Biblical Inerrancy

“The Christian Bible should be rewritten so that it can be relevant for people in postcolonial societies.” The Reverend Canaan Banana, Methodist minister, professor, ecclesiastical scholar, African liberation theologian, and former president of Zimbabwe.

“Genesis is still regarded by many as a literal account of creation, the view of most Christians and Jews until the latter half of the 19th century. Others see the book as myth or legend expressive merely of tribal beliefs, superstitions, and mores. Intensive scholarship and related archaeological investigation have revealed that numerous events, places, and persons described and named in Genesis—like those of Homer's Iliad—most probably have some basis in historical fact.”
Encarta Encyclopedia

_{This has been turning around in my head so lemme see if I can tap it out in this little time I have got.}

*********************************

By Biblical Inerrancy here I mean two things:

Proposition 1. That the Bible is free of any form of error.

Proposition 2. That the Bible is complete in every aspect; that is, we do not need anything else in our attempt to make sense of God, ontology, the cosmos, origins, death and the afterlife, spirituality, and anything else.

There are Christians who accept 1 and 2. Some accept only one. The Catholic Church does not accept 2. To the Church, the canonical Bible is complemented by apocryphal books and the tradition of the Church Fathers, among others. Protestants and Evangelicals generally accept BI, although not all individual Christians therein do. Jehovah’s Witnesses accept BI on points one and two. In fact their acceptance of 2 is uniquely strict, in that, dreams, miracles, revelations and any direct experience of God or the Holy Spirit by the individual Christian are not countenanced. To them, God needed to reach man through such means only when the complete word of God was not with us. Now we have the Bible in full, it is all we need.

For the regular Christian posters in this section, some have expressly stated their views on this matter in various threads. The views of some can be surmised from posts on some other subjects; for others I have not a clue, either because they have not stated them or I do not recall it, or missed it for reasons beyond my control.

I am not one of the most active participants around here, so it is entirely possible there are regular Christian posters whose names are not listed below. I will like to hear from every Christian on this matter.

Do you accept BI as defined in the propositions above?

JeSoul: 1, yes. 2. I don’t know her answer
Viaro: 1, I don’t know his answer. 2, No, or possibly not
Joagbaje: 1 and 2, NOOoooooo
Davidylan: 1, yes. 2, I don’t know his answer
Tonye-t: 1 and 2, I don’t know his answer
Noetic16: 1, Yes, 2, Possibly not
KunleOsob: 1 and 2, No
OLAADEGU: 1 and 2, YEEEESssssssss
Chukwudi44: 1, I don’t know his answer. 2, No
InesQor: 1 and 2, I don’t know his answer
Tpia: 1 and 2, I don’t know her answer
Nuclearboy: 1 and 2, I don’t know his answer
Beneli: 1 and 2, I don’t know his answer
Karo93: 1 and 2, I don’t know his answer
Easylogic: 1 and 2, I don’t know his answer
PastorAIO: 1 and 2: No

Correct me if I labeled you wrongly. But what do you think? If you think the Bible is infallible, why do you say so, considering issues of contradiction (this one is over-flogged, I know), myth-like stories, questionable historicity, unoriginality, etc.

Here is what the bible really is.

Bible + history = Thousands of years of changing and recording of non historical events + Lost of mythical narratives.

Judaism + Torah = Christian's old testament, whose teachings have mostly been changed by Christians to fit their own narrative. Some Christians believe its laws are obsolete, while other Christians believe they are not and are still applicable and valid.

Scribes + Bible = Years of mistranslation, misunderstanding, add ons and removed passages, errors and contradictions.

Church + Bible = Different versions of the bible and so many different denominations all claiming monopoly and  knowledge of what the bible actually says.

Christians + Messed up bible = Covering it up and pretending it is perfect and just needs an interpretation.

Messed up bible + People = Too much confusion and the inability for Christians to come together and agree on anything at all it says. Old earth creationist, Young earth creationist, Those that believe in a global flood, those that believe the flood is a local flood, Those that believe in trinity, those that do not, those that accept hell as a place of eternal punishment, those that believe that hell is only a permanent separation from god and not a place of eternal punishment. Those that believe that Christians are supposed to prosper in all they do and those that believe in some form of persecution complex, and the need for Christian to always suffer for their beliefs, the division and confusion is ENDLESS.

Overall: When you find things that do not add up or make sense in your bible, make Poo up and pretend that others are getting it wrongly.

Interesting that I am the only one that is a definite no no on both counts.

Pastor AIO:

Interesting that I am the only one that is a definite no no on both counts.

So what say you? Bible complete and inerrant word of god yes or no?

toneyb:

So what say you? Bible complete and inerrant word of god yes or no?

