other person's position, and I think both of us accomplished that.  
    
    And I wanted to congratulate you for moving the discussion over to a
    topic where it really belonged.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

>This is a topic for detailing the numerous ways, forms,
>means and places that the Bible indicates that it is
>from God and/or truthful.  

    If you want to separate discussion about the contents of your topic
    into a topic of its own, my own suggestion would be to create a
    separate one specifically for that purpose rather than use this one. I
    do have personal reservations about the idea of a non-moderator write
    locking a topic to exclude all postings but their own, but that is up
    to the moderators.

    I'll also add that I am not sure what you are exactly trying to
    establish, since no one that I know of has suggested that many or most
    of the authors of the Bible didn't generally believe that what they
    were expressing was truthful, or that many or most of them believed
    that they were expressing God's will.  Although many would argue that
    parts of the Bible may have been intended to be allegorical or
    parabolic, if anyone wants to suggest that the intention of writers was
    to deliberately deceive the readers, I would be interested in hearing
    their reasoning.

    -- Mike

If the Bible is true, then we are duty-bound to follow its teachings.

If not, then we can make up our own religion, such as a pagan goddess religion.

Note 18.383

>If the Bible is true, then we are duty-bound to follow its teachings.

I believe much that can be found in the Bible is true.  I am impelled to
to follow those teachings to the fullest of my understanding.

>If not, then we can make up our own religion, such as a pagan goddess religion.

Ultimately, everybody makes up their own mind about what they believe, even
traditionalists.

Peace,
Richard

    
     Re: 91.2606
    
    >    My faith, Congregational, states that the meaning of the Holy
    >    Scriptures is obtained through meditation, inputs from Ministers
    >    and lay people, and from the Holy Spirit. As such, different
    >    meanings and the resulting conflicts are bound to occur.
    
    >    Marc H.
    
        Marc,
    
        I don't have a problem with that practice at all.  The problem
        I have is where an interpretation conflicts another part of the
        Bible, then I believe it's not a true interpretation.
    
        Jill

| <<< Note 91.2606 by CSC32::KINSELLA "it's just a wheen o' blethers" >>>




| The problem we keep coming back to is that many here say that the Bible
| is a good book, but not entirely true.   It is either fully the Word of
| God or not at all.  I honesty don't understand how someone could
| qausi-base their life on a book they believe is a half-truth.  

	Jill, for me the Bible is nothing more than a guide. It is only used if
God leads me to it, to a specific part of Scripture. It hasn't done me wrong
yet. It also didn't mean that everything went smooth sailing either. But for me
to base my faith on a guide, it just doesn't make sense. I'd rather put my
faith into the real McCoy! :-)

| How can you question the truth revealed by the Creator?

	You can't. But I don't consider the Bible to be the truth revealed by
Him, but words written by men.



Glen

    Luke 1 1:4  clearly and concisely states that what he has written is
    based on information passed down through the years, and through his own
    investigations.  He does not say that he is transcribing the word of
    God.  He does not invoke the claim of infallibility.  In this instance at
    least, the "Bible" most definitely says that it is a book written by a
    man...                                
          
    Eric

Eric, Luke also says that it is so Theophilus may know the truth.

    re .389

    > Eric, Luke also says that it is so Theophilus may know the truth.

    Ok... and therefore... ?   This is just a little too obtuse for this old
    boy to figure.

Re .2588 by CSC32::KINSELLA "it's just a wheen o' blethers" >>>

...
>    that you reject the Word of God.  It's so clear, so comprehensive. 
>    Recently, a friend heard a mathematical and scientific genius talk
>    about the Bible. He had went through many of the difference religions
>    (Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc...) and examined their "book" and was
>    able to shoot holes in all of them.  He started with the Bible with the
>    same intent.  He could not ed with the Bible with the same intent.  He
>    could not dispute it.  He gave an example where a prophecy was made
>    100s of years in advance of kings and countries existing and an 8-fold
>    prophecy was made. He said there was a greater chance that the
>    molecules in this room would change and freeze you where you sit, then
>    for that prophecy to come true. But it did.  How can you question the
>    truth revealed by the Creator?

Jill, could you please tell us who this mathematical genius is?  I would like
to read what he has written on the subject.

/Mike

    
    I'll have to get his name for you and see if there is some
    material available.  Our Minister of Music heard this guy at
    a seminar.  I believe it was in town, but I could be wrong.
    I'll ask him about it at Wednesday night service.  I'd be
    interested in having this documented too.
    
    Jill

You appeared to be trying to use Luke 1:1-4 to indicate that the Bible
is not necessarily completely true, yet the very text that you used
indicates that Luke wrote it so that the truth would be known.

/john

    .391,
    
    I didn't get that from Eric's entry.
    
    Richard
    

>I didn't get that from Eric's entry.

What did you get from Eric's entry?

What do you get from Luke 1:1-4?

I get a clear statement that what is set forth by Luke is Truth.

God the is the source of all Truth; it is through the Holy Spirit
that we know God; the Greek word for "Holy Spirit" is Agio Pneumati
or Holy Breath.

/john

    re .391

    Oh, I see.  Actually I wasn't really getting that deep.  I was just
    pointing out that Luke *explicitly* claim authorship of his writing
    and did not claim that it was God Breathed.  I wasn't getting into the
    philosophy of "truth".  

    Eric

    .395,
    
    I didn't get what you said in .391 from Eric's entry.  I got
    from his entry what he said in .396.
    
    That's all.
    
    Richard
    

And what do you get from Luke 1:1-4?

Is what Luke writes true?

/john

re Note 18.387 by CSC32::KINSELLA:

>     And therein lies all the debate...the Bible doesn't say it's merely
>     a book written by men...it doesn't say it a good guide whenever you
>     decide to use it...it says that it was breathed by the real McCoy!
>     
>     If we can't agree on this, I doubt that we'll agree on much else.
  
        I can agree with this -- but I suspect that I don't interpret
        "breathed" the same way as you do, or draw the same
        conclusions from "breathed".

        It clearly doesn't mean that "God exhaled and the words
        appeared on paper" -- in the same way that God said "Let
        there be light" and THERE WAS LIGHT -- done!

        I suspect that light is very much closer to what I would call
        "the word of God" than Scripture -- people were involved in
        making Scripture, people were not involved in making light.

        Scripture itself, in John 1, calls Jesus "the Word".  Since
        John 1 says that "through him were all things made", it
        appears that Jesus is the breathed Word which in turn
        resulted in "all things", not just Scripture.

        Bob

    > What do you get from Luke 1:1-4?

    I get a clear statement that Luke truthfully recorded the oral and
    written tradition of his time, based on personal knowledge and
    research.

    Can one reveal the truth of God's will through a fictitious story (by
    that I mean a parable or allegory)?  If so then why must each verse in
    the Bible reflect a literal truth in order to communicate the true
    nature of God?  

    Regarding Greek translations:  If the Bible contains literal truth then
    doesn't it follow that we can only find that truth if we are conversant
    in the language and syntax of the original text?  Are the many English
    translations literally errant in that none is identical, verse for
    verse, to the other... let alone the original text.
    
    
    Eric

    .398,
    
    Okay, so I pulled out the ol' Bible.  I don't see where it says
    Luke thought his work to be God-inspired, which is the question
    before us.
    
    Richard
    

    
    So what your saying Eric is that...
    
            Luke recognizes that he is physically doing the work of writing
            this book ...
    
            so obviously that means he didn't recognize any divine nature
            in this...
    
            So therefore, it's not.
    
    I have a book that deals extensively with this issue.  Specifically
    with the N.T.  I think I'll grab it tonight before answering further.
    
    Bob,
    
    I believe that God's Truth has always existed and will always exist.
    You could destroy every Bible on the planet and God's truth will
    still exist.  You can call it into dispute and it still exists.
    You can't stop it, change it, but only accept or reject it.
    
    Jill

re Note 18.402 by CSC32::KINSELLA:

>     I believe that God's Truth has always existed and will always exist.
>     You could destroy every Bible on the planet and God's truth will
>     still exist.  You can call it into dispute and it still exists.
>     You can't stop it, change it, but only accept or reject it.
  
        I would agree with this.

        Where I might disagree with you is if you claimed the Bible
        said such and such, and that therefore if I disagreed with
        you (Jill) I was rejecting God or God's truth.

        Bob

>why must each verse in the Bible reflect a literal truth in order to
>communicate the true nature of God?  

Indeed, it need not.

Do not extrapolate, though that because not all of the Bible is _literally_
_true_ that not all of it is Truth.

Luke says that what he writes is so that Theophilus may know the Truth.
Luke wrote the Truth.  Since God is the source of all Truth, God is the
source of what Luke wrote.

I'll go so far as to say that when Richard Jones-Christie writes the
Truth _with_the_proper_intent_, that what he has written is God-breathed.

/john

Note 18.404

>Luke says that what he writes is so that Theophilus may know the Truth.
>Luke wrote the Truth.  Since God is the source of all Truth, God is the
>source of what Luke wrote.

An interesting thought.  So if something is true, does it come from God?

>I'll go so far as to say that when Richard Jones-Christie writes the
>Truth _with_the_proper_intent_, that what he has written is God-breathed.

Hmmmm...I'll have to think on that one.

Richard

    re .404
                         
    John,

    Surely you don't deny that there are many Christians who believe that
    each verse in the Bible is the literal word of God. [I'm using modern
    English here, not Bible-speak.  If you are unsure what I mean by
    "literal" look it up in the American Heritage dictionary.]  

    > Do not extrapolate, though that because not all of the Bible is
    > _literally_ _true_ that not all of it is Truth.

    So then, the "Truth" (to use your phraseology) of the Bible lies not
    in the factual accuracy of the dialog, or events, recorded in any
    particular book, but rather in the message (the knowledge, wisdom, 
    insight...) that it communicates to the reader.  I'm not trying to
    put words in your mouth so let me know if you think I am.  This may
    not be what you meant, but this is what I heard.  Sometimes we all
    use too few words to express gigantic ideas.

    Although we may believe that the Bible contains the truth of God's
    will it is still up to us, as individuals, to interpret and
    understand the essence of that truth.  Each story must make a
    connection, an emotional bond, with the reader.  If we don't have
    this emotional bond then the Word of God is, at best, only in our
    minds and not in our hearts.  Where we get into trouble, I think, is
    when we profess that we possess the only correct understanding of the
    Bible, or a passage within it, and that the only explanation for a
    dissenting opinion is that the dissenter has rejected the grace of
    God, or some such thing.


    Just some quick thoughts...

    		Eric

    RE: .406
    
    Eric,
     I like your explanation of the Bible. Makes sense.
    
    Marc H.

    re .402

    > So what your saying Eric is that...

    >	Luke recognizes that he is physically doing the work of writing this
    >	book ...

    Luke is saying much more than this.  He is saying that since "I myself
    have carefully investigated everything from the beginning" it seemed like
    a good idea " also to me" to write an orderly account.  Luke uses his
    own, apparently good, reputation as the reason why Theophilus would
    know "the certainty" of what he was taught.

    >	so obviously that means he didn't recognize any divine nature in
    >	this...

    Based on Luke's own writing, this is correct: Luke did not recognize,
    or give credit to, any divine influence in the actions he was taking or
    the quality of is investigations.  Let me hasten to say that, for me at
    least, this in no way cheapens my respect for the Gospel according to
    Luke.  

>Where we get into trouble, I think, is when we profess that we possess the
>only correct understanding of the Bible, or a passage within it, and that
>the only explanation for a dissenting opinion is that the dissenter has
>rejected the grace of God, or some such thing.

