Your View of the Bible

[Rvaughn]

In the thread about DACA Keith and I had some discussion about the Bible, in which (I think) we agreed to disagree. Our views are widely divergent, where I believe the Bible is correct in all it says and Keith believes it has many contradictions and absurdities. This brought a wondering to my mind as to the views on the Bible held by other members of BaptistLife.com. I suspect they could cover these and all points in between. I start this thread not to debate about whether the Bible is inerrant or in error, but just to ask if any of you will describe your own views. I think it could be helpful in understanding where others are coming from.

If any of you want to debate, feel free. I'm not. I'm going to briefly describe my position and ask if you will do the same.

I would use the following words to describe my view of the Bible:

• Inspired (given by God through his Spirit to the writers)
• Inerrant (free from error)
• Authoritative (having the weight of God's authority)
• Sufficient (gives us what we need to know for the purpose it was given; this does not exclude the work of the Holy Spirit)

I would add that (1) I try to consistently interpret the whole Bible, but have no illusions that I have adequately done so, and (2) I don't have the answers to all of your questions; I don't even have the answers to all of mine. I try to live in the light of what I do know and understand.

[Dave Roberts]

In the thread about DACA Keith and I had some discussion about the Bible, in which (I think) we agreed to disagree. Our views are widely divergent, where I believe the Bible is correct in all it says and Keith believes it has many contradictions and absurdities. This brought a wondering to my mind as to the views on the Bible held by other members of BaptistLife.com. I suspect they could cover these and all points in between. I start this thread not to debate about whether the Bible is inerrant or in error, but just to ask if any of you will describe your own views. I think it could be helpful in understanding where others are coming from.

If any of you want to debate, feel free. I'm not. I'm going to briefly describe my position and ask if you will do the same.

I would use the following words to describe my view of the Bible:

• Inspired (given by God through his Spirit to the writers)
• Inerrant (free from error)
• Authoritative (having the weight of God's authority)
• Sufficient (gives us what we need to know for the purpose it was given; this does not exclude the work of the Holy Spirit)

I would add that (1) I try to consistently interpret the whole Bible, but have no illusions that I have adequately done so, and (2) I don't have the answers to all of your questions; I don't even have the answers to all of mine. I try to live in the light of what I do know and understand.

I would heartily agree with 1, 3, and 4, but I have done too much textual study with the Greek (and Hebrew) texts to agree with 2. Also, I'm convinced that the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy (1978) does more to undermine biblical authority than promote it in all the exceptions it presents through which you can back a transfer truck.

[Rvaughn]

...the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy (1978)...

Dave, thanks for mentioning this document. It might be a helpful reference point to those who are familiar with it. I am aware of its existence but have never read it. I guess I believe what I believe about the Bible's accuracy and didn't feel I needed someone else's document to authentic that (as well as moving in different circles). Since you mentioned it here, I looked it up. It is available in several places online, including at DTS: The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

I haven't read through it, but quickly read "A Short Statement" at the beginning, with which I can readily agree.

Thanks again.

[KeithE]

A qualified yes to 1, 3, 4. Disagree entirely with 2.

1. I agree that the writers of scripture were inspired by God initially; some deviated to odd statements fairly soon (e.g. imprecatory Psalms), some universalized local customs (e.g. Paul about women), some just didn’t express that inspired message very clearly (e.g. Job, Revelation and many of the prophets at times) and many (probably most) gave a really good inspired message that we, in turn, need to be inspired by.

2. I'm with Dave, but I’ve only read translations. There are many contradictions (e.g. resurrections accounts details) , absurdities (e.g. MT 18:19 "If two [believers] agree about anything they ask, God will do it for them”) and morally questionable advice (e.g. EX 22:16-17 "An unbetrothed virgin is required to marry her seducer"). Many more here (some answerable honestly, some not answerable).

3. Scripture certainly has authoritative value as a message from God for those able to discern the truth. But even those textual-based messages are not the sole authority - also important are nature itself, conscience, reason, and above all the Spirit which alone has the potential to lead to all truth.

4. I would say that the bible is sufficient for a rudimentary knowledge about God the Creator and Jesus the exemplar and it sufficiently has the ability (if someone reads the best parts) to lead one to accepting Christ. But as vaughn added the Holy Spirit helps greatly; it enlarges our understanding of life and instructions. Rvaughn's qualifier "this does not exclude the work of the Holy Spirit” is tantamount to saying there is more to it than the bible alone.