I think that my posts over the years make my position pretty clear on this matter. I don't think that any text whatsoever can be a conduit for Truth. There is no text that is complete without an accompanying interpretation. Such interpretation will be varied depending on who is reading the text.

toneyb:

Here is what the bible really is.

Bible + history = Thousands of years of changing and recording of non historical events + Lost of mythical narratives.

Judaism + Torah = Christian's old testament, whose teachings have mostly been changed by Christians to fit their own narrative. Some Christians believe its laws are obsolete, while other Christians believe they are not and are still applicable and valid.

Scribes + Bible = Years of mistranslation, misunderstanding, add ons and removed passages, errors and contradictions.

Church + Bible = Different versions of the bible and so many different denominations all claiming monopoly and  knowledge of what the bible actually says.

Christians + Messed up bible = Covering it up and pretending it is perfect and just needs an interpretation.

Messed up bible + People = Too much confusion and the inability for Christians to come together and agree on anything at all it says. Old earth creationist, Young earth creationist, Those that believe in a global flood, those that believe the flood is a local flood, Those that believe in trinity, those that do not, those that accept hell as a place of eternal punishment, those that believe that hell is only a permanent separation from god and not a place of eternal punishment. Those that believe that Christians are supposed to prosper in all they do and those that believe in some form of persecution complex, and the need for Christian to always suffer for their beliefs, the division and confusion is ENDLESS.

Overall: When you find things that do not add up or make sense in your bible, make Poo up and pretend that others are getting it wrongly.

Funny and interesting equations, toneyb! I trust you will stay and defend them when Davidylan or noetic16 shows up.

Pastor AIO:

Interesting that I am the only one that is a definite no no on both counts.

You and Kunle. But, yeah, considering all those charges of ambiguity.

MyJoe:

You and Kunle. But, yeah, considering all those charges of ambiguity.

Just goes to show you that ambiguity depends on context. When you're trying to fit a statement into a preset category then you might find it ambiguous because it doesn't quite fit. However if your goals are different and you are trying to fit it into another set of categories you might find it quite adequate.

Pastor AIO:

I think that my posts over the years make my position pretty clear on this matter.  I don't think that any text whatsoever can be a conduit for Truth.  There is no text that is complete without an accompanying interpretation.  Such interpretation will be varied depending on who is reading the text.

There appears to be a mitigation in highlighted section. Just to be clear, is the Bible inerrant or is it just its interpretation that is? Is it a case of the seven blind men that "saw" an elephant and gave descriptions - ranging from "it looks like a snake" to "it looks like a bag" - because they touched different parts of it?

Pastor AIO:

Just goes to show you that ambiguity depends on context. When you're trying to fit a statement into a preset category then you might find it ambiguous because it doesn't quite fit. However if your goals are different and you are trying to fit it into another set of categories you might find it quite adequate.

Yes.

In order for the bible to err there has to be a standard which it errs from. 

Is it possible for the human mind to distinguish a thing-in-itself from the way it interprets that thing.  Is the book you see on the table seen as it truly is or just seen as you perceive it (eg from your own unique perspective).

We need, it seems, to be able to distinguish between essences and derivatives.  ie.  What things are essentially, and the various forms that can be derived from the essence.

When talking about the inerrancy of the bible are we referring to it's essential state or rather to that derivation of meanings that we derive out of it.  There are various orders of derivations, ie you get derivations of derivations.  How far back do you have to go before you arrive at the original essence. 

Imagine lines on a graph, but all you can see is the line y=2, an horizontal line.  But someone tells you that that line is actually derived from another called y=x² which you can't see.  And that in turn is actually derived from another line called y=1/₃x³, well how far back do you have to go to be sure you know what the original line is.
I seem to have taken a tangent here so I'll stop before I go to far.

Myjoe wassup dude?
You got my position half right. Lets clarify shall we?

MyJoe:
Proposition 1. That the Bible is free of any form of error.

  Yes, I believe the bible in its original form/text/document/scroll is free from error. However, what we have today are copies of the originals and yes, there appears to be few copyist errors in the current versions we have today.

  A noteworthy comment to attach to the above. These transcriptional errors are minor, about what? 1% of the entire book I think and the usual "bible contradictions" flaunted by antagonists as grounds for dismissal usually fall under this category. When one takes an honest look at the entire bible as a whole body of work, it is very consistent, harmonious and robust, worthy of our trust.

Proposition 2. That the Bible is complete in every aspect; that is, we do not need anything else in our attempt to make sense of God, ontology, the cosmos, origins, death and the afterlife, spirituality, and anything else.