I affirm the Anglican belief that authority within the Church lies in
Scripture, understood through Tradition, by Reason enlightened by the
Holy Spirit.  In short, the Faith as passed down to us through the Apostles
and their successors.

Any personal interpretation I make must be consistent with what has gone
before me during 2000 years of Christianity and in Judaism prior to that.

/john

    Q: Is there room for evolution in interpretive beliefs using that
    metric?
    
    Also, when you say "consistant" with previous beliefs in both
    Christianity and Judaism, which beliefs?  The history of both religions
    include extremely divergent views about Scripture. Judaism alone has
    three major schools of thought on the subject with nearly infinite
    variation within those schools.
    
    regards,
    
    Daniel

    I think that we are now really focusing in......
    
    John, what happens when your interpretation and "tradition" or a
    Bishop's is different?
    
    As a specific example.....my view on Birth control and the Bishop's
    are different. I resolved it by changing faiths....would you
    just assume that your view was wrong?
    
    Marc H.

For years, I thought that Rome's view was wrong.  Of course, I wasn't
subject to it; my bishops changed their opinion about sixty years ago.

Now, after seeing what has happened in the world as a result of sexual
permissiveness associated with man's reliance on technology rather than
chastity, I think my bishops were wrong to make that change.

I hold to the more ancient teaching.  And a number of my bishops agree
and are trying to restore the more ancient tradition.

/john

    re .409

    John,

    I appreciate your candid input.  But, with all due respect, how could
    the Anglican Church have a tradition if not through the personal
    interpretation of Scripture?  Is nothing ever added or removed from the
    Common Book of Prayer?  Have there been no changes in Anglican
    practices over the years; changes that were inconsistent with earlier
    teachings?  If changes were made in in Anglican theology over the
    centuries, surely this was through the personal interpretation by
    someone. 

    Please help me if I'm missing something.  (A gentle nudge will do.  No
    need for the Louisville Slugger :^) )
    
    
    Eric
    

Modernism has been a problem since the first years after Henry VIII rebelled
against papal power.  Henry himself resisted some of these early attempts to
depart from the Catholic Faith, forbidding priests to marry and declaring
that Transubstantiation was the doctrine of the Church.

The Book of Common Prayer has changed from time to time, in a pendulum-like
fashion.  The American Prayer Book was always more like the pre-Reformation
Mass than like the Holy Communion Service in England because of our Scottish
heritage.

The most recent revision to the Book of Common Prayer in 1979 restores many
things lost as Puritans in England rebelled against the traditional faith.

In the last 20 years, serious modernism has invaded the Episcopal Church and
other Anglican Churches, and there is now a serious movement afoot to rejoin
some significant parts of it to Rome in order to guard our orthodoxy.

Rome is due to publish a Roman Catholic version of the Book of Common Prayer
this summer in order to welcome us back... we will have to see how this very
important movement develops.

/john

    My questions in .413 were rhetorical.  I knew changes had occurred over
    time.  My real point is that a church (Anglican, Roman,...) cannot have
    a tradition, or catechism, or doctrine of faith WITHOUT a personal
    interpretation (not necessarily yours or mine) of Scripture.  You said
    that you could not allow yourself to personally interpret the Bible in
    a way that would contradict Anglican teaching, but I was saying that it
    is this very thing that allows any church to grow, in reasoned
    enlightenment.
    
    Eric

    Eric, 
    
    You and I would have disagreement on what it means for a church "to
    grow".
    
    The triumph of the people of Eastern Europe and Russia over Communism
    is "growth".  Yet this growth was based on the acceptance of the
    teachings of the Bible and the rejection of the teachings of Lenin and
    Marx.
    
    The personal sacrifice of missionaries in India, Africa, and elsewhere
    throughout the world is "growth" of the church.

Re <<< Note 18.416 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY "Patrick Sweeney in New York" >>>


>    The triumph of the people of Eastern Europe and Russia over Communism
>    is "growth".  Yet this growth was based on the acceptance of the
>    teachings of the Bible and the rejection of the teachings of Lenin and
>    Marx.

Only partly.  For the most part it was a growing awareness that socialist
economic principles just don't work.

/Mike

    Patrick,

    I start with the assumption that no church is complete in it's
    understanding of God, nor are it's teachings infallible.  From this
    point I would argue that a church can grow in wisdom, compassion, and
    godliness (not simply enrollment) through refined examination of the
    Bible, and other writings, based on guidance from the Holy Spirit and
    improved knowledge of the physical world.   In so doing we can correct
    our misinterpreted understandings that the world is flat, that God
    lives just beyond the dome of the sky, that dissenters should be
    tortured, that it pleases God for the mass to be said in Latin, that
    the Jew's are condemned to Hell.
    
    This is what I believe...
    
    		Eric 

	Eric, nicely said.



Glen

    
    Sorry guys...I forgot my books again today.  Too busy preparing for
    a potluck.  I'll bring 'em tomorrow.
    
    RE:  91.2621 &.2622
    
    Well it's interesting Nancy.  You say you believe what Jesus said.  Yet
    He made constant reference to the Old Testament scriptures including
    the 10 commandments.  What?  Was He wrong about that?  Being God and
    all I find that hard to swallow.   And what about Jesus saying he'd
    build his church on Peter.  Peter later counted the gospels and
    epistles as equal to the Old Testament scriptures.  Did Peter not have
    the Holy Spirit directing him?  Do you the Holy Spirit directing you? 
    Why should I believe any of you over Peter who was hand chosen by Jesus
    Christ? The Bible, the whole book, is the Word the God.  Except it or
    not. It's still the truth.  Dismiss it at your own peril.
    
    >how do you react when you come face to face with God?
    
    Humbled.  Repenting.  Worshipping!!!
    
    >How far is anyone willing to go for a religious belief?
    
    For Christians, whereever God leads.
    
    
    Mike,
    
    My point is Satan has chosen alot of things that feel like "a holy
    spirit" and lots of philosophies that sounds like the Bible or like
    they might be from God.  Many believe Satan lies.  The lies are
    contrary to the Bible. And regardless of how much anyone says
    otherwise, if it's not in the Bible, it's contrary to God.  God is the
    divine Author.
    
    Jill

| <<< Note 18.420 by CSC32::KINSELLA "it's just a wheen o' blethers" >>>


| Why should I believe any of you over Peter who was hand chosen by Jesus
| Christ? 

	Jill, you don't have to. The only one you need to believe/listen to is
God/Jesus/Holy Spirit. But to do this you have to actually listen to everything
going on and not just count it off.

| The Bible, the whole book, is the Word the God.  Except it or
| not. It's still the truth.  Dismiss it at your own peril.

	I guess I never have seen why people put their faith into a book when
it's the real McCoy that should have it. I'm not saying you are like this Jill,
but I have seen many who put the Bible as the final Word and never listen to
what's going on in the world. Yes, I agree that God will use the Bible to help
AT TIMES. I also think He uses ordinary people as well, regardless of whether
they are Christian or not. I would hope that your ears are open to those who
you perceive to be non-Christians as well as those you perceive to BE
Chriistians. Maybe you can comment on that.

| >How far is anyone willing to go for a religious belief?

| For Christians, whereever God leads.

	Would you agree that there are times where <insert any Christian> could
think they are doing the Lord's work while really doing their own thing
instead?



Glen

    re .420

    > Peter later counted the gospels and epistles as equal to the Old
    > Testament Scriptures.

    I'm not real good at chapter and verse recall.  Could you help me.

    > Why should I believe any of you over Peter who was hand chosen by Jesus
    > Christ?

    If your heart guides you to believe differently than I, or anyone else,
    you should follow your heart.  It isn't for any of us to judge you as a
    person or what's in your heart.  But neither is anyone obligated to
    beat (metaphorically speaking) the "truth" into someone else.  In fact
    Jesus taught just the opposite, didn't he: "... shake the dust from you
    sandals and move on...", or something to that affect.

    If you must believe that "God is the divine author" of the Bible in
    order to find redeeming or inspirational value in it, then fine.  I,
    and others, may find equally inspirational value in it if we simple
    feel that it is the inspired work of holy men.

    > My point is Satan has chosen alot of things that feel like "a holy
    > spirit" and lots of philosophies that sounds like the Bible or like
    > they might be from God.

    One might argue that putting a limiting and literal [see dictionary for
    detail] interpretation of the Bible is the work of Satan.  To say that
    *entire* will of God is (or could possibly be) contained in a single
    book and no where else, surely is a sign that Satan doesn't want us to
    seek a fuller understanding of God.  To confine and define the message
    of the Bible solely in earthly terms (thou shalts and thou shalt nots)
    surely closes one's heart to God's greater message.  God's message is
    certainly more that a guide to proper eating and social habits... 

    Now I'm not suggesting that you are possessed by Satan, or anything. 
    I'm just using a bolder, more self assured style that I've seen in
    other notes.  :^)
    
    
    		Eric

    RE .420
    
    Jill - 
    
    You asked some questions.  My purpose in answering them was not to
    debate the validity of your beliefs but to simply present another
    viewpoint and try to answer your questions.  I understand your
    viewpoint.  You seemed to want to understand another viewpoint by
    asking the questions that you did.  Perhaps I was wrong.
    
    Given the attack-like nature of your responses to my attempt at trying
    to answer your questions I can understand the feeling that other noters
    have had about trying to participate in a discussion with you.  Are you
    even interested in trying to understand others' points of view or do
    you really just want the opportunity to lecture those of us with
    opposing viewpoints?  If the former, I'm happy to talk *with* you.  If
    the latter, I prefer not to respond as I prefer to communicate *with*
    others (give AND take) rather than be lectured *to*.
    
    Nanci

Re. <<< Note 18.420 by CSC32::KINSELLA "it's just a wheen o' blethers" >>>
    
>    Mike,
>    
>    My point is Satan has chosen alot of things that feel like "a holy
>    spirit" and lots of philosophies that sounds like the Bible or like
>    they might be from God.  Many believe Satan lies.  The lies are
>    contrary to the Bible. And regardless of how much anyone says
>    otherwise, if it's not in the Bible, it's contrary to God.  God is the
>    divine Author.

Sez you.  Many of us think differently.  Irreconcilable difference, I think
it's called.  I used to believe as you do, but a little logical thinking
cleared my mind.  I feel much better now.  :-)

/Mike

    
    Well Nanci,
    
    It's not that I'm not trying to understand.  I do try to see your view.
    But, I guess it's like Mike said we're going to have irreconcilable
    differences as long as I believe there are absolute truths and others
    believe there are not absolutes.  God's wisdom will defy the logic of
    men.
    If Christianity was based on mankind's logic, we wouldn't need faith.
    
    SIDE NOTE:
    I still need to enter the info about Luke...I have my book here since
    yesterday, but it's been rather hectic the last couple of days.  Today
    doesn't look much difference, but if I get a chance I'll enter some
    stuff.  I have a few other things I owe people too...I haven't
    forgotten.
    
    Jill

The Bible was not written as a unit, and I judge I would be doing someone
a disservice were I to tell others that the Bible should be read as a
unit.

Some people will tell you that the last few lines in the Revelation, for
example, refers to the entire Bible.  In fact, the remarks refer most
specifically to the document in which they were written.

The Bible was written over a great expanse of time by an unknown number
of writers and editors.  Isaiah may have had 3 or more different authors.
The Gospel of John may have had 3 or more different contributors, as well.

The catalyst for freezing in time what we now call the New Testament was a
heretic by the name of Marcion.  Did God intend to have Scripture forever
so bound?  We'll never know.

Richard

    
    Oh, yes we will.  When we all get to heaven I'm sure God is going
    to have Q&A sessions set up!  ;^)
    
    Jill

    In addition to everything that Richard said, the Bible isn't even
    organized in the chronological order that the stories were written. 
    