[Stephen Fox]

Has the Best view of the Bible.

Read her Apostles of Reason. Answers a lot of questions you haven't thought about yet.

And God Secretaries about the KJV.

Meanwhile for Thornton's accelerated reading list, here is a must read with a Georgia focus; UGA in fact

https://www.amazon.com/Mans-World-Portr ... %27s+world

[Haruo]

My first question might be, what Bible? I am convinced that the Bible itself never refers to the Bible itself, if by "the Bible" we mean one of the particular canons that 21st-century Christian groups accept as their Scriptural canon. For most of us Baptists, that means the 66-book canon, 39 running Genesis to Malachi and then 27 running Matthew to Revelation. For Catholics and various Orthodox churches a number of other books are viewed as canonical or deuterocanonical (which is still a variety of canonical). Nowhere in the Bible we have, when the text refers to "the Scriptures" or "the word of God" or anything along those lines, do I believe that the human authors had our present-day canons in view. When Paul writes that "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching" I see no reason to think a particular canon is referred to. Indeed, I can easily see how the Qu'ran, the Vedas, or the writings of Baha'ullah could be part of that "all scripture". Heck, even, nay, certainly, The Big Book. To some degree, since all writings are produced (or were until recently) by living human beings, and since the life that animates us as living beings is itself the breath of God, it could be that "all scripture" should be taken literally, as "all writing".

Growing up in a Baptist (albeit a very liberal Baptist) household, one of the Bibles we had at home and made frequent reference to was the American Translation (i.e. "Goodspeed"), which had the Apocrypha in it. And for that matter the huge KJV on the Communion Table at Fremont Baptist also has the Apocrypha in it. So from grade school age on I was aware of the discrepancies among canons, though I didn't run into Psalm 151 or Jubilees or Enoch till much later. I remember my dad, a Baptist minister, teaching me that the Bible was not a book, but a library, and that various librarians had included slightly different collections of books in their libraries. And then, when I finally met God (in the form of a group of drunks, and very shortly thereafter in the guise of two nearly-full bottles of Almadén Mountain Chablis), the spiritual community I was engaged with at the time was the AurorA Fellowship, where the scriptures, such as they were, consisted of the Big Book, the 12x12, and maybe the Little Red Book or the ODAAT, depending on what meeting I was at.

That's a start. The library is about to close, so I'd better sign off now. More later, probably tomorrow.

[KeithE]

My first question might be, what Bible? I am convinced that the Bible itself never refers to the Bible itself, if by "the Bible" we mean one of the particular canons that 21st-century Christian groups accept as their Scriptural canon. For most of us Baptists, that means the 66-book canon, 39 running Genesis to Malachi and then 27 running Matthew to Revelation. For Catholics and various Orthodox churches a number of other books are viewed as canonical or deuterocanonical (which is still a variety of canonical). Nowhere in the Bible we have, when the text refers to "the Scriptures" or "the word of God" or anything along those lines, do I believe that the human authors had our present-day canons in view. When Paul writes that "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching" I see no reason to think a particular canon is referred to. Indeed, I can easily see how the Qu'ran, the Vedas, or the writings of Baha'ullah could be part of that "all scripture". Heck, even, nay, certainly, The Big Book. To some degree, since all writings are produced (or were until recently) by living human beings, and since the life that animates us as living beings is itself the breath of God, it could be that "all scripture" should be taken literally, as "all writing".

Growing up in a Baptist (albeit a very liberal Baptist) household, one of the Bibles we had at home and made frequent reference to was the American Translation (i.e. "Goodspeed"), which had the Apocrypha in it. And for that matter the huge KJV on the Communion Table at Fremont Baptist also has the Apocrypha in it. So from grade school age on I was aware of the discrepancies among canons, though I didn't run into Psalm 151 or Jubilees or Enoch till much later. I remember my dad, a Baptist minister, teaching me that the Bible was not a book, but a library, and that various librarians had included slightly different collections of books in their libraries. And then, when I finally met God (in the form of a group of drunks, and in the guise of two nearly-full bottles of Almadén Mountain Chablis, the spiritual community I was engaged with at the time was the AurorA Fellowship, where the scriptures, such as they were, consisted of the Big Book, the 12x12, and maybe the Little Red Book or the ODAAT, depending on what meeting I was at.

That's a start. The library is about to close, so I'd better sign off now. More later, probably tomorrow.

Good points.