  This part is loaded and I'll do my best to answer properly. The bible is sufficiently equipped to meet all those spiritual needs you mentioned, but at the same time, it is not, exactly. 4 points:

1 - Not every single situation, or scenario is captured in the bible. However, we are given general godly principles and standards by which we can govern our lives by. General points on the compass by which we can use to navigate the murky waters that is life. So when an issue arises that may not be spelt in black and white (or red) we can use these principles to decide what is right. And this leads me to point 2. . .

2 - The bible, unfortunately, is subject to the sometimes right, sometimes wrong, sometimes in-between interpretation of flawed men - and ALL of us are flawed. What I may read to mean X, you may read to mean Z. So in essence the bible may be saying one thing, but we may interpret it to mean another. In that, the moral of such a verse can be diluted beyond recognition or even lost entirely.
  b. As a side note, there is one interpretation for a verse, but (possibly) different applications of such a verse (as if there weren't enough wrenches in the system already lol)

3 - Thirdly, where the bible "falls short", or should I say, where we fall short, is where the Holy Spirit shines most. Jesus taught that He had to leave so that the HolySpirit would come to "guide us into all things". So though everything may not be in the bible, a christian walks[b] by the spirit[/b] and this Spirit is what guides a christian into all truth - including how to rightly handle the bible.
John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

4 - Finally, And what about those who are not "bible scholars"? cannot understand the scriptures as well as more educated people? who are in the middle of the amazon jungle or a small village in Vietnam and just have a rudimentary grasp of the person of Jesus and his sacrifice? just enough of a grasp to know all they need do is simply love God and their neighbor. What about them that cannot etymologically dissect verses with surgical precision like several here on NL? what should they do? is the God of the bible only for smarties? only for learned schooled people?

Which is why I don't think God intended for everything pertaining to living to be captured in the bible for us to follow word for word or that it is do or die without the bible. In addition, many lived in the OT and served God without any bible to follow and they did just fine. His laws are written on our hearts (Romans 2). And also because of our nature, this would lead to a legalistic sort of living that we see in so many churches today - don't drink alcohol, women cannot preach, cannot listen to 'worldy' music etc etc. I mean even with those few issues see how divided we are, talkless if there were many more like that. We are called to live by faith - even as we've been given grace. And while Jesus is the mediator between man and God, we're all different, all have different experiences and all take different paths to get to the ultimate truth that is God. There is no one single template or blueprint on how to go about this.

 
 I hope I did the questions sufficient justice?   so,

MyJoe:
[s]JeSoul: 1, yes. 2. I don’t know her answer[/s]

Jesoul: 1, yes and no. 2, yes and no. 

I agree TOTALLY with JeSoul. She said almost everything I was going to say.

Proposition 1. That the Bible is free of any form of error.

What is an error? What is the yardstick by which the error is judged?
Meaning is often lost in the transfer of information, and this is the only perspective in which I can say that there is some amount of error, so to speak. However, the error is not inaugural (intrinsic) in the Bible, rather it is an error due to appropriation. Just like in electronic signal transfer, the attenuation (loss of signal) error is always due to the communication channel and the point of reception.

A user once said here on NL  that the Bible contains strongly typed allegorical meanings that may be lost if you are not careful, and I want to say some things about that. A lot of the scriptures have to be exegetically considered in the original languages and cultures to get a firm grasp of its absolute meaning, without which there will definitely be an error in appropriation, and people would scream "error" without understanding that it was deliberate.

The NT seems to be more "free" from all these perceived errors (maybe except for the Gospels, which was a transition period between the Old and the New) because the Western world has been very much influenced by the Greeks. A lot of the way we think and the way we communicate comes from their culture, even though we may not realize it. The great difference between Greek and Hebrew thought is this: we think in a more abstract way, the Jews in a more concrete way. I will give just two examples.

[size=16pt]1. [/size]If I ask some NL folk, "Do you believe in God, personally?", they would say Yes. But If I ask further, "Can you give a better personal definition of this God?", they would stutter. But Hebrews obviously think of God in concrete terms like Rock, Shield, Portion, Deliverer, Strong Tower, Savior! You see, unlike the Hebrews, we are often very abstract or generic in our thinking. Think of what it must have meant to Abraham for God to tell him, "I'm your shield." why didn't God tell him specifically, "Abraham, I'm going giving you divine protection!" Because when you think about it, calling himself a shield really has more of a tangible impact. God is really saying here, "They have to get through me to get to you."

[size=16pt]2. [/size]Jesus said such things as 'If any one is thirsty' and 'I am the light of the world' statements in the Temple during the water drawing and Temple lighting ceremonies at the feast of Tabernacles. Jesus was really laying down a strong statement of his Messiah-ship but we've lost the significance over the years.

In essence, many of the points that we point readily at and claim they are errors, are not errors. I think the Bible is the way it is, rather deliberately (Now, I am not talking about rogue translations and other form of transcriptions that are laden with the author's personal commentary views).

