Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: About Literalism: in what sense is God the author of Scripture?
Message-ID: <465@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25-Jun-85 12:48:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.465
Posted: Tue Jun 25 12:48:26 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Jun-85 00:37:10 EDT
References: <2330@topaz.ARPA> <2129@sdcc6.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 114

In article <2129@sdcc6.UUCP> ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) writes:

>> The only one of these that I think can be dismissed out of hand is
>> the idea of direct information transfer from God to the authors.
>> This would make the Bible essentially an account of a revelation from
>> God to the authors, and not a historical document.  

>Exactly, a revelation, just like the book of the same name.  God
>specifically claims to be revealing Himself to mankind, why would it
>seem odd that many of the writings (portions of Isaiah, Daniel and many
>other of the books of prophesy) claim to be direct revelations from God
>to another individual but also with relevance to us.  I would feel much
>safer with a direct revelation from God than with someone else's
>observations of what Christ was like, unless God also takes a hand in
>that.

But that's the same problem; all you've done is substitute "revelation" for
"inspiration".  The question is still the same: how do we get from God to
the paper?

In any case, Isaiah is vastly unlike much of the Bible.  Take the Gospels,
for instance.  It's unclear how you apply a "God told the authors what to
write" theory to them, expecially considering the strong evidence within the
texts that Matthew and Luke both derive from Mark.

>The Psalms are songs of David, many written as prayers to God, but we read 
>those, and more often than not see the application to our own lives.
>Most of the books of prophesy contain messages to other people and other
>countries of a time period thousands of years back, but we can still
>find meaning and application in them.  The trick of the Bible is that it
>was written by specific people at specific times concerning specific
>problems, but, it can be applied to almost everyone, everywhere at any
>time.  Most people consider Shakespeare such a great writer because his
>books aren't tied to just on time period or one event.  Sure Julius
>Caesar deals with the life and times of Julius Caesar, but it deals with
>much more and in the same way that the Bible deals with specific events
>and times, but also, much more.

I agree with this passage with one reservation: it must not be assumed that
ALL of the bible speaks to ALL situations and times.

>> I believe the Biblical argument is the more important one.  However I
>> don't think it says what the literalists claim it says.  The most
>> typical passage is 2 Tim 3:16: "All Scripture is inspired by God, and
>> is useful for teaching the truth ..."

>Hmm, that's not how my translation reads and the ending is also crucial.
>"All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for doctrine,
>correction, reproof and instruction in righteousness, that the man of
>God may be perfect, furnished unto all good works." (II Tim 3:16,17)
>It would seem odd that a book with errors would perfectly enable us to
>do all of the good works God asks of us, including correction and
>instruction, granted, "in righteousness."  But also, think about some of
>the other promises about the word of God.  Psalm 116:9, "How can a young
>man keep his way pure, by keeping it according to Thy word."  If the
>Bible has errors in it, then how will my way be pure if I happen to be
>following or believing in one of the errors?  Another verse is Hebrews
>4:7 (somewhere around there) "For the word of God is living and active
>and sharper than any two-edged sword and able to judge the thoughts and
>intentions of the heart."  How could a book of errors judge the heart?

This argument is erroneous and misleading on four counts:

     1) The last sentence misrepresents the opposing viewpoint; it is not
        claimed that the bible is generally erroneous, only that it is not
        error-free.

     2) It fails to distinguish that much of the bible makes statements on
        the symbolic and metaphorical levels, as well as on the literal.  A
        literal fallacy may not have a bearing on the metaphorical truth.

     3) Even the passages cited do not claim inerrancy (and I note that the
        word "doctrine" does not appear in either the RSV or the Jerusalem
        Bible' [Editorial note: please include versions with scrpitural
        references]).  Moreover, Jesus a two points denies the perfection of
        scripture: in Mark 7:15, he sweeps away the dietary law, and at
        another point, he claims that the divorce law given in the Mosaic
        law is a concession to (Jewish?) human nature.

     4) Finally, Jesus himself says that you have to look at the spirit
        rather than the letter of the law.  He breaks the Sabbath more than
        once.  It follows from this position that the law is NOT perfect,
        for if it were, one could just do exactly what it says.  What Jesus
        seems to be saying is that it is by following the spirit of the law
        that a man could be perfect, and the law is the surest guide to that
        spirit.  The bible can therefore contain errors and yet be necessary
        for teaching.

>> My position is that the Biblical authors were competent but not
>> error-free, and not independent of the knowledge of their times.
>> This position is very different than the more extreme critical one,
>> which holds that the Bible can't be used as a source for historical
>> knowledge at all.
>
>I think for the most part I would agree with you on your last statement,
>all but the not error free part.  There's at least one other theory
>about the inspiration of the scriptures that you didn't put forth, so
>let me try to explain it.  Imagine God, sitting up in heaven, deciding
>that He wanted the Bible written.  While in some cases He did simply
>tell people what to write (i.e. Isaiah, John), for the majority of the
>New Testament He wanted it to be by the hand of the author's themselves.
>God had certain things He wanted to see written in the Bible, and He had
>certain ideas about the way they should be written.  So instead of God
>either just letting things go and hoping for the best or completely
>coming down and taking someone over He conceivably could have looked
>over the whole world and all the people in it and "arranged" it that the
>people who He KNEW would write it the "correct way" would end up writing
>it.

Well, I think this is a perfectly reasonable theory, and I think I believe
in it, but it sure doesn't get you inerrancy.


Charley Wingate   umcp-cs!mangoe