    Eric
    

    The following is an excerpt from the International Inductive
    Study Bible.  I might have to enter a few separate notes to
    fit this all in.  This one is 101 lines.  Sorry.
    
    What is the Bible?
    
    The Bible is comprised of sixty-six separate writings or books.  It was
    written over a period of approximately 1,400 to 1,800 years by more
    than forty authors from various walks of life.  While many of the
    authors are identified, some remain unknown.
    
    The Bible is divided into the Old Testament, comprised of thirty-nine
    books, and the New Testament, comprised of twenty-seven books.  The Old
    Testament, the Bible of the nation of Israel, was divided into three
    segments:  the Law or Torah, the Prophets or Nebi'im, and the Writings
    or Kethubim.
    
    Although the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, it was
    translated into Koine (common) Greek around 250-150 B.C.  This
    translation is referred to as the Septuagint or the LXX.  Although
    nothing was altered in respect to the text, upon the completion of the
    Septaugint the order and breakdown of its various books was changed to
    the form now used in the Old Testament.
    
    While the Old Testament was orginally written in two Semitic languages, 
    Hebrew and Aramaic, the majority of it is in Hebrew.  The New Testament
    was written in Koine Greek, the popular language used throughout the
    world in the time of the Lord Jesus Christ.  However, some Aramaic
    phrases are found in the New Testament as Aramaic was the vernacular of
    the people of Israel.  Jesus and His disciples also spoke Aramaic in
    addition to Koine Greek.  Much of the Old Testament was translated into
    Aramaic and these works are referred to as the Targums.
    
    How was the Bible written and translated?
    
    The Bible itself tells us how it was written:  "All scripture is
    inspired by God" (2 Tim. 3:16).  Men "moved by the Holy Spirit spoke
    from God" (2 Peter 1:21).  The Greek word for inspired, theopneustos,
    means "God-breathed."  The Holy Spirit carried men along, moving and
    guiding them as they wrote in their own words what God wanted them to
    say.  Thus we have verbal inspiration, because the words of the
    original text were inspired by God.  And because all Scripture was
    given by inspiration we have plenary inspiration, which means total
    or complete inspiration.  Every part of the Bible is inspired.  The
    Bible does not merely contain the words of God, it is the Word of God.  
    Thus the original writings, often called autographs, are infallible -
    without error.  Those who hold to this belief say they believe in the
    verbal, plenary inspiration of the autographs.
    
    Autographs
    
    In the beginning writing was down on stone, clay tablets, leather
    (animal skins), and papyrus scrolls.  The autographs were probably
    written on papyrus.  Papyrus, made from the inner bark of a reed plant,
    was formed into a paper-like material which was glued together and
    rolled into a scroll.  Normally the writing was done on only one side
    of the scroll so as it was read it was unrolled with one hand and
    rolled up with the other.  The scrolls were kept in a cylindrical box
    called a capsa.
    
    According to the Jewish Talmud, when the original autographs were
    copied they were to be copied only on the skins of what God deemed as
    clean animals such as sheep, calves, and goats.  Parchment (dried
    animal skin) was costly but more durable and permanent than papyrus.
    
    The Accuracy of the Copies
    
    Eventually the scrolls were replaced by the codex.  The codex (or
    codices) was made from folded sheets, quires, which were stitched 
    together like a book.  Copies of the original autographs of the Old
    Testament and copies of those copies were transcribed by hand under
    the strictest measures.  The men who copied the manuscripts were called
    scribes.  If one error was found the entire copy was destroyed.  Thus
    the accuracy of the copies is phenomenal.  This accuracy has been
    confirmed by the multiple number of copies, by the Septuagint, and by
    the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Plus, there are more than five thousand ancient
    Greek copies of all or portions of the New Testament.  Although there
    may be minor variances in the manuscripts, none deal with doctrinal
    issues.  
    
    The Canon
    
    The same omnipotent Sovereign who inspired men to write the Word of
    God led other men to recognize that these were the books which would
    comprise the canon of Scripture.  The canon is the list of books which
    are recognized to be inspired by God.  This list comprises the Old and
    New Testaments.  The Old Testament canon was already established in the
    days of Jesus Christ.  Jesus, who is one with the Father, affirmed and
    never contradicted the Old Testament.  Revelation, the last of the New
    Testament books to be written, was complete before the end of the first
    century A.D.  By A.D. 367 Bishop Athanasius compiled the first known
    list of the current twenty-seven books of the New Testament.
    
    Translations
    
    The Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek copies of the autographs of the sixty-six
    books of the Bible are the basis of the translations made in the
    various languages of the world.  A translator will study the original
    words of the copies of the autographs, determine what those words mean,
    and then select the best way to faithfully transmit the meaning of the
    original words in their context into the language of their translation.
    This is called primary translation.
    
    A secondary translation occurs when a translation is made from a
    primary translation of another language, say English, into a third 
    language.  Thus a secondary translation is not made from a copy of the
    autograph in its original language but from a second language
    translated from the original lanaguage (the primary translation).

    re: .429
    
    Thanks Jill...interesting.
    
    
    Marc H.

    .429, Thanks for entering that.
    
    An interesting blend of objective fact and the authors' opinion,
    written as if the two were one and the same.
    
    Richard
    

    
    How do we know the Bible is what it claims to be - the Word of God?
    
    It's a matter of faith.  You either believe what the Word of God says
    about itself or you don't.  You either believe the testimony of Jesus
    Christ regarding the Word of God or you don't.
    
    There are, however, several areas of objective evidence that test and
    support the veracity of the verbal, plenary inspiration of the
    autographs.  
    
    First, there is bibliographic evidence for its authenticity.  No other
    ancient writings have as much manuscript evidence as does the Bible. 
    Aside from 643 copies of Homer's works, which were written about 850
    B.C., the other classical works written between 450 B.C. and 10 B.C.
    have anywhere from three to twenty copies each.  And not only is there
    more than an ample quantity of copies, but the quality of the biblical
    manuscripts surpasses other manuscripts.  This is largely due to the
    Jews' extreme caution in the translation and preservation of the
    manuscripts.
    
    Time is also a factor.  The Dead Sea Scrolls, which date from 200 B.C.
    to A.D. 68, greatly reduce the time span between the writing of the Old
    Testament books to our earliest existing copies of the Old Testament. 
    The time span between the autographs of the New Testament and its
    existing copies is between one to two hundred years.
    
    Second, there is internal evidence for the authenticity of the Bible. 
    The Bible not only claims to be the Word of God, but also states that
    not the smallest letter or stroke will pass away from the law (the Old
    Testament) until it is all accomplished (Matthew 5:17-18).  Many of the
    writers claimed to be eyewitnesses who wrote what they saw, heard, or
    experienced.  Although over forty different authors wrote the sixty-six
    separate books, you'll find that over a time span of almost two
    millenia there are no contradictions in what they wrote.  Also, what
    was written in the Old Testament, sealed and canonized, is often seen
    fulfilled in the New Testament.  Thus there is the internal evidence of
    fulfilled prophecy, some of which is being fulfilled even to this time.
    
    Finally, there is an abundance of external evidence that supports the
    Bible's infallibility.  When the Bible speaks on matters of history or
    science, it speaks accurately.  There were times when it was supposed
    that science or history contradicted the Bible; however, later is was
    discovered that all the facts hadn't been uncovered.
    
    More recent archeological evidence has affirmed the historicity of the
    Bible in a multitude of ways as it speaks regarding rulers, nations,
    languages, battles, customs, geographic locations, tragedies, and other
    events.  Extrbiblical writings also affirm what the New Testament
    teaches about the historicity of Jesus Christ and other New Testament
    characters.
    
    Yet despite all this evidence, men choose to believe only what they
    want to believe.  Have you accepted the Bible as the inerrant Word of
    God, profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, for training in
    righteousness that you may be adequate, equipped for every good word?
    (2 Tim. 3:16).  As you study it, you'll discover that it's a
    supernatural book...the very words of life.  
    

    One minor comment:
    
    >The Old Testament canon was already established in the days of Jesus
    Christ.  
    
    That is actually not true.  The Jewish canon was not established until
    the end of the first century C.E.  This is discussed in note 117.1.
    
    -- Mike

.432

I certainly agree with the point that it's a matter of faith.

I also believe God makes lots of room for the skeptic.

Richard

    .433, Perhaps it depends on what you mean by "established."  The
    New Testament was pretty much what you might call established before
    it was canonized.
    
    Richard
    

    By "established" I mean that while there was a set of religious
    writings available to the the people in Christ's time (some of which
    later made it into the canon, and some of which did not), the canon had
    not been offficially defined and closed.
    
    Part of the relevation quotation from the Anchor Commentary on
    Ecclesiasticus is as follows:
    
        The Jews, including those who spoke and read Greek, did not have
        any closed canon of sacred writings till the rabbis drew up their
        authoritative list near the end of the first century A.D. 
        Accordingly, the Church, which separated itself from Judaism before
        the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70), received from the Synagogue a
        group of undifferentiated writings that were considered in some way
        sacred.  Only after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 did the
        Jews begin in earnest to define which of their religious scriptures
        should be received as divinely inspired and which should not.  By
        ca. A.D. 90 the Pharisaic rabbis had defined and closed forever
        their official canon.

        It should be recalled that the Church "received 'scriptures' from
        Judaism, but not a canon."  

    -- Mike

Note 18.436

>	By
>	ca. A.D. 90 the Pharisaic rabbis had defined and closed forever
>	their official canon.

Indeed, by A.D. 90, as I recall from my History of the New Testament class,
only Pharisaic Jews remained.  Virtually all others had been wiped out by
Rome.

Richard

I pulled this off of the Usenet.  :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) 


Article: 146 of rec.humor.funny
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 4:30:03 EST
From:  [email protected]
Subject: Religious humor
Keywords: original, smirk

My 13 year old told me this riddle (his own I believe) --
 
Why is there an Old and a New Testament in the Bible?
 
 


Because God is so mysterious that he even keeps 2 sets of books.
 

    re: 605.42 (Patricia Flangan)
    
    >> When I read the bible and I read the command to love God
    >> with all your heart, soul, and mind, and to love your neighbor as
    >> yourself, I know with my whole being that that is truly inspired.  In
    >> the same book when I read about Jesus saying there will be weeping and
    >> gnashing of teeth, I also know with my whole being that this is a first
    >> century distortion of the teachings of a Universal God of love.  I
    >> believe in a unifying Power that is available to each of you, to me ,
    >> and to all the children.

    What reasoning or facts lead you believe that the New Testament
    contains first century distortion?
    
    Pat Sweeney

Re:  615.10

  >Your "plain meaning" may be very different from their "plain
  >meaning", of course.  That is my point:  there is no such
  >thing for most complex texts as a single, unique, unambiguous
  >"plain meaning".

The real problem comes when the claim is also made that the simple
texts don't have an easy to understand meaning.  

Collis

    A friend of mine and I are getting together and reading The Bible and a
    technical question came up.

    Does anyone know what those little paragraph markers mean?  Well, they
    *look* like paragraph markers -- we're not even sure about that.

    Ruth

>    Does anyone know what those little paragraph markers mean?  Well, they
>    *look* like paragraph markers -- we're not even sure about that.
                   
They indicate where paragraphs start.

Something tells me you're reading the KJV.  As beautiful as the English
in it is, you'll find the RSV or NRSV much easier to read and understand.
I strongly recommend "The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha,
Expanded Edition, an Ecumenical Study Bible, Revised Standard Version"
ISBN 0-19-528348-1.

I'm currently reading the Daily Office readings using the NRSV, but I use
the Oxford RSV study edition for any serious study.  (Actually, for really
serious study, I compare as many translations as possible, KJV, RSV, NRSV,
Martin Luther, Einheits�bersetzung, NEB, and NAB.)