So my final answer on this one is: YES. The Bible is free from errors, in the sense of the word error.

---

Proposition 2. That the Bible is complete in every aspect; that is, we do not need anything else in our attempt to make sense of God, ontology, the cosmos, origins, death and the afterlife, spirituality, and anything else.

I think JeSoul did very good justice to this one, and my answer is the same as hers: Yes and No. It is complete in the aspect of its scope, but its scope does not cover all possibly existential scopes. This is like saying that I have a machine that is 100% efficient, it is 100% efficient at WHAT IT DOES, and not at another task. We have the Holy Spirit for all circumstances, but ever in agreement with intersections with the scope of the Word.

Yes and Yes+No.

Reasons? Read Jesoul and InesQor above! No need wasting time repeating what my seniors have so well explained.

The Word is not for any private interpretation. That is where the problem is - we tend to "intepret" to suit our understanding OR our desire NOT to understand. And in furtherance of what Jesoul said, any book which will contain all situations and circumstances will be as big as time and space itself. The Bible is simply a moral and spiritual guide, not completeness itself. In performing its guiding duties though, it is complete.

JeSoul:

Myjoe wassup dude?

I’m doing great. How’s Fringe Science shaping up - discovered how to run cars on water yet? That's the kind of Fringe Science I want to hear! 

JeSoul:
You got my position half right. Lets clarify shall we?
  Yes, I believe the bible in its original form/text/document/scroll is free from error. However, what we have today are copies of the originals and yes, there appears to be few copyist errors in the current versions we have today.

Well, there is something I learnt as a kid: that the Holy Spirit (1) inspired the Bible (2) preserved it for us to ensure it reaches us error-free. You don’t seem to buy 2?

JeSoul:
  A noteworthy comment to attach to the above. These transcriptional errors are minor, about what? 1% of the entire book I think and the usual "bible contradictions" flaunted by antagonists as grounds for dismissal usually fall under this category. When one takes an honest look at the entire bible as a whole body of work, it is very consistent, harmonious and robust, worthy of our trust.

It is convenient to put “bible contradictions” under the Error Category, don’t you think? I think this can apply in a situation where Matthew and Luke report an event with minor differences in details but not when Paul tells us that faith is the most important thing we need and James tells us it is work. There is a measure of consistency in the Bible – there are things you find in the beginning that you find towards the end. But there is also a good deal of contradictions.

JeSoul:
  This part is loaded and I'll do my best to answer properly. The bible is sufficiently equipped to meet all those spiritual needs you mentioned, but at the same time, it is not, exactly. 4 points:

Ok,

JeSoul:
1 - Not every single situation, or scenario is captured in the bible. However, we are given general godly principles and standards by which we can govern our lives by. General points on the compass by which we can use to navigate the murky waters that is life. So when an issue arises that may not be spelt in black and white (or red) we can use these principles to decide what is right. And this leads me to point 2. . .

2 - The bible, unfortunately, is subject to the sometimes right, sometimes wrong, sometimes in-between interpretation of flawed men - and ALL of us are flawed. What I may read to mean X, you may read to mean Z. So in essence the bible may be saying one thing, but we may interpret it to mean another. In that, the moral of such a verse can be diluted beyond recognition or even lost entirely.
  b. As a side note, there is one interpretation for a verse, but (possibly) different applications of such a verse (as if there weren't enough wrenches in the system already lol)

3 - Thirdly, where the bible "falls short", or should I say, where we fall short, is where the Holy Spirit shines most. Jesus taught that He had to leave so that the HolySpirit would come to "guide us into all things". So though everything may not be in the bible, a christian walks[b] by the spirit[/b] and this Spirit is what guides a christian into all truth - including how to rightly handle the bible.
John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

4 - Finally, And what about those who are not "bible scholars"? cannot understand the scriptures as well as more educated people? who are in the middle of the amazon jungle or a small village in Vietnam and just have a rudimentary grasp of the person of Jesus and his sacrifice? just enough of a grasp to know all they need do is simply love God and their neighbor. What about them that cannot etymologically dissect verses with surgical precision like several here on NL? what should they do? is the God of the bible only for smarties? only for learned schooled people?

Which is why I don't think God intended for everything pertaining to living to be captured in the bible for us to follow word for word or that it is do or die without the bible. In addition, many lived in the OT and served God without any bible to follow and they did just fine. His laws are written on our hearts (Romans 2). And also because of our nature, this would lead to a legalistic sort of living that we see in so many churches today - don't drink alcohol, women cannot preach, cannot listen to 'worldy' music etc etc. I mean even with those few issues see how divided we are, talkless if there were many more like that. We are called to live by faith - even as we've been given grace. And while Jesus is the mediator between man and God, we're all different, all have different experiences and all take different paths to get to the ultimate truth that is God. There is no one single template or blueprint on how to go about this.
 
