Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Attempting Inerrancy's Salvation Message-ID: Date: 15 Jan 90 08:42:39 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 Lines: 45 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu >In other words, 2 Timothy 3:16,17 doesn't really mean what it says, just one >of God's jokes on the human race. And what does it say? It says that scripture-- in this case, the OT, and perhaps even including all of the Septuagint-- is something that all christians should read, and that there is good stuff in it. >So, a question is posed to all the net-theologians - which parts of scripture >do you accept as the Word of God (because they are "correct") and which parts >do you reject (because they are "incorrect")? What criteria do you use to >determine inspired words of God vs. questionable words of men? This is a rather "when did you stop beating your wife" kind of question. It presumes that this sort of judgement is how you should apporach scripture. If you ignore a certain modernist streak which takes its primary authority from outside of scripture, it appears that people do not disagree over interpretation because one person claims that some scripture is in error. It's interesting that the most commonly cited contradictions on scripture have no real doctrinal importance. Inerrancy is most commonly a sign of a certain type of interpretation, rather than a cause of that interpretation. >Sheesh, and thought I had finally found something I could rely on...but who'd >walk across a bridge with so many cracks and holes in it? This is something that I have observed among all sorts of people in religious discussion: this emphasis on certainty as a first principle. This seems to me to be a trap. God doesn't have to cooperate with every demand; in this case, indeed, it's quite clear that he has NOT cooperated. The texts of the NT which we have do vary, in some cases considerably. Argument over what these texts do mean has been disputed from the beginning of recorded theology. Belief that one can pick up the bible and know with surety what it is telling you is a dangerous self-delusion; it substitutes one's own interpretation of the bible for the bible itself. As far as certainty is concerned, lots of us are able to continue in the faith without all these guarantees of certainty. I think this is the strongest argument against this supposed need for certainty. -- C. Wingate + "Glorious now behold him arise, + King and God and Sacrifice; mangoe@cs.umd.edu + Heav'n sings alleluia: mimsy!mangoe + Alleluia the earth replies."