/john

    re .442

    >>>They indicate where paragraphs start.

    :-)

    John,  We *are* reading the KJV.  The language is so beautiful.  I do
    have 5 or 6 different translations lying about for "serious" Bible
    study, but we are just enjoying the flow of the words, the poetry.  I
    suppose instead of calling it "Bible study" I should call it "Bible
    wallowing."
    
    I know it's out of fashion to read KJV, but so many of our cultural
    idioms have been shaped by it.  I think that there should be classes in
    Universities just dedicated to reading KJV Bible, similar to
    Shakespeare classes.

    >>I strongly recommend "The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the
    >>Apocrypha,

    Yes, I like that one too.  Had a copy since I was 14.

    So who decided to put those little paragraph markers in there?  Do they
    trace back to the original translators?  How did they decide where
    paragraphs began?

    My George Lamsa translation from the Peshitta also contains those
    little critters.  Does it relate to something in the original
    manuscripts?  

    Ruth

Note 18.443

>    So who decided to put those little paragraph markers in there?  Do they
>    trace back to the original translators?  How did they decide where
>    paragraphs began?

Ruth,

	Finally got an answer for you -- a partial answer, anyway.

	The division of the Bible into our present chapters was probably
done by a British churchman Stephen Langton (1150?-1228), who was
consecrated as archbishop of Canterbury in 1207.  The division of the
New Testament into its present verses was done by Robert Stephanus in
the Greek New Testament he published in 1551.  The first division of the
New Testament into verses in an English Translation was Whittington's
translation (Geneva, 1557).  The first English Bible (Old and New Testaments)
divided into verses was the Geneva version of 1560.

Peace,
Richard

Re:  730.46

   >Since even you don't seem to believe that entirety of the
   >books of the Bible were written by proven prophets...

You are wrong about my beliefs.  By definition, if someone is
speaking/writing for God, that person is a prophet.
 
   >You're evading the issue -- the issue isn't whether the
   >prophets who wrote in the Bible was true, but whether the
   >entirety of the Bible is true.

We have discussed this point a number of times, so the reasoning
has been presented.

I'd prefer to find a common basis to work from and then go from
there.  What parts of the Bible (if any) are you willing to
accept as totally authoritative and written by God.  What book,
what chapter(s), what verse(s).  If we can find a place to start,
then it we can work from the most obvious to the least obvious
and find where we diverge.  If we can't even agree on the obvious
cases, there's little point in going to the less obvious cases.

Collis

re Note 18.445 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON:

>    >Since even you don't seem to believe that entirety of the
>    >books of the Bible were written by proven prophets...
> 
> You are wrong about my beliefs.  By definition, if someone is
> speaking/writing for God, that person is a prophet.
 
        You seem to agree with the proposition that the parts of the
        Pentateuch that describe Moses' death were not written by
        Moses.  If this is the case then we have some Biblical text
        written by somebody whose identity we don't know.

        So you seem to be saying that if it's in the Bible then it
        must have written by a true prophet writing in the name of
        God, even if we don't know that they otherwise would pass the
        test of a prophet.
         
        Right?

> I'd prefer to find a common basis to work from and then go from
> there.  

        But what are we working towards?

> What parts of the Bible (if any) are you willing to
> accept as totally authoritative and written by God.  What book,
> what chapter(s), what verse(s).  

        Why do you ask?  Why should I care to answer?

        Part of the problem here is that I don't even think, or see a
        need to think, in these terms.  I make no claim that any
        particular part of the Bible is in error.  I claim that the
        Bible is a worthy and authoritative text on spiritual issues. 
        I do claim that God's Spirit influenced the authors. I see
        nothing gained by claiming any unique and absolute inerrancy
        for the Bible.

        Bob

  >Why do you ask?  Why should I care to answer?

I ask to see if we have any common ground at the start of
the discussion.  If we do, then I see great hope of making
some progress.  As I understand logic, first you agree on
some facts and then you can combine the facts in a logical
way to deduce other things are true or false.

The place I find to be an excellant starting point is
a piece of Scripture that is accepted by both parties as
being inerrant, true, and God-breathed.  Likewise, if there
is no such piece of Scripture, then we can look at those
portions of Scripture which very clearly claim to be from
God and make progress that way.

This is the methodology I use now (and have used in the past)
in order to reach my conclusions about the inerrancy of Scripture.
If you have a different method which will also produce "fruit"
(as opposed to endless debate), then I'm perfectly willing to
do that as well.

Sound reasonable?

Collis

    RE: .447
    
    Sounds reasonable to me. I would start with the New Testament Gospels.
    
    Marc H.

Re:  .446 and .447

I notice a lack of response.  Let me try to answer some of your
questions from .446 and see if I can show you why I see this
to be important.

  >I make no claim that any particular part of the Bible is in 
  >error.  I claim that the Bible is a worthy and authoritative 
  >text on spiritual issues.

Why should I believe this?  On what is your claim based?
 
  >I see nothing gained by claiming any unique and absolute inerrancy
  >for the Bible.

But what if the author's themselves claim to have a direct pipeline
to God?  Should we ignore this claim or evaluate it?  The prophets
themselves say that we should evaluate it.  Let's evaluate it
together.  Let's see what the prophets say.  Are you willing?

Collis

re Note 18.449 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> Re:  .446 and .447
> 
> I notice a lack of response.  

        Well, it's been, what, somewhat over 24 hours!

        Bob

    RE: .449
    
    How about my response?
    
    Marc H.
    
    

Sorry, Mark, I didn't mean to ignore you.  Bob and I have
disagreed about this issue ever since we've known each
other.  However, I have never been successful in establishing
a dialogue with Bob that starts at a common point of
agreement and then can proceed logically - something like
what Plato would do.  I was hopeful that, with the issue
and format clearly defined, that we might pursue it this
time.  If the issue is just time, Bob, I willing to wait
a while (I've waited a few years already :-) ).  If you'd
just rather not enter such a discussion, then I'll pursue
a discussion with Marc.

In the end, I'll just be sharing some of the process that
I went through as I learned what the prophets claimed and
then decided whether or not to believe those claims.  My
ultimate decision to believe those claims was not based on
infallible evidence; rather it was based on my belief that
the probability of the prophets being true was greater
(significantly greater) than the probability that the prophets
were in error.  The middle ground that so many people desire
to cling to (God spoke through the prophets in error in one
way or another - or the claim that God didn't speak through
the prophets but that their insights into God are valuable)
is so full of contradictions that it is not a position that
I could logically accept.

Collis

    RE: .452
    
    O.K.....the process sounds interesting. I hope that Bob takes you up on
    it, since I know that I will learn from it too.
    
    Marc H.

re Note 18.447 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON:

>   >Why do you ask?  Why should I care to answer?
> 
> I ask to see if we have any common ground at the start of
> the discussion.  If we do, then I see great hope of making
> some progress.  As I understand logic, first you agree on
> some facts and then you can combine the facts in a logical
> way to deduce other things are true or false.
  
        Collis, you seem to put great stock in having a common
        starting point.  While I agree that that might be convenient,
        if we don't agree upon the goal or purpose of the discussion,
        it matters little from where we start.

        It is quite possible for two to start at a common point and
        reach quite different objectives.

        You find it hard to engage me in this discussion because (to
        cast it in terms of of a popular story) I hear you saying
        that your goal is "the Emerald City" and I say that I don't
        care whether the Emerald City exists or not, as I have no
        desire and see no need to go there.

        In terms of this dialogue the "Emerald City" would appear to
        be agreement that the Christian Bible is an uniquely and
        totally God-authored book.  If that is the goal then I have
        no interest in setting out on a journey to that goal with
        you.

        I've seen you and others try to take people on this journey
        before, both in this and in other fora.  I sincerely doubt
        that there will be better evidence or more convincing
        argumentation this time.

        Agreement on the starting point isn't anywhere near as
        important as agreement on the goal.

        Bob

    Bob,
    
    I would be interested in the question from your perspective.  I would
    like to understand more about what the nature of the bible is.  I am
    more interested in that question from a non inerrancy perspective. 
     
    I would like to know what the Bible actually means to you, Ron,
    Richard, and others.  I would like to begin to formulate just what the
    Bible means to me.
    
    Anyone interested in shifting the context of the discussion a little?
    
    
    Patricia

re Note 18.455 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN:

>     I would be interested in the question from your perspective.  I would
>     like to understand more about what the nature of the bible is.  I am
>     more interested in that question from a non inerrancy perspective. 
  
        I regard the Bible as extremely valuable, but my real goals
        in life have nothing to do with establishing the nature of
        the Bible in any rigorous sense.  That is why I choose not
        to answer Collis' question in Note 18.449 "Why should I
        believe this?  On what is your claim based?"

        The Bible, in Psalm 34, says "O taste and see that the LORD
        [is] good: blessed [is] the man [that] trusteth in him."  My
        goal is to experience and trust in the good God.

        In Matthew 6:33 Jesus says "But seek ye first the kingdom of
        God, and his righteousness; ..."  He doesn't say "seek ye
        first an understanding of the nature of the Bible."

        Of course some will counter "but you're quoting the Bible
        right here to support your position, doesn't that mean you
        are making some assumption about the nature of the Bible?" 
        My answer, of course, is that my only assumptions are about
        these two verses (in this case), and the assumption has
        nothing to do with who authored them or whether they are
        totally correct for all time or not.

        Actually, those assumptions of mine are more about the nature
        of God than the nature of the Bible.

        Bob

    re .-2
    
    It's impossible for me to explain in one sitting the "nature" of the
    bible - and I'm not sure that I have a complete enough grasp of it
    anyway.  For me it is a valuable resource, one of many "ways' that God
    reveals Godself.  I've discovered how the same piece of scripture has
    been interpreted differently by me over the course of my life and, yet,
    how each interpretation held value for me.
    
    I see that scripture works its way into the very being of many people
    as a tapestry being formed within them.  Tapestries have give in them
    and when used often sometimes fray and come apart - yet not completely
    apart.  There are still elements that have a way of bonding to each
    other as they weave in and out of facets of ones lives.
    
    God's "appearances" to me have similar effects; appearances to me in
    the loving way our dog looks at us or in the beauty of so many
    individually beautiful sunsets.
    
    The bible is such a work that scholars have spent milleniums studying
    its contents, have searched for the truth of life, for the truth of
    purpose.  The bible's nature is that it is a living source of
    inspiration and a partner in self-study.
    
    Thanks be to God for the inspired people of long ago of today and
    tomorrow who love God so much as to devote their lives to the continued
    discovery of meaning and purpose of our lives, of God's goodness, that
    comes from such study.
    
    Such are some of my understandings of the nature of the bible(s).
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron

    .455 Patricia,
    
    	I'm glad you asked.  Let me chew on it awhile and get back to you.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

Hi Bob,

Yes, I figured that would be your response.  I see the value in
a discussion since the accuracy or lack of accuracy of the Bible
is critical in determing what we can believe about God.  The
importance of this discussion is shown everytime you question
a belief that is based on what the Bible says (which you have
frequently done in this conference).  Is God only accurate about
some areas and freely makes mistakes about other areas?

I think the most important reason that this is a discussion I
am eager to undertake is because of the "slippery slope" of
errancy.  History shows us time and time again that those 
[denominations/churches] that reject the prophets claim of
inerrancy move further and further away from the Bible - often
leading to a total move away from trusting Scripture in as short
as 50-75 years.  Can we believe it or not?  Those are the options
that God Himself through the prophets have given us.  You apparently
don't even agree that those are the options - but the textual
support for this is overwhelming [in my opinion].