 I hope I did the questions sufficient justice?   so,Jesoul: 1, yes and no. 2, yes and no. 

This is just beautiful. Now let me look at the other posts and move on with my next line of enquiry.

@InesQor and nuclearboy:
Thanks for your brilliant responses.

InesQor:

A user once said here on NL  that the Bible contains strongly typed allegorical meanings that may be lost if you are not careful, and I want to say some things about that. A lot of the scriptures have to be exegetically considered in the original languages and cultures to get a firm grasp of its absolute meaning, without which there will definitely be an error in appropriation, and people would scream "error" without understanding that it was deliberate.

Many will take this further and localise the Bible like, say, the Quran. That is, it was written for a certain people living at a certain time. The writer wrote it the way he would write a Code of Life, the material thus shows no evidence of the input of a higher power directing the writing of a material to be used by generations to come. Examples, the Arabs covered their heads, so Mohammed simply endorsed it. Women were forbidden from inheriting family, the Old Testament simply endorsed it. Slavery was practised in Palestine in the first century, the New Testament simply endorsed it. Were the Bible written today, these things would not be endorsed and it would be much more relevant to us as suggested by Professor Banana. Conclusion, the Bible cannot be trusted for universal application. Take?

InesQor:
The NT seems to be more "free" from all these perceived errors (maybe except for the Gospels, which was a transition period between the Old and the New) because the Western world has been very much influenced by the Greeks. A lot of the way we think and the way we communicate comes from their culture, even though we may not realize it. The great difference between Greek and Hebrew thought is this: we think in a more abstract way, the Jews in a more concrete way. I will give just two examples.

The problems created by this make up part of the issues in the authenticity of the Bible. Please read Krayola here

When we talk of the inspiration of the Bible, there are two possibilities: (1) That God dictated it. (2) That God revealed it to chosen servants. 2 is usually generally accepted among Christians.

Given that we are talking about men, who will see based on their environment, beliefs and deep seated biases as attested to in your posts (also refer to the analogy of the elephant in post # 7) how can we trust what they wrote as the true revelation of God? Does this not account for the seeming contradictions in the Bible, and, indeed, between religions? Indeed, why should we take the Bible as special if it passed through men who added their colouring when writing? I mean, if Paul and James see things differently from the same source, why isn't it reasonable to believe that Daniel and Lao Tse received inspirations from the same source but saw things differently which would lead us to the conclusion that Christianity and Daoism are as the same as Baptists and Methodists?

I would trust the Bible for Universal application REALISING there is a distinction between its story of the relationship between God and Israel and the general precepts it teaches (actually, the first could with some thought, be said to be a "type" for the second).

BTW, Krayola's theory is brilliant but may not take into consideration everything it needs to. For example, what influences do we know shaped John's life? Is it impossible he could have had Greek influence in much the same way as Krayola, a black yoruba guy, find himself living in the western world? Suppose I were, in 200 years time and after reading Krayola but knowing nothing of the stages in his life, to say how can a Nigerian of his time know so much about Canada and that the supposed Krayola (why do I always want to type "Crayon" and green comes to my mind) is fake or his writings do not belong to him?

Which is why I say its not the Bible but the "Interpreters" since we like to fit issues into our own desired understanding

Pastor AIO:

In order for the bible to err there has to be a standard which it errs from. 

Is it possible for the human mind to distinguish a thing-in-itself from the way it interprets that thing.  Is the book you see on the table seen as it truly is or just seen as you perceive it (eg from your own unique perspective).

We need, it seems, to be able to distinguish between essences and derivatives.  ie.  What things are essentially, and the various forms that can be derived from the essence.

When talking about the inerrancy of the bible are we referring to it's essential state or rather to that derivation of meanings that we derive out of it.  There are various orders of derivations, ie you get derivations of derivations.  How far back do you have to go before you arrive at the original essence. 

Imagine lines on a graph, but all you can see is the line y=2, an horizontal line.  But someone tells you that that line is actually derived from another called y=x² which you can't see.  And that in turn is actually derived from another line called y=1/₃x³, well how far back do you have to go to be sure you know what the original line is.  
I seem to have taken a tangent here so I'll stop before I go to far.

I think it is possible to talk about the essence. That is, Is the Bible, in its entirety, the word of God as handed down, or are there inputs therein that originated from the men who wrote?