I will add that the question of biblical sufficiency (question 4.) that rvaughn explained as "gives us what we need to know for the purpose it was given” is difficult to assess since each book may have a difference purpose. If you think God has a specific set of authors that He specially inspired to write the 66 Protestant canon books, it could refer to the purpose of God in making/canonizing the bible. Is that what you meant, rvaughn?

Also, the question of biblical sufficiency is usually posed as 'sufficient to lead one to salvation'. Is that what you meant, rvaughn?

[Haruo]

...the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy (1978)...

I haven't read through it, but quickly read "A Short Statement" at the beginning, with which I can readily agree.

A SHORT STATEMENT
1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.
2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.
3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.
5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

My Take [taking "Holy Scripture" to mean, here, the 66-book Protestant canon]

1. While not disagreeing with this, I don't think that is the only reason God has inspired holy scripture (which I can't bring myself to capitalize here as it feels idolatrous), nor do I think holy scripture is God's only witness to Himself. "Nature in open volume stands", and on top of that God intervenes directly and speaks in the mind's ear. At least that has been my experience.
2. Too much human hermeneutics stands in the way of affirming this except in the most evanescent theoretical sense.
3. Amen.
4. Runs up against the times God appears to me to be inspiring the writing of fiction or of myth, the times when the authors are clearly speaking from their own experience and thoughts either to God (e.g. the Psalmist, quite often) or to his audience (e.g. Paul), and I don't see where the Bible as a whole ever speaks to its own canonical limits or describes its own "literary origins" in an overall sense. Certain books and passages say something about their literary origins, but not the Bible as a whole.
5. That sort of authority is not something I give a book. I might (indeed, I hope I would) if I were convinced of its underpinnings, but the fact that I am not so convinced is what I just got done stating...

Some further idea of my take on Scripture may perhaps be gleaned from a reading (rereading perhaps, for some of you) of my "My Burning Bush" sermon.

[Tim Bonney]

I like this statement from John Wesley's Articles of Religion. I much prefer "sufficiency." God is the only one that is perfect or errorless.

Article V — Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation
The 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 faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

[Rvaughn]

Explanations on what I meant by biblical sufficiency:
Keith, I can agree with "each book may have a difference purpose," though that is not so much what I had in mind and we also might disagree on what that statement means to us.

What I had in mind is that the Bible is sufficient to make us "wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" and that it is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" and it thoroughly equips us "unto all good works" (related to 2 Timothy 3:15-17). Or, put in my own words, it gives us instructions we need for salvation, doctrine and good works.

1. While not disagreeing with this, I don't think that is the only reason God has inspired holy scripture (which I can't bring myself to capitalize here as it feels idolatrous), nor do I think holy scripture is God's only witness to Himself. "Nature in open volume stands", and on top of that God intervenes directly and speaks in the mind's ear.

Leland, I don't think the authors of this statement said or intended to mean "only witness". I've not known any inerrantists that didn't agree with you and Watts that "Nature with open volume stands" (e.g., Psalm 19:1-3) or deny Providence, or God's speaking to us (although the how of the last one has lots of ideas and interpretations).

[Dave Roberts]

Explanations on what I meant by biblical sufficiency:
Keith, I can agree with "each book may have a difference purpose," though that is not so much what I had in mind and we also might disagree on what that statement means to us.

What I had in mind is that the Bible is sufficient to make us "wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" and that it is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" and it thoroughly equips us "unto all good works" (related to 2 Timothy 3:15-17). Or, put in my own words, it gives us instructions we need for salvation, doctrine and good works.

1. While not disagreeing with this, I don't think that is the only reason God has inspired holy scripture (which I can't bring myself to capitalize here as it feels idolatrous), nor do I think holy scripture is God's only witness to Himself. "Nature in open volume stands", and on top of that God intervenes directly and speaks in the mind's ear.

Leland, I don't think the authors of this statement said or intended to mean "only witness". I've not known any inerrantists that didn't agree with you and Watts that "Nature with open volume stands" (e.g., Psalm 19:1-3) or deny Providence, or God's speaking to us (although the how of the last one has lots of ideas and interpretations).