In summary, although you may be perfectly willing to believe that the
Bible can be accurate in some matters while inaccurate in others,
this position will lead others [your spiritual descendents?] away
from the truth of the Bible.  In addition, it is simply not a
valid option according to the prophets.

Marc, if you would like to entertain a discussion about this, then
I would be glad too.  I would choose to start with one of the Old
Testament prophets that clearly claims to be proclaiming what God
has said and go from there.

Collis

Well, here you go, Patricia.  Mind you, this is not carved in stone.  I
reserve the right to change my perspective at any time and without
notice. ;-)

I believe the Bible is inspired.  The word "inspired" in the oft quoted
verse in the Letter to Timothy can be translated "God-breathed."  I've
forgotten the Greek used here, but the ancients thought of breath (or wind)
and spirit as practically the same thing.

I believe human beings under Divine guidance, adhering to oral tradition
in many instances, wrote the contents of the Bible.  Human beings also rewrote
the Bible.  Not all the copies of the manuscripts match each other and none
of the originals are known to exist.

Nevertheless, a glimpse of the Divine shines through the human imperfection
which is integral to the mix; particularly in the person of Jesus of Nazareth,
the Christ.

I do not believe the Bible to contain zero errors.  The Bible does not
even claim itself to be inerrant.  The word "inerrant" appears zero times
in the Bible.  Kreskin is inerrant.  The Bible is not.

I'm not sure it was a good idea (or God's idea) to close the canon.

I don't believe the Bible should be exalted.  To me, it's like exalting
road signs.

I believe it's a mistake to call the Bible the Word of God, though I have
done it myself.  Christ is the Word of God.  To call the Bible the Word of
God elevates the Bible to the level of Christ.

Peace,
Richard

Something I learned in the past few weeks was that the Hebrew Scriptures,
until relatively recently, were missing all the vowels.  It was a kind
of shorthand.  It saved on materials and effort.  However:

cnymgntryngttrnslttxtshndrdsfyrsldwththdddhndrncfnvwls?




can you imagine trying to translate texts hundreds of years old
with the added hindrance of no vowels?

;-)

Richard

    and this is one of the reasons for "differences" in interpretation that
    we get when going from bible to bible.  there are many "words" that are
    guessed at by anybody trying to make the "right" word.  so, things are
    taken in context.  
    
    ah, I see; God wrote w/o vowels.  
    
    	:-)
    

Re:  Hebrew and vowels

In Hebrew, words are written (and easily identified) by consonants
only.  The vowel marks that came into usage were originally created
for the Hebrew language in the 9th century A.D. (I believe) by some
who wanted to preserve the original spoken language for the Scriptures.
It is exactly this lack of vowels that does not allow us to know
for sure how JHVH/YHWH (2 different English transliterations of the 
same 4 Hebrew letters) was pronounced.  We often say Jehovah or
Yahweh, but no one knows how to pronounce God's name (at least from
history - perhaps there are some fortunetellers out there?)

So, the lack of vowels is no hindrance at all.  In fact, vowels
are still usually no printed - and there are only vowel "points"
in the Hebrew language - there are no such thing as vowel letters.

However, with only 2 tenses, Hebrew does lend itself to a myriad of
interpretations (as opposed to Greek which has even more tenses than
English and defines what it means quite precisely - in comparison).

Collis

    Baaah, humbug!
    
    According to Rabbi Rothman who is a distinguished and very knowledable
    person and from whom I took a few courses on the "History of Jewish
    Thought" and "Anti-semitism", and who taught the class some things
    about the formation of scripture and the re-writing of scrolls, your
    understanding of the "easiness" of knowing the "right" word is a little
    more that a triffle off the mark.
    
    Not only is the language one w/o vowels, the marks both above the words
    and below the words (the "iotas??", for example) are in some places
    smeared, some places ripped away, some places just not absolute where
    they belong and if they are complete.
    
    In KNOW (pun intended) way are the words all that crystal clear to
    those who sat on committee trying to discern the correct punctuation.
    
    Maybe if God "spoke" the words to the prophets/scribes God should have
    put all this on CDs and we could play it on our multimedia PCs.
    
    I've also heard the same arguments (as I've supplied here) from other
    scholars, theologians, Rabbis and have read articles supporting this as
    well.
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

Ron,

Why are you insisting that vowel points (which are a 9th
century A.D. creation and have *no* historical significance
to Hebrew other than understanding pronunciation) are
important?  These are the "marks above and below the [letters]".

I freely agree with you that texts get torn, damaged and
whatever.  Fortunately, we do not have simply one or two
Old Testament texts.  And the discovery of the Dead Sea
Scrolls which had Old Testament texts at least 900 years
older than any we previously had shows exactly the opposite
of what you are now claiming - the texts had been preserved
extremely well during that 900 years.  None of which means
that there are not questions about what the original text
was.  Of course there are questions.  There are so many
questions that even theories like JEDP get credence.  But the
preservation of the texts from the time of Jesus to day is NOT
in question - the texts have been preserved extremely well.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    	I know there were more than 2 verb tenses in the ancient Hebrew
    language.  There was even a tense which we don't have in the
    English language, which suggests something about to happen that was
    as good as having already been done (which is, I might add, a part of
    prophesy and differs sharply from mere fortunetelling).
    
    	The vowels may have been added circa CE 900, but at least some of
    the texts were hundreds of years BCE!  Translation of ancient texts,
    even when all the information is present, is far from a simple and easy
    task.  I'm not sure why you would minimize it.
    
    Richard

 Rathole inducing question, I know, but when did we go from BC and AD
 to CE and BCE?




 Jim

    A tradition which stuck is that whenever the ancients saw the
    proper name YHWH, they would replace it with the Hebrew "Adonai,"
    which is translated "Lord."  Thus, our English translations most
    often have "the Lord" substituted for the name "Yahweh."
    
    To make things even more confusing, "Yahweh" is not the only name
    of God for which a substitution has been made.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    re .465
    
    I think God's smilin' at us as we continue this "tradition" of arguing
    over the meaning (some think "correct" or "only true" meaning) os
    scripture.  From all the various interpretations are we able to more
    fully come to know God, even the fleeting God who is so quick and so
    immeasurable as to not be able to be pinned down by us mortals no
    mnatter just how hard we continue to try to do so.
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

 How can one have faith in a God that can't be "pinned down".  If he
 is changing or fleeting, how can we possibly know who He is and what
 he is like and what he expects of us? My Bible says he's "the same, yesterday
 today and forever"..




 Jim

    .470  Ahhh, so true, Jim.  The same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
    And yet, YHWH can be accurately translated "I AM," or "I WILL BE," and
    even "THE BECOMING ONE," which suggests a God who is far from stagnant
    or undynamic.  There is something marvelously uncontainable about the
    nature of God.  Something ineffible.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    ... or a wonderful security - knowing and feeling just how much God
    loves us - all of us!
    
    	:-)
    

 I see...so I can be plodding along, patterning my life after the
 10 Commandments, for example, only to find that "surprise..theres'
 only 7!" or "Surprise, I decided to add 2 more effective last week",
 and oh, by the way the one about adultery has been revised to state
 "Thou shalt not commit adultery unless 1 or both partners just isn't
 happy anymore", and its OK to steal if it fits your definition of
 morality?



 Jim

    .473
    
    I don't think anybody's saying that, Jim.  However, I *try* to
    pattern my life after the example, teachings, and Spirit of Christ,
    rather than after the 10 Commandments.  So, what do *I* know, anyway?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    re: 473
    
    ??? Where'd that come from???
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

 
 Deep left field :-)


 I'm trying to understand this dynamic God who is not "stagnant" and wondering
 how one can have faith in a God that can not be pinned down.  If that is the 
 case, what changes, and what does not and how do you know?


 Humor me..its been a rough day :-)

    yeah; it's been rough for me too!  (I just got mini-called down for
    leaving the cover page of our Ordination Pgm on a Digital copier.  I
    made some copies yesterday during lunch (and supplied my own 8 1/2" X
    14" paper)  Seems a person found the sheet and went to my Personnel
    Consultant with it).
    
    Jim,
    
    Haven't you ever seen God's face shine out at you from some really
    weird places?  Places like from the faces of a half-starved child? or
    from an ice-skating Pirouetting child? Or from an opening in the clouds
    that just seemed to happen at a VERY "Godly-timed" moment?
    
    Haven't you ever seen the "other" side of a so-called "winning"
    argument when God suddenly appeared and then the "winning" side was
    seen from quite a different viewpoint?
    
    Does God ever "change" God's mind within scripture?  We know so, right? 
    What is unchanging is God's love for us.  What alswo is unchanging is
    our forgetfulness of that love.
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

I certainly agree with what Richard and Ron are saying about
God not being contained simply in a book.  There is so much
more to God than that.

However, I disagree with the attempt to trivialize God's revelation
about Himself *in* that book which the prophets time and time
again indicate is *extremely* important (but certainly not the
only important thing).

And, the fact that this discussion is centered around this particular
part of God's revelation seems appropriate given the title of the
topic.

Collis

  >I know there were more than 2 verb tenses in the ancient Hebrew
  >language.

In talking with a Jew in my group with some knowledge he Hebrew,
he readily came up with the "past" tense and the "completed" tense
(which is what I remember from the class).  It is very hard to
map tenses from Hebrew into English.  Perhaps I should have been
a little clearer.  I meant that grammatically there are two tenses.
It is possible to convey more than simply those two states - but
this is totally dependent on context (i.e. the grammar allows it
to be interpreted either way).  Does that help?

Collis

    I do not trivialize the Bible.  On the contrary, the Bible is
    a much more complex work than many are at ease with.  The Bible
    is too complex to label complete unto itself and without error.
    
    I take the Bible seriously.  I do not take all of it literally.
    
    I do not call this trivializing the Bible.
    
    Richard
    

    Richard; we're singing a duet here!
    
    	:-)
    

Richard,

I'm glad you don't trivialize Scripture.  At times it sounds
like that to me.

We do indeed argue over what Scripture means.  At times this is
very important; at other times it is quite inappropriate and
destructive.  I see those who deny the inerrancy of Scripture as
often lumping the two together and desiring to move to other
subjects and forget Scripture.  I see this is a terrible mistake
since the Word of God will stand forever.  We should see it,
read it, speak it, memorize it, apply it, share it, etc.  The
fact that we should do these things is shared in the Bible
numerous (hundreds of?) times.  Yet, this is not the attitude
of many.  Oh well.

Collis

> Rathole inducing question, I know, but when did we go from BC and AD
> to CE and BCE?

What's this "we" business?

Christians should continue to use "AD" and "BC".

There is no need to be politically correct, not when it is a subtle
denial of the Gospel.

  "Now is no time to be ashamed of the Gospel, no time at all.  Now
   is the time to shout the Gospel from the rooftops!"  -- JP II

/john

    The use of CE and BCE is no more a denial of the gospel than
    using the names of the days of the week: Tuesday, Wednesday,
    Thursday, Friday, Saturday -- all named for non-monotheistic
    gods.
    
    Richard

re Note 18.470 by CSLALL::HENDERSON:

>  How can one have faith in a God that can't be "pinned down".  

        How can one have faith in a God so finite that CAN be pinned
        down!

        Bob

  The point I've been trying to make, and obviously haven't done a good job, is
 that I don't understand that if God is ever changing, how do we know what he
 expects of us and how do we know what we can expect of Him.  Do his rules
 change?  Do  his expectations change?  I know his love doesn't change but
 what aspects of him are "ever changing"?





 Jim 

RE:             <<< Note 18.483 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
                 -< I didn't go from AD and BC to CE and BCE >-

>> Rathole inducing question, I know, but when did we go from BC and AD
>> to CE and BCE?