MyJoe:

@InesQor and nuclearboy:
Thanks for your brilliant responses.
Many will take this further and localise the Bible like, say, the Quran. That is, it was written for a certain people living at a certain time. The writer wrote it the way he would write a Code of Life, the material thus shows no evidence of the input of a higher power directing the writing of a material to be used by generations to come. Examples, the Arabs covered their heads, so Mohammed simply endorsed it. Women were forbidden from inheriting family, the Old Testament simply endorsed it. Slavery was practised in Palestine in the first century, the New Testament simply endorsed it. Were the Bible written today, these things would not be endorsed and it would be much more relevant to us as suggested by Professor Banana. Conclusion, the Bible cannot be trusted for universal application. Take?

No sir, I do not agree that the relevance of the Bible has been reduced by cultural / historical value. I believe truth is absolute, but is considered by humans in a limited and dimensioned perspective. As JeSoul correctly said, there is NO way the Bible could have been written to make up for all possible future civilizations and practices, and why's that? Even if it was, all you have to do is to invent and establish a new practice or lifestyle and Voila!

I was saying once on NL that truth has two components: de facto and de jure i.e. that which is being recorded and accurate fact (de facto), and that which is absolute truth (de jure). The de jure truth is harder to extract and isolate, so many people simply grab at  the de facto and they are satisfied. For example, the Egyptian pyramids are observed by MyJoe, an Egyptologist, today, and he believes he understands why they exist. He may be accurate, but that is de facto, not de jure, regardless of whatever evidence he can present about the underlying truth. For him to have the de jure truth about the existence of the pyramids, he must have been there when the Egyptians planned and began to erect the structures.

Again, we have many subjects worthy of note in modern mathematics with axiomatic proofs dating as far back as the early days of Thales of Miletus. In as much as these proofs are accurate, the de jure essence of their underlying truth is not captured because they are no longer held in mystical regard as they used to be. Now it's just plain science, although nothing has changed the truth of the matter or of its proofs.

In essence, the Bible CAN be trusted for universal application, as much as any other means of information that has experienced a translation in time such that the de jure truth and the de facto truth are not in apparent consonance. One just must ensure that he/she brings the two together: to let the scriptures carry the same weight and substance of meaning, as much as it would have carried IF you had been inaugurally present. And only that way can the components of that truth be fused. In Christianity, we have the Holy Spirit to help us achieve that, help us extract the meaning and engender to life the embedded truth in the scriptures, seeing it through the eyes of the active participants at the point in time.

As the user Imhotep once said on Nairaland (I believe he was quoting someone), when you take a message and shake it vigorously till all the words fall off, whatever is left behind is the core of the truth in the message

MyJoe:

The problems created by this make up part of the issues in the authenticity of the Bible. Please read Krayola here

I personally don't think Krayola's point applies, because I believe he should know better that since John was written in the first century but well after 70 A.D., (when the temple was destroyed) unlike the three synoptic gospels that were written previously. As such, the audience was different and the language of expression would be more influenced by the Greek, which was fast permeating its notions across all the world civilizations. It's like asking how a modern Nigerian story-teller can have western ideas in his story as compared to his predecessors in the pre-colonial era?

nuclearboy:

I would trust the Bible for Universal application REALISING there is a distinction between its story of the relationship between God and Israel and the general precepts it teaches (actually, the first could with some thought, be said to be a "type" for the second).

I will like to talk about historicity later, but "the general precepts it teaches"? Can we really stay away from specifics without being too superficial in our approach?

nuclearboy:
BTW, Krayola's theory is brilliant but may not take into consideration everything it needs to. For example, what influences do we know shaped John's life? Is it impossible he could have had Greek influence in much the same way as Krayola, a black yoruba guy, find himself living in the western world? Suppose I were, in 200 years time and after reading Krayola but knowing nothing of the stages in his life, to say how can a Nigerian of his time know so much about Canada and that the supposed Krayola (why do I always want to type "Crayon" and green comes to my mind) is fake or his writings do not belong to him?

I agree with your approach. The only problem, though, is that the influences that shaped John's life are fairly well known. He, like most of the other apostles, were simple, barely literate Jewish fishermen. No, John was no Luke, Paul or Gamaliel.

Thanks InesQor. On my way out of here now. Will like to say something tomorrow. Will still like your thoughts on the other points I have highlighted, particularly about the uniqueness of Biblical Christianity.

MyJoe:

When we talk of the inspiration of the Bible, there are two possibilities: (1) That God dictated it. (2) That God revealed it to chosen servants. 2 is usually generally accepted among Christians.

Given that we are talking about men, who will see based on their environment, beliefs and deep seated biases as attested to in your posts (also refer to the analogy of the elephant in post # 7) how can we trust what they wrote as the true revelation of God? Does this not account for the seeming contradictions in the Bible, and, indeed, between religions? Indeed, why should we take the Bible as special if it passed through men who added their colouring when writing? I mean, if Paul and James see things differently from the same source, why isn't it reasonable to believe that Daniel and Lao Tse received inspirations from the same source but saw things differently which would lead us to the conclusion that Christianity and Daoism are as the same as Baptists and Methodists?