One of my long-term feelings is that too much attention is devoted to our human terminology and too little to allowing scripture to speak to us in our context which requires interpretation of the highest order. We must first establish what scripture was saying to its original hearers in order to interpret what it is saying to us. What I often find is that we drop down a library (which is the meaning of the term Bible) and assume that reading it puts us in touch with a plain and simple message, all of which requires our interpretation. For example, whole books are written on what is meant by "inspired." I remember a theology course in which we spent six weeks on three words: revelation, inspiration, and authority. Likewise, you use the word "infallible" which I understand to mean that "scripture cannot fail to accomplish its purposes." Again, that is not a biblical word at all. Again, if you take the Greek of 2 Timothy literally, it only equips the man of God.

[Jim]

THE SCRIPTURES: The Holy Bible is a collection of sixty-six books inspired by God, written at different times by men both before and after the birth of Christ, free of error, and canonized in Christendom by the fourth century A.D. It provides the record of God's creation, His relationship to mankind (generic term for both genders), a history of events in antiquity, mankind's status, the life and work of Jesus Christ, God's plan for mankind's redemption, instructions for righteous living, prophecies, and the instituting of the church.

[Sandy]

I would use the following words to describe my view of the Bible:
Inspired (given by God through his Spirit to the writers)
Inerrant (free from error)
Authoritative (having the weight of God's authority)
Sufficient (gives us what we need to know for the purpose it was given; this does not exclude the work of the Holy Spirit)

I would agree with this with some qualification. Inerrancy is really not a great word. The Baptist Faith and Message states that the Bible has "truth, without any mixture of error for its matter." I think that's a more adequate description. Terms like inerrant, verbal, plenary, literal, etc., are concepts of human origin that are used to direct a specific interpretation to the exclusion of any other possibility, and frankly I don't think there's anyone enlightened enough to conclude that one specific set of doctrinal and theological points are right, to the exclusion of others, to use that kind of descriptive language.

The Bible being written by about 40 different authors over a 2000 year period of time means that one of the most important keys to understanding it is its historical context. Leave that out, and the Bible can mean anything, and nothing that was intended by the original authors. The Old Testament can't be interpreted without a thorough understanding of the events of the New, especially statements that Jesus made, like Matthew 5:17.

[JE Pettibone]

Ed: Sandy I think you have that just backwards The New Testament can not be thoroughly understood with out sufficient knowledge of the Old.

Philip Yancy wrote a book that supports this more fully. His book is titled THE ONLY BIBLE JESUS EVER READ .

[Sandy]

Ed: Sandy I think you have that just backwards The New Testament can not be thoroughly understood with out sufficient knowledge of the Old.

Philip Yancy wrote a book that supports this more fully. His book is titled THE ONLY BIBLE JESUS EVER READ .

I've read that particular book. Of course, to fully understand Christianity, both are essential, but Jesus changed everything, particularly at Matt. 5:17. A literally interpreted and applied Old Testament, without the New, is Judaism.

[Haruo]

Well, it's a Judaism. Most serious religious Jews don't literally interpret and apply the Tanakh. Even the most seriously orthodox are concerned with reading and applying (more or less "literally") the commandents, which even though they number nearly 700 are a small portion indeed of the Tanakh. And the interpretation is as often as not more dependent on, or at least informed by, the Talmudic treatments (not to mention Rambam and/or the Besht...) than on a direct literal reading, and the old Rabbis were often very very far from what one would think "literal" would lead to.

[Stephen Fox]

To Molly Worthen in Apostles of Reason and Adam Nicholson in God's Secretaries. I believe in the Old and the New and the Now Testament of Harvard Lit Critic James Wood and others. I like what Rhodes scholar nominee Richard Kremer a Prince of my Generation of preachers said in his sermon on Inerrancy when Nelson Price was Hell Bent on taking the Baptist out of Shorter Higher Education. Google Kremer at save our Shorter. Trying to get it to the attention of Carson Newman fundy board of trustees presently.

[KeithE]

Well, it's a Judaism. Most serious religious Jews don't literally interpret and apply the Tanakh. Even the most seriously orthodox are concerned with reading and applying (more or less "literally") the commandents, which even though they number nearly 700 are a small portion indeed of the Tanakh. And the interpretation is as often as not more dependent on, or at least informed by, the Talmudic treatments (not to mention Rambam and/or the Besht...) than on a direct literal reading, and the old Rabbis were often very very far from what one would think "literal" would lead to.

That is my understanding as well.

We plan to have a Rabbi teach a class about the Torah and Judaism in the Discovery Center in Feb 2018.