>What's this "we" business?


>Christians should continue to use "AD" and "BC".

>There is no need to be politically correct, not when it is a subtle
>denial of the Gospel.


 Hold on there John, I'm with you on this one..my use of the term "we" was
 not meant to imply that I agree with it.  I'll be the last to hop on 
 the politically correct bus. 



 Jim

>    The use of CE and BCE is no more a denial of the gospel than
>    using the names of the days of the week: Tuesday, Wednesday,
>    Thursday, Friday, Saturday -- all named for non-monotheistic
>    gods.

There is a subtle difference:

Using the term "Common Era" instead of "Year of our Lord" is a way of
denying that Jesus is Lord.  A denial of the meaning of the Incarnation.

Your analogy misses the mark.  If there were a set of Christian names
for the days of the week, then use of the pagan names would be similar,
but still not the same; that would be more like using a dating system
based on, for example, the building of a pagan temple.

/john

re Note 18.488 by COVERT::COVERT:

> There is a subtle difference:
> 
> Using the term "Common Era" instead of "Year of our Lord" is a way of
> denying that Jesus is Lord.  A denial of the meaning of the Incarnation.

        BS!!!!!

        It is merely an attempt to have a common term with those who
        do not regard Jesus as Lord -- to have a common term in no
        way endorses the other's viewpoint nor rejects the meaning
        behind the previous term.

        The only thing less rational than all this PC garbage is the
        anti-PC garbage!

        Bob

>        It is merely an attempt to have a common term with those who
>        do not regard Jesus as Lord -- to have a common term in no
>        way endorses the other's viewpoint nor rejects the meaning
>        behind the previous term.

	If this is true, why not have every one just keep using AD and BC?
	I mean if using AD and BC no way endorses a viewpoint why not use
	it? If, however, there is problem for some people in using those
	terms and they want to use others, how is that not a rejection?

			Alfred

    re: .485 Bob
    
    I agree.  My understanding of God from my early teaching in the
    Episcopalian church is that God is *in*finite, not finite.  With our
    finite human brains how could we possibly know All-That-Is?
    
    Of course, it would be a lot easier on us mortals if God could be defined 
    into a neat pigeon-hole and we could know *exactly* what is expected of 
    us in any given situation but that is not the case.  The human race was 
    given free will and the capacity to reason.  We are to explore our
    relationship to God within the context of the game called Life which
    doesn't come with rules other than a few "Thou shalt not"s that are
    given in the ten commandments and the example of the life of Jesus.  All 
    the rest is up to us.
    
    IMO-
    Nanci

    RE: .489
    
    Don't agree Bob. Using BCE is pure political correctness, in all its'
    stupid glory.
    
    Marc H.

    Years are generally counted starting at some event. The start of
    the rule of a king or a significant religious event or the founding 
    of a nation. I wonder how people hear would react to using the Moslem,
    Jewish or Chinese year but assigning them some name unrelated to the
    event they are based on - to use a common term. I think not favorably.
    I think too that Moslems, Jews and Chinese would be offended if you
    suggested that they use non cultural terms for the dating of their
    years. And rightly so.

    So for myself, in Israel and perhaps some Moslem countries I may use CE, 
    out of concern for communication in the country I am in. In my own 
    country I will take offense at suggestions that I not use AD/BC. I believe
    that clear communication is considered less important than political
    correctness by those who use CE/BCE in the US. Otherwise they would use 
    the terms already in general use. In an international company I would
    expect the most common terms to be used and that respect for tradition
    and history would be valued.

    			Alfred

re Note 18.490 by CVG::THOMPSON:

> 	If this is true, why not have every one just keep using AD and BC?
> 	I mean if using AD and BC no way endorses a viewpoint why not use
> 	it? If, however, there is problem for some people in using those
> 	terms and they want to use others, how is that not a rejection?

        Alfred,

        I feel the freedom to do a thing for reason X even while
        another does it for reason Y, a reason that I don't share.

        It certainly is true that a non-Christian, and in particular
        a Jew, might use BCE as a rejection of Jesus, but when I use
        it, I use it merely to have a common agreeable term.

        (It would be very different if the proposed common term were
        something like "YBG" -- "year of Baal's glory", but I have no
        problem describing the period of the current common dating
        scheme as a "common era", even though I may feel it does have
        more significance than that.)

        (A side note/nit: hardly anybody who uses "AD" does so
        correctly.)

        Bob

re Note 18.492 by JUPITR::HILDEBRANT:

>     Don't agree Bob. Using BCE is pure political correctness, in all its'
>     stupid glory.

        So how come John Covert's suggestion to use AD and BC isn't
        derided as "pure (conservative Christian) political
        correctness, in all its' [sic] stupid glory"?

        After all, that's what it is.

        Bob

    RE: .494
    Could you explain about the proper AD use?
    
    Marc H.

    RE: .495
    I quess we have a difference of opinion, then, over what PC means.
    
    I have no idea what (conservative Christian) political correctness is.
    
    Marc H.

    .488
    
    Analogies are never perfect.  That's why they're analogies.
    
    Richard
    

    .494 Marc,
    
    For one thing, AD is properly used in front of the year: AD 1993,
    for example.  This is standard, not PC.
    
    However, it's even on a placard on the moon with the AD appearing
    behind the year:  1993 AD.
    
    Richard

    
    >        it, I use it merely to have a common agreeable term.

    Frankly, I don't find it to be either common or agreeable. :-)
    Granted I saw it a lot in Israel but I've seldom seen or heard it
    in use in the US. And several here appear not to find it agreeable.
    To the contrary.

    		Alfred

Re: .490 Alfred

>	If this is true, why not have every one just keep using AD and BC?
>	I mean if using AD and BC no way endorses a viewpoint why not use
>	it?

Works for me.  Some non-Christians might be offended by it, though.

Re: .499 Richard

>    For one thing, AD is properly used in front of the year: AD 1993,
>    for example.  This is standard, not PC.
>    
>    However, it's even on a placard on the moon with the AD appearing
>    behind the year:  1993 AD.
    
That's because AD no longer means "in the year of our lord"; it just means
"after 1 BC".  The defacto standard has changed through common usage.

				-- Bob

As long as we're *way* off the topic, there was an effort made by the
early Quakers to counter the use of pagan names for days and months:
    
Sunday was called First-day
Monday was called Second-day
Tuesday was called Third-day, and so on.

January was First-month; February, Second-month and so on.

I was born First-month, 5th.

I married Tenth-month, 20th, 1979.

We go to worship on First-day.

It never caught on and fell into disuse after a generation or two.

I still prefer this format: 10-15-93 when dating forms, etc., over
October 15, 1993, and especially over 15-OCT-93.

Shalom,
Richard

Note 18.501
    
>That's because AD no longer means "in the year of our lord"; it just means
>"after 1 BC".  The defacto standard has changed through common usage.

That's pretty much so.  I suspect most people, even Christians, don't know
off-hand what Latin words AD stand for.  But then, I suspect most don't
know what words AM and PM stand for, either.

Richard

    RE: .501
    
    I do.....
    
    Marc H.

    I see I huge problem when a secular society does not respect the
    traditions of all the people.  To force Non Christians to use A.D. and
    B.C. is arrogant and offensive.  C.E. and B.C.E. are politically
    correct in the positive sense of that term. I believe it says to non
    Christians, I understand and respect that you may have an issue with
    the common way of dating which centers World History around our
    Christian Customs.
    
    Patricia
    
    

re Note 18.497 by JUPITR::HILDEBRANT:

>     I quess we have a difference of opinion, then, over what PC means.
>     
>     I have no idea what (conservative Christian) political correctness is.
  
        You know, I don't REALLY know where the term "political
        correctness" came from, but from hearing its usage over
        several years now it would appear to be extreme sensitivity
        to the political/social implications and connotations of
        language, and the influence of that sensitivity upon the
        choice of language.

        I do note that this term is most often applied by
        conservatives to criticize liberals.

        On the other hand it would appear that conservatives are just
        as sensitive, if not more so, to the implications of language
        choice.  (If they weren't, we wouldn't have had much of a
        rat-hole these past dozen or so notes, would we?)

        Of course, each side claims that it is the other side that is
        choosing its words with a (possibly ulterior) political
        motivation, whereas their own side is merely being
        thoughtful, logical, traditional, or some other worthy
        characteristic. :-)

        Bob

    I don't believe Jim is denying the infinity of God's being.  God has
    told us that He always was and always will be.  God is without
    beginning or end.  But that does not mean God is without traits that
    have existed and will always exist.  God is faithful - that will never
    change.  God is loving - that will never change.  God is just - that
    will never change. There area bunch of attributes about God that do not
    change.  For instance. Mercy.  Supposed God all of a sudden decided
    today not to be merciful - he could take my salvation away from me. 
    But that's not who God is. He made me that promise before the beginning
    of time and God does not lie.  I think what Jim is trying to say is
    that God is not a social being.  He doesn't change with what's socially
    acceptable within a given time period.  He's laid down His precepts and
    through Christ He showed us the greater meaning behind them.  For
    example the duality of "Thou shalt not murder" means don't do the
    physical act, but also it means not to harbor hatred in your heart
    against another.  Jesus didn't do away with the old meaning, he just
    added more to it.  That doesn't mean God changed.  He revealed more
    about who He was at that time just as He spoke through the prophets in
    the early days, He than spoke through Jesus in the last days.  Then He
    chose to have the ministry of Jesus and His apostles recorded for
    everyone in these last days.  I don't believe he will reveal anymore
    than He already has until Jesus comes again.
    
    We are finite beings and we only know what God has chosen to reveal
    about Himself and He chooses to whom He will reveal Himself.
    
    Jill

RE:             <<< Note 18.506 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web" >>>

   . I see I huge problem when a secular society does not respect the
   . traditions of all the people.  To force Non Christians to use A.D. and
   . B.C. is arrogant and offensive.  C.E. and B.C.E. are politically
   . correct in the positive sense of that term. I believe it says to non
   . Christians, I understand and respect that you may have an issue with
   . the common way of dating which centers World History around our
   . Christian Customs.
    
   
    I believe what it says to Christians is, we are taking yet another step
    to remove any trace of the existance of your beliefs from society, which
    is equally arrogant and offensive.




 Jim    
    

    RE: .509
    
    Correct
    
    Marc H.

    
>I believe it says to non
>    Christians, I understand and respect that you may have an issue with
>    the common way of dating which centers World History around our
>    Christian Customs.

    If this is what you want to do then start the year count on some other
    event. To start the year count with the birth of Christ (let's not 
    quibble over if it's off a year or 7) but deny that that is your base
    is intellectually dishonest.

    			Alfred

    > I believe what it says to Christians is, we are taking yet another step
    >    to remove any trace of the existance of your beliefs from society,
    > which     is equally arrogant and offensive.
    
    Jim, 
    
    "to remove any trace of the existance of your beliefs"
    
    That is ridiculous.  Just by the fact that History is dated from the
    time of Christ Birth is an enourmous centering on Christian events.  To 
    remove any trace would be to change the dating of history. 
    
    To use C.E. instead of A.D. is only offensive to those who feel that
    Christianity is the only way.  For a Christian to use C.E. shows
    respect for non Christians and does not in any way have to diminish
    one's Christian beliefs unless converting the whole world to
    Christianity is a central tennant of one's belief.    I believe that
    that is the heart of the issue.
    
    Patricia

    Alfred,
    
    To use Common Era rather than After the year of our lord for dating is
    not intellectually dishonest.  It Affirms that our dating is centered
    on the Christian Lord.  To require a non Christian to use A.D. is
    oppressive.  It requires them in a subtle way to affirm that Christ is
    Lord.  For me to use Common Era says that I recognize and affirm that not
    everyone accepts Christ as Lord.
    