Partly (1) and Partly (2), because there are aspects that God dictated directly, and there were aspects that are interpretations of what God told them , but I want you to understand that the interpretations, IF THEY GOT COLOURED OR NOT, are deliberate. God knew what he was doing when he selected each person to write whatever they wrote. He KNEW how their writing would colour the experience of the scriptures, and it was his intent for it to be that way. For instance, it was God's pleasure for Paul to convey all the information we have today in the Ephesians, rather than anyone else, and this is because of his erudite background. Many of his procedural and logical methods of addressing the topics are as a divinely deliberate consequence of his person.

Oh My, I don't know how to explain this, but let me use computer programming to illustrate my idea. When a competent and serious programmer develops a software, he traps all possible errors by projecting allowances for their occurrences. It's called error handling, and by so doing the programmer ensures the software works smoothly for the end user. God knew how he wanted the Bible to turn out, so he deliberately hand-picked people all through history to deal with the various topics and aspects, and in some cases, to colour them with their own experiences or understanding in order to present to us the truth in absolute terms. I hope my point is clear, MyJoe.

MyJoe:

Thanks InesQor. On my way out of here now. Will like to say something tomorrow. Will still like your thoughts on the other points I have highlighted, particularly about the uniqueness of Biblical Christianity.

The uniqueness of Biblical Christianity is in a continuous fluid expression of its message, even though it spans across civilizations and ages. As JeSoul rightly said,

When one takes an honest look at the entire bible as a whole body of work, it is very consistent, harmonious and robust, worthy of our trust.

Daniel and Lao Tse could not have received revelations from the same source and interpreted differently, because the underlying theme is not harmonious. If you "look beyond the words at the One who is revealing the words", you see a variance in aspect, IMHO. It can't be the same source.

nuclearboy:


The Word is not for any private interpretation. That is where the problem is - we tend to "intepret" to suit our understanding OR our desire NOT to understand. [size=15pt]And in furtherance of what Jesoul said, any book which will contain all situations and circumstances will be as big as time and space itself.[/size] The Bible is simply a moral and spiritual guide, not completeness itself. In performing its guiding duties though, it is complete.

Here is such a book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Changes

http://mindgazer.org/tao/iching_comm.htm

The Book of Changes -- I Ching in Chinese -- is unquestionably one of the most important books in the world's literature. Its origin goes back to mythical antiquity, and it has occupied the attention of the most eminent scholars of China down to the present day. Nearly all that is greatest and most significant in the three thousand years of Chinese cultural history has either taken its inspiration from this book, or has exerted an influence on the interpretation of its text. Therefore it may safely be said that the seasoned wisdom of thousands of years has gone into the making of the I Ching. Small wonder then that both of the two branches of Chinese philosophy, Confucianism and Taoism, have their common roots here. The book sheds new light on many a secret hidden in the often puzzling modes of thought of that mysterious sage, Lao-tse, and of his pupils, as well as on many ideas that appear in the Confucian tradition as axioms, accepted without further examination.

http://www.iging.com/intro/introduc.htm

There is a commentary on it called the 'Great Treatise' or in chinese Ta Chuan.  This is what Ta Chuan says about it.

In it are included the forms and the scope of everything in the heavens and on earth, so that nothing escapes it.  In it all things everywhere are completed, so that none is missing.  Therefore by means of it we can penetrate the tao of day and night, and so understand it.  Therefore the spirit is bound to no one place, nor the Book of Changes to any one form.  

The Book of Changes is vast and great. When one speaks of what is far, it knows no limits.  When one speaks of what is near, it is still and right.  When one speaks of the space between heaven and earth, it embraces everything.

Yet what I like the most about this wonderful book is that it contains no words.  Someone must have shook it until all the words fell off.

InesQor:


Daniel and Lao Tse could not have received revelations from the same source and interpreted differently, because the underlying theme is not harmonious. If you "look beyond the words at the One who is revealing the words", you see a variance in aspect, IMHO. It can't be the same source.

I find this interesting. There are a few questions that I would like to ask about it, but just for starters could you tell me how you "look beyond the words at the One who is revealing the words".

@Pastor AIO:

^^^ First of all, I see that you are very conversant with Imhotep   

Pastor AIO:

I find this interesting.  There are a few questions that I would like to ask about it, but just for starters could you tell me how you "look beyond the words at the One who is revealing the words". 

It's all complex, thinking without words, but I will try to explain my perspective.