[JE Pettibone]

Well, it's a Judaism. Most serious religious Jews don't literally interpret and apply the Tanakh. Even the most seriously orthodox are concerned with reading and applying (more or less "literally") the commandents, which even though they number nearly 700 are a small portion indeed of the Tanakh. And the interpretation is as often as not more dependent on, or at least informed by, the Talmudic treatments (not to mention Rambam and/or the Besht...) than on a direct literal reading, and the old Rabbis were often very very far from what one would think "literal" would lead to.

That is my understanding as well.

We plan to have a Rabbi teach a class about the Torah and Judaism in the Discovery Center in Feb 2018.

Ed: Keith, what branch of Judaism does this Rabbi follow?

[KeithE]

Well, it's a Judaism. Most serious religious Jews don't literally interpret and apply the Tanakh. Even the most seriously orthodox are concerned with reading and applying (more or less "literally") the commandents, which even though they number nearly 700 are a small portion indeed of the Tanakh. And the interpretation is as often as not more dependent on, or at least informed by, the Talmudic treatments (not to mention Rambam and/or the Besht...) than on a direct literal reading, and the old Rabbis were often very very far from what one would think "literal" would lead to.

That is my understanding as well.

We plan to have a Rabbi teach a class about the Torah and Judaism in the Discovery Center in Feb 2018.

Ed: Keith, what branch of Judaism does this Rabbi follow?

She is in the Reformed Branch and has just returned from a summer sabbatical. I had tried to get an Orthodox rabbi for our summer session but he was reluctant. I'm told by two Jewish friends (one Orthodox and one Reformed) that Reformed rabbi is a better speaker.

And yes I know there is great differences between the forms of Judaism. But even the Orthodox view of the Torah allows for a more allegorical and nuanced meaning than one literal meaning - the words are meant to provoke discussion and can have several layers of meaning. Reformed Judaism allows for continuing revelation ben today.

4 ways of interpretation

[JE Pettibone]

Ed": Keith, do you know when and where this Rabbi did her Rabbinical studies? Trudy received an MA in Cognitive Language Studies from Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. In 1998 and 99 she was the liaison between Jewish and Christian Graduate Students. Many of our friends during that period are Now Reformed Rabbis.

[Haruo]

So Reform has female rabbis now, eh? When I was learning such trivia, the Reconstructionists were the only ones. Not surprised (in fact, I was surprised back then that they didn't yet.)

[Sandy]

Well, it's a Judaism. Most serious religious Jews don't literally interpret and apply the Tanakh. Even the most seriously orthodox are concerned with reading and applying (more or less "literally") the commandents, which even though they number nearly 700 are a small portion indeed of the Tanakh. And the interpretation is as often as not more dependent on, or at least informed by, the Talmudic treatments (not to mention Rambam and/or the Besht...) than on a direct literal reading, and the old Rabbis were often very very far from what one would think "literal" would lead to.

Well, yes, I should have said that the literal interpretation and application of the Old Testament without the new would be a form of Judaism. Most Christians who interpret and apply the Bible literally have a hard time understanding that most Jews don't apply or interpret the Old Testament literally.

Being in a group that is more contemplative and reflective, for lack of a better way of describing it, when it comes to the Bible than in one that is analytically literal, as I have been most of my life, has actually opened insights into the meaning of the text that were impossible to see otherwise. When you are looking at concepts and philosophy, and how values and principles are attached to those things, and you get away from the legalistic and ritualistic conclusions that are requirements for human-derived orthodoxy, then there's an awareness of the fullness of God, and the reality of what "spiritual discernment" actually means. I don't feel like I'm marking off some kind of "spiritual checklist" anymore.

[Jon Estes]

BIBLE - Truth from start to finish

BIBLE - First to go to in all things for it will respond

Man - Second to go to - maybe. Never to spin Truth but to expound it, interpreting it from m itself.

More could be said. Been extremely busy. Maybe more later if time permits. Harvey and Irma has impacted my daily life and lots to do to help some affected. It's early here in UAE, so just getting the day started and had a moment to see what's happening.

[KeithE]

Ed": Keith, do you know when and where this Rabbi did her Rabbinical studies? Trudy received an MA in Cognitive Language Studies from Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. In 1998 and 99 she was the liaison between Jewish and Christian Graduate Students. Many of our friends during that period are Now Reformed Rabbis.

Her name is Rabbi Elizabeth Bahar and apparently she did her studies at Hebew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion in NYC. Source: Her Facebook. Don’t know when but she is probably in her 30s or early 40s (my guess).

Here is a story about her.