    Patricia

RE:             <<< Note 18.512 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web" >>>

   . > I believe what it says to Christians is, we are taking yet another step
   . >    to remove any trace of the existance of your beliefs from society,
   . > which     is equally arrogant and offensive.
    
   . Jim, 
    
    ."to remove any trace of the existance of your beliefs"
    
    .That is ridiculous.  Just by the fact that History is dated from the
    .time of Christ Birth is an enourmous centering on Christian events.  To 
    .remove any trace would be to change the dating of history. 
    
      Gotta start somewhere..


   . To use C.E. instead of A.D. is only offensive to those who feel that
   . Christianity is the only way.  For a Christian to use C.E. shows
   . respect for non Christians and does not in any way have to diminish
   . one's Christian beliefs unless converting the whole world to
   . Christianity is a central tennant of one's belief.    I believe that
   . that is the heart of the issue.
    
   
     so you wish to tell Christians what we must do and how we are to feel
     towards others?  Why, after 2000 years do you, or whoever it is that
     comes up with this stuff feel this is necessary?  How much farther do
     you wish to go to wipe out the Christian heritage of this country? 



 Jim

    Jim,
    
    I thought it was American Indian heritage?  I thought we Christians
    wiped out THEIR heritage?
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

    Jim,
    
    I don't see it as a matter of wiping out the Christian Heritage.  I see
    it as a matter of the survival of that which is best within the Christian
    Heritage.  Christianity has proven itself able to reform itself.  We
    saw that in the Protestant Reformation and we saw it in the Vatican II
    documents.  There is still a long way to go.  The goal is a spiritual
    Community of all of humankind united in the Spirit of Love, Peace and
    Acceptance.  That includes Love, Peace, and Acceptance of both
    Christians and Non Christians.
    
    Without that Christianity gets reduced to the adherence of a bunch of
    doctrines and dogma.
    
    Patricia 

 So, do I understand you to say that someone has a goal to chop up
 Christianity and keep parts of it and toss the others out the window?
 Who's goal is that, and what would "they" toss out and what would "they"
 keep?





 Jim

re: Note 18.517 by Jim "Friend will you be ready?" 

> So, do I understand you to say that someone has a goal to chop up
> Christianity and keep parts of it and toss the others out the window?
> Who's goal is that, and what would "they" toss out and what would "they"
> keep?

They probably asked Martin Luther exactly the same thing.  .-)

Peace,

Jim

    re .517
    
    It is because of our diversity that we can ALL come to know God
    better.  This is a point of Paul's preaching that "to those who eat, do
    so to honor/love God and those who abstain, do so to love/honor God. 
    It isn't that we (people) are ripping Christianity apart; it is that we
    are building up.
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

 I see...so building up means that we are to remove the acknowledgement of
 the birth of His son who lived and died to save all of humanity? Acknowledge
 those parts of the Bible that give us nice warm/fuzzy feelings and reject 
 those parts that are unpleasant or don't fit our social/political agenda?


 
 Jim

    Nope!  Building up means scripture read from different lenses means
    significant things to significant people.  I remember sitting in one
    course at seminary during which we roll-played as though we were in a
    South American or Latin American country and were engaged in what's
    known to be "house-churches".
    
    Reading scripture - and being touched intimately by God - from the
    lense of a scourged people is different from the "same" reading within
    a typically European bred but American, say Episcopal or UCC, church.
    
    Have you seen the movie "Malcom X" or read "The Autobiography of Malcom
    X?"  If so, do you remember how he took on the white racist view of
    scripture?  
    
    I say again that it is because of our necessary differences that
    scripture is so wonderful for it allows us to work toward understanding
    God so very much better when we work toward understanding that which is
    somewhat hidden, somewhat tantalyzing in our efforts to understand.
    
    I thank God that God chose to NOT make things easy for us for us to
    understand and that we are called to uncover the "truth" from whereever
    we sit in the bog of life.
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

re Note 18.520 by CSLALL::HENDERSON:

>  I see...so building up means that we are to remove the acknowledgement of
>  the birth of His son who lived and died to save all of humanity? 

        If it is really true that indicating our year numbering by
        the letters "AD" rather than "CE" is a significant and
        substantial part of the Christian heritage of our country and
        the witness of Christians to the world, then Christianity has
        indeed very little to offer.

        If Christianity is offering the nation and the world much of
        life-changing value, then the choice of "AD" rather than "CE"
        is trivially insignificant.

        Bob

RE:<<< Note 18.522 by LGP30::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish (DTN 223-8576, MSO2-2/A2, IM&T)" >>>
                         -< either trivial, or tragic >-

.>  I see...so building up means that we are to remove the acknowledgement of
.>  the birth of His son who lived and died to save all of humanity? 

       
       . If Christianity is offering the nation and the world much of
       . life-changing value, then the choice of "AD" rather than "CE"
       . is trivially insignificant.

        
    Obviously Christianity has more to offer the world..if the choice of
 AD/CE is so insignificant why are there groups intent on changing it?
 



 Jim

    Suggesting a non Christian  use the term A.D. is oppressive and
    therefore not trivial.  The term requires them to recognize foreign
    deities as there own.
    
    Suggesting a Christian use the term C.E. is not oppressive.  It
    implies the Christian era is the Common Era.  To the Ecumenical Christian the te
    the term is trivial. 
    
    Patricia

re.524 Patricia

>Suggesting a non Christian  use the term A.D. is oppressive and
>    therefore not trivial

Oppressive may be an overstatement unless they get whipped over it!

But I do recognize that it may be at least inconsiderate. For instance, it
is inconsiderate that I must refer to foreign deities all the time. There's 
SUN-day, and Saturn-day, and I don't know the others but probably all
the week names are from a foreign deity.

Maybe we should change the names to ONEDAY, TWODAY, THREEDAY, etc. and thereby
show respect to christians. You would support that too, wouldn't you?

ace

    
    >Suggesting a non Christian  use the term A.D. is oppressive and
    >therefore not trivial.  The term requires them to recognize foreign
    >deities as there own.

    I disagree. I do not see it as requiring anyone to recognize a deity
    as ones own. All it does is identify the starting point of the counting
    convention. So it is trivial.

    On the other hand suggesting that a Christian use C.E. is oppressive 
    because it suggests that the original base for the counting period
    was invalid and should only be kept because of convention. And than 
    only if the name is changed to obscure the origin.

    I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

    			Alfred

    This string of replies, to me, clearly shows how foolish the
    "politically correct" line of thinking is. 
    
    Marc H.

    Well, I didn't think the exchange would go on this long.  I'll
    start a new topic since this tangent is way off the intent of
    this string.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re Note 18.527 by JUPITR::HILDEBRANT:

>     This string of replies, to me, clearly shows how foolish the
>     "politically correct" line of thinking is. 
  
        And how foolish slavish conservatism is, too!

        Bob

    RE: .529
    
    Correct! No disagreement at all.
    
    Marc H.

| <<< Note 91.3218 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



| The Bible doesn't tell all there is to know about God.  It tells us what
| we need to know.  The rest is discovery.

	Mark, I'm confused by what you said above. It came across to me that
the discovery part isn't really all that important as the Bible tells us what
we need to know. Could you clarify this a bit? Thanks.


Glen

>| The Bible doesn't tell all there is to know about God.  It tells us what
>| we need to know.  The rest is discovery.
>
>	Mark, I'm confused by what you said above. It came across to me that
>the discovery part isn't really all that important as the Bible tells us what
>we need to know. Could you clarify this a bit? Thanks.

The discovery part may be as important *when genuine* but it is certainly 
not a very reliable source of truth.  And the Bible is about truth and
the Truth.

In discussing the Truth withmy father one day, he had some interesting insights.

First, there is a Truth that just is and innate.  The founders of the
United States decalred such a belief by stating "We hold these truths
to be self-evident." For example, it is intrisically wrong to murder
someone.  No law needs to be given for it to be known as a truth.

When Cain murdered Abel, he knew he had done wrong before it was declared
by writ or voice.

Also, the purpose of the law "was designed to silence all mankind under
the conviction that they have nothing to say against the charge of sin."
That is, the Truth of sin and righteousness existed *before* the law and 
was NOT brought into being *with* the law.

John Wesley has a "quardalateral sources of authority" (and the scholars
in here can help me out) for determine what Truth is when it is in question.

1. The Word
2. Tradition
3. Reason
4. Experience

The trouble is that many of us want to zip on past 1, 2, and 3, and rely on
number 4.  Nothing is Truth that contradicts the tenor of Scripture.

But Scripture is interpreted.  Anyone who says we rely on the word of God
and the Word only has their interpretation of the Scripture.  So these other
pieces come into play, remembering the hierarchy.  An interpretation CANNOT
contradict the tenor of Scipture and be held as a truth.

"Tradition" is claimed by some, and should not simply mean "the unbroken
succession" of an orgainzation.  The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic
church of Jesus Christ is not limited to an organization.  The church is 
One in Jesus, holy in that it belongs to God not men, catholic in that it 
is worldwide; universal, and apostolic in that it has not varied from what 
the disciples taught.  (Friend Catholic: I hope you can see that I am not 
tearing down your church by lifting up His Church.)

Reason is prone to change with the debasement of humanity and the only thing
more fleeting than reason is personal experience.  Yet, when they affirm the 
tradition which affirms the Word, they then can be trusted, for none of these 
four points of the quadralateral are sufficient alone, but taken together,
provide a mechanism by which we, as humans, can interpret the Truths
that pre-exist the law.

Mark

18.532

Well spoken, Mark.  I think I would have tended to emphasize the positive
elements of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, myself.  It's good to have someone
point out its limitations.

Peace,
Richard

.532 is a reprint from some other material I wrote.

There are limitations to everything temporal.
Neither do I think I said anything positive nor negative
about Wesley's four-points about authority.  I guess it
depends on the "interpretation."

MM

	Mark, Thanks. I agree with what you wrote but I'm sure we disagree on
how the interpretation is deemed correct.


Glen

Note 812.11

>            		-< one good jab deserves another >-

Allow me to offer the other cheek, Collis.

> >The Bible does not even claim inerrancy of itself.  

>Totally, absolutely false.  You have chosen to not believe
>the many places that the Bible indicates that it is true
>and accurate.  In some cases, you have chosen to re-interpret
>the Bible in inconsistent ways so as to show that it does
>not claim it is true.

On the contrary, I refuse to read in things which aren't there.  I refuse
to take the Bible out of the context of a library of writings and thrust it
into fitting the mold of a front-to-back, entirely-in-order, homogeneous
whole.

I believe the Bible to be a source of truth.  It is not, however, a source
of fact.

> >Inerrancy is a fundamentalist notion.

>Since fundamentalism started only 100+ years ago, I wonder
>what people believed before that?

A technicality.  Your brand of evangelicalism is, for all intents and purposes,
the same as fundamentalism, as far as you've made it apparent to me.

Peace,
Richard

    I missed this statement "fundamentalism started a little over 100 years
    ago"... can someone explain what this means, please?
    
    You see I guage fundamentalism by the Bible... if you are considered a
    fundamentalist because of following the Bible... how can that be 100
    years ago that it started?  People have been following the Bible since
    its inception.
    
    I'm confooosed... what does this mean? %-}

 It means that in the last 100 years we became intelligent enough
 to question the authority/accuracy/inerrancy of the Bible.





 Jim

    .538 That's not sarcastic banter now, is it, Jim?
    
    It all depends on whose bull is being gored.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    Richard,
    
    The difference in Jim's note is that it's not directed to someone
    specific in the conference ...
    