Words are just like ornaments, used to decorate ideas. Ideas, in turn, are the concrete forms of conformance or deviation from an abstract and unyielding value. For instance, the word "dog" is an ornament that decorates the idea of that animal which comes to your mind when the word is mentioned, it makes it possible to pass across the IDEA without much stress. But the idea of a dog in itself, is a concrete form that describes the abstract and unyielding value that such a thing exists or used to exist before now.

Tribbyx, for instance, is a word I just used to decorate this sentence, and for you, it must decorate an idea (even if the idea is that Tribbyx is a word that I plucked out of thin air and mentioned). This idea is the concretization of conformance or deviation from a fixed value (maybe in this case, a value like "humans can create words that make no sense and use them in a sentence" or something like that). Understanding the fixed value enables you to consider the idea, which then establishes the word and its relevance to the message being conveyed.

Now to your question, the One who is revealing the words, reveals them using ideas, and the medium (book writer) expresses them in words. Those ideas springing from the source, are generated from fixed forms of abstract value which are unique to the source. The source of those books cannot be the same because the ideas presented are in variance, which means that the abstract values are in variance [the source of the abstract value is a FIXED and unyielding value, it cannot produce two ideas that are out of sync (except they are perfectly out of sync i.e. exactly opposing)]. However, ideas are not fixed, and they can produce words that are out of sync, and each one true to itself. 

MyJoe:

I will like to talk about historicity later, but "the general precepts it teaches"? Can we really stay away from specifics without being too superficial in our approach?
I agree with your approach. The only problem, though, is that the influences that shaped John's life are fairly well known. He, like most of the other apostles, were simple, barely literate Jewish fishermen. No, John was no Luke, Paul or Gamaliel.

I doubt the Gospel of John, as it appears in the New testament, was written by John, the disciple of Jesus. SOme church tradition insists that it was authored by John, the son of Zebedee and brother of James, but the gospel of John itself does not identify any such person. Another problem with this is that the Gospel of John does not mention two major scenes that appear in the other synoptic gospels, and in which John was clearly stated as being present; The transfiguration, and Jesus' agony in the garden of Gethsemane. The author of this gospel is unknown.

My issue is not with the theology of John, but with it's historicity. John is a very theological document, and since I don't subscribe to the ideas expressed there I can't really debate them without being a jerk so I'll rather not. So whether Jesus is really the light of the world is not what i am debating, but the likelihood of his going around making such claims in such language.

Now let's say John was the disciple and he was Greek and all that. Fact still remains that Jesus was not Greek, and neither were the people he directed his ministry towards. So when Jesus is depicted as someone going around Israel claiming stuff like "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but have the light of life" or "I am the way, and the truth, and the life . . ." . Such language is foreign to Jewish thought of the time. Such ideas were definitely present around Palestine. . . but that Jesus, a Jewish peasant, was going around making such claims so boldly, the same Jesus that is weary of disclosing his identity as messiah in the synoptics, even in the presence of JOHN, all of a sudden is going around using such vocab in his teachings,  is just very very unlikely.

So while it isn't unreasonable to believe that the author of John had such vocab and ideas in his arsenal, it is very unlikely that Jesus did, and preached to his audience using such, especially considering that we do not see such language coming from the lips of Jesus in the other synoptic gospels.

Please note that there are tonnes of other reasons why John is not viewed as a historical document. Just don't want to get into it so I'm trying not to bring up stuff that isn't already being discussed here.

^^
My personal take on the gospels not just the book of John is that there were written by unknown men(very educated greek writers) not the alleged disciples of Jesus, They wrote mainly to give credence to the new religion they started. The gospels as we know them were fully develped much into the 2nd and 3rd centuary. The tradition that the gospels are eye witness accounts is false. It is unlikely in the extreme that any of the four canonical gospels were written by the people tradition claims they were written by. Was "Matthew" present at the manger when Jesus was supposedly born? Did he witness the 14 generations between Abraham and David, the 14 between David and the Babylonian Captivity, and the 14 between the Babylonian captivity and baby Jesus? Did he sleep between Joseph and Mary so he'd be sure that Joseph never actually had sex with Mary until after Jesus was born?

Was he privy to the conversation between Herod and the wise men? Did he, too, get to watch the dream Joseph had that he should flee to Egypt? . . . .Did Matthew watch "the Transfiguration" he records in Matthew 17? Perhaps he forgot to include himself in the list of disciples Jesus took to that mountain. . . . .It is not just disingenuous, but downright deceitful to claim that the writers of the four canonical gospels were eyewitnesses of what they wrote as so many christian are doing. . . . . . There's no freaking way they could have witnessed much of what they wrote, assuming any of it actually happened. . . . . It's absolute rubbish when people claim that these "eyewitness testimonies" would be sufficient testimony in a court system. Most of what is written at best could only be hearsay. . . . .But the most damning fact of all