Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: crf@tomato.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Bible the word of God? Message-ID: Date: 8 Nov 90 04:43:30 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Princeton University Mathematics Department Lines: 53 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article gt1104c@prism.gatech.edu (SILVERT,STANLEY DAVID JR) writes: >I think that part of your problem exists in the belief that the Bible is the >literal word of God. Nothing could be further from the truth. It can be shown >quite conclusively that the Bible was not literally written or dictated by the >Almighty. The modern term for the belief that the Bible is somehow divinely >created (not just inspired) is called "Biblical inerrancy." Controversy over >this belief is what is now destroying America's largest Protestant denomination, >The Southern Baptist Convention, even though few Bible scholars actually >support the inerrancy idea. > > ... [more stuff deleted] I'm a bit uncomfortable with the paragraph above, for the following reason: it seems that different people mean different things when they talk about "inerrancy." Of course one common meaning is what you've described: the idea that God directly created the Bible (often accompanied by a belief that such-and-such pastor or church understands it completely so that nothing they say is ever wrong). IF that's what you think when you hear "inerrancy" then I agree with your comments. I'm no expert, but I've heard that when Bible scholars talk about inerrancy their definitions are not the outrageous ones above. Apparently they have no problems with saying yes, the Bible was written by men (men inspired by God, but still men); yes, the Bible is subject to the same sorts of textual corruption as any other book; and yes, we still have to put work into understanding the cultural background, figurative language, ... before we can have any hope of fully understanding what the Bible is saying. (Let me emphasize that this refers to what _scholars_ say; some of these subtleties tend to get lost before they find their way out to the average Christian-in-the-street.) None of these things affects the Main Issue. As I see it, the Main Issue boils down to this: Premise A: The Bible is, somehow, inspired by God. Premise B: God does not lie. ---------------------- Conclusion: *If* (and yes, this is a BIG if) we could completely understand what God is trying to say to us through the Bible, we would find it all to be true. Stated in this form, I think any Christian would agree with this. The unfortunate thing is that some understand inerrancy to mean this, and thus call themselves inerrantists; and others believe inerrancy to mean something more, something untenable, and thus say that they reject inerrancy. I would welcome any corrections, comments, questions, ... I would not welcome flames, rotten tomatoes, ... :-) Grace and peace, Charles Ferenbaugh