    It doesn't read,
    
    Richard,
    
    It means that in the last 100 years folks like you have become
    intelligent enough........
    
    Had your name been attached to it, then you'd have a specific reason
    to feel personally jabbed.
    

    Also see topics "What is Fundamentalism?" and "Rescuing the Bible from
    Fundamentalism."
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    .540  I see!  Well, I can certainly accomodate you there.  Just
    make the brunt of the remark real vague!
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

 Perhaps I was being a bit sarcastic as I don't place a great deal of
 credence in the "intelligence" of those (no one in this conference)
 scholarly types who have sought over the last 100 years to reduce the
 influence of the Bible and Christianity on society.



Jim

    Richard you don't see the difference between a statement directed
    towards someone in particular and a statement not directed to anyone in
    particular?
    
    Hmmmmmmmmm... vague has nothing to do with it.

    I have to agree with Richard on this one.
    
    I understood Jim's remark as a jab even if it wasn't directed
    personally at me.  
    
    Sarcasm is sarcasm regardless of whether it is personally directed or
    just directed.
    
    Patricia

 Jeepers..didn't mean to create such a rucus (sp?).  Quite honestly,
 it was not directed at any one person..it was directed at the human race
 that likes to put itself on a higher plane than God..


 My honest, sincere apologies, Patricia, Richard and anyone else who
 feels I'm taking a jab at them.  I was not.


 Shall I delete it?

    You guys are so intelligent.  You mean to tell me that if a person is
    sarcastic in a remark that is not directed at any particular individual
    that it is the same as a remark that is directed at a particular
    individual?
    
    Now notice 'You guys are so intelligent" is a statement to which you could
    take offense.. because it's directed at you!
    
    :-) :-)  That is the kind of sarcastic remark I'm talking about.
    
    

    Jim,
    
    You didn't do anything wrong.  You're just being used as a scapegoat
    for Richard's sarcastic banter that is personally directed.
    
    Nancy

    Jim,
    
    your note is just an example.  Its irony, its sarcasm, the message
    comes across as I suspect it was intented.  The message is if you don't
    believe in the Gospel the same way I do you are stupid.
    
    But since you use the Bible as the basis for your behavoir you have
    nothing to worry about.  Paul uses the exact same technique in II Cor I
    believe 12, the fools speech.  So you are in Good company.
    
    By the way, I believe that Paul's treatment of those he does not agree
    with in his letters is wrong.  Both in 2 Cor and in Galatians.
    
    
    
    
    Patricia
    

    Patricia,
    
    With all due respect what you *think* isn't necessarily Truth.  It most
    certainly is situational truth, as it is what *you* believe.  However,
    it is not the Truth of the Bible.
    
    On the same hand, the above paragraph pertains to me as well.  God
    has placed absolutes in the Bible for that which is most important,
    salvation.  We can question *how* to be more Christ-like in our
    individual situations and thus interpretations may vary.  But God
    revealed to us exactly what salvation is without question.
    
    Nancy
    

    Patricia... I'm still waiting for scriptures on the other.
    
    BTW, does your assessment of Paul represent women's lib?  I
    personally think Paul's assertion of how women should be treated is
    exactly the way I would love for a Godly man to treat me.
    
    I am not woman's libber and nor do I think the Bible is against women. 
    I truly believe the problem lies in our rebellion against how God
    created us in the garden.  We are not content in whatsoever state we
    are in, but rather look to be god in our lives by going against the
    very purpose for which we were created.
    
    Nancy

    
    
    > I have to agree with Richard on this one.
    
    ...surprise
    
    
    now thats sarcastic :-)
    
    David

RE:             <<< Note 18.549 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web" >>>

       
   > your note is just an example.  Its irony, its sarcasm, the message
   > comes across as I suspect it was intented.  The message is if you don't
   > believe in the Gospel the same way I do you are stupid.
    
     Well, I'm sorry you took it that way..



    >But since you use the Bible as the basis for your behavoir you have
    >nothing to worry about.  Paul uses the exact same technique in II Cor I
    >believe 12, the fools speech.  So you are in Good company.
    
     Thank you..I consider it quite an honor to be lumped with the likes of
     Paul..actually there are a number of places where Paul uses the term "fool"
     or "foolish" (though I didn't see it in the reference you provided.
     1 Cor 1:18-25 is one passage..v18 "For the preaching of the cross is to
     them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power
     of God". v19 "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
     and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent"
    
     V21 "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God,
     it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe".

     v23 "but we preach Christ crucified, and unto the Jew a stumblingblock,
      and unto the Greeks foolishness" 

     v25 "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness
          of God is stronger than men"



   > By the way, I believe that Paul's treatment of those he does not agree
   > with in his letters is wrong.  Both in 2 Cor and in Galatians.
    
    
     And that is the choice we all have..to accept or reject the Word of God.
     I believe it is arrogant of humans to challenge God's Word and say that
     He is wrong..which was the basis of my statement that aroused the ire of
     folks in here.  In human arrogance, intellegence and "wisdom" we think
     we have the ability to change or distort what God has given us in His
     Word and tell Him that those He sent to deliver His word to us were "wrong"
     Even Peter who had disagreements with Paul, recognized Paul's writings
     as scripture (2Peter 3:15-16) and God Breathed.  It is not Paul with
     whom you have a disagreement, but God Himself.




    Jim
    
        

    I believe Jesus is the Word of God.  Therefore, I do not reject the
    Word of God.
    
    The Bible is a book, more like a library.  I take it very seriously.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    re  Note 18.553 by CSLALL::HENDERSON

    Peter only addresses Paul's writings that refer to the Lords patience
    as an opportunity for our salvation. Peter does not say that all of
    Paul's letters were written with God given wisdom, nor does he say that
    the entirety of any give letter is God inspired... Peter does not refer
    to Paul as a prophet, nor does he say the entire content of all of
    Paul's letters that appear in our modern Bibles is God breathed. Peter
    only refers to a single concept that Paul has stated repeatedly in his
    letters.

    I believe make some sweeping judgments based on you own preconceived
    assumptions. (This is not to say that *I* am error-free).
    
    
    Eric

   
    2 Peter 3:16-17 (NASB)

    "and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as our beloved
     brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him wrote to you, as also in
     *all* his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some
     things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as
     the do the *rest* of the scriptures, to their own destruction" (italics
     mine)

   2 Timothy 3:16 "all scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teach-
     ing, for reproof, for corrrection, for training in righteousness;"


     Does Peter refer to Paul's writings as scripture?  And what does Paul
     say of the origin of scripture?




   Jim

    Was Peter speaking of the New Testament canon in his letter?
    
    I believe Scripture to be inspired, as did the author of Timothy
    (which was probably not Paul).  Some might assume "inerrant" as
    part of what "God-breathed" means.  I do not make that assumption.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

 Who said Paul didn't write Timothy?  That's one I haven't heard before.


 I believe that since God has the power to create the earth, He also has the
 power to see that His Word is preserved down through the ages.  And if God
 breathed or inspired it, He saw to it that it was without error.  I'll take
 what we have in the Bible over any other "revelation" from humans.



 Jim

Note 18.558


> Who said Paul didn't write Timothy?  That's one I haven't heard before.

There was a fairly recent reference to this in C-P.  I hate to burst your
bubble, but most scholars agree Timothy was written some time after Paul.
Even conservative Christians such as John Covert acknowledge that Timothy
was not likely to have been written by Paul.

The men who decided the canon, however, probably thought Timothy *was* written
by Paul, because one of the main criteria for admission to the NT canon was
that the writing had to be associated with an Apostle.

> I believe that since God has the power to create the earth, He also has the
> power to see that His Word is preserved down through the ages.  And if God
> breathed or inspired it, He saw to it that it was without error.

You are free to believe what you wish to believe, but what you're saying
here about God insuring Scripture to be inerrant is not supported by Scripture.

I believe Jesus Christ to be God's Word.

> I'll take
> what we have in the Bible over any other "revelation" from humans.

How about "revelation" through humans?  That's what the Bible is, you know.

Peace,
Richard

    .558
    
    PS You didn't answer my question in .557.  It was not rhetorical.
    

RE:           <<< Note 18.557 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "On loan from God" >>>

   > Was Peter speaking of the New Testament canon in his letter?
    

     Well, we don't know that,now do we?  We do know however that he referred
     to Paul's writings as being scripture, do we not?  And we do know what 
     Paul said about the inspiration of scripture.





    Jim
   

RE:           <<< Note 18.559 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "On loan from God" >>>

>> Who said Paul didn't write Timothy?  That's one I haven't heard before.

>There was a fairly recent reference to this in C-P.  I hate to burst your
>bubble, but most scholars agree Timothy was written some time after Paul.
>Even conservative Christians such as John Covert acknowledge that Timothy
>was not likely to have been written by Paul.

 My bubble is hardly burst, though I appreciate the concern, thank you.  I'll
 poke around and try to find that discussion.




>How about "revelation" through humans?  That's what the Bible is, you know.


 Yes, and I believe that Revelation was complete with the closing of the Canon.
 If indeed God continues to reveal Himself through Humans, it must be tested
 against the Bible before I'll believe it.  We have plenty of people running
 around today claiming to have revelation from God..heck we have people claiming
 that God told them to kill people..are we to believe that?



 Jim

.562

> Yes, and I believe that Revelation was complete with the closing of the Canon.

I don't.  Why should I?  I don't necessarily believe God ordained the closing
of the canon.  The canon is also subject to some variance, in case you weren't
aware.

> If indeed God continues to reveal Himself through Humans, it must be tested
> against the Bible before I'll believe it.  We have plenty of people running
> around today claiming to have revelation from God..heck we have people
> claiming that God told them to kill people..are we to believe that?

With or without the Bible, there's an element of risk of being wrong.  There
are people in the Bible who claim that God told them to kill other people, too.
However, I am certainly not opposed to verification against Scripture.

Peace,
Richard

.561
    
>     Well, we don't know that,now do we?  We do know however that he referred
>     to Paul's writings as being scripture, do we not?  And we do know what 
>     Paul said about the inspiration of scripture.

I suspect Peter was speaking only of the writings of Paul of which Peter had
knowledge.  I suspect nobody knows which ones those were.

Scripture means writing.  What separates scripture from Scripture?  What
separated what was culled from the NT and what wasn't?  Whoever wrote Timothy
was probably referring to the Septuagint, wouldn't you suspect?

Peace,
Richard

   Well, we'll all find out one day..I'll stay on the path I'm on now, thanks.







 Jim

One very likely explanation of authorship is that 1&2 Timothy were written
by a disciple of Paul from unpublished Pauline writings.

/john

    .566  Mmmm...It's a possibility.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    .565
    
    I respect the path you're on.  I would hope that respect for one's
    path would be mutual.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

re Note 18.556 by CSLALL::HENDERSON:

>     "and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as our beloved
>      brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him wrote to you, as also in
>      *all* his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some
>      things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as
>      the do the *rest* of the scriptures, to their own destruction" (italics
>      mine)
> 
>    2 Timothy 3:16 "all scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teach-
>      ing, for reproof, for corrrection, for training in righteousness;"
> 
> 
>      Does Peter refer to Paul's writings as scripture?  And what does Paul
>      say of the origin of scripture?
  
        My answer would be "of course"!

        The word "scripture" means sacred writings.

        There is no doubt that Paul wrote about sacred things.

        I have no doubt that Paul was under divine inspiration.

        I also believe that this conference is sacred writing, and
        that God has inspired its contents.

        I do not believe that this means that every last sentence in
        this conference is objective truth.

        But I do believe that all scripture, including this
        conference, is "inspired by God and profitable for teaching,
        for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness."

        That's why I support it.

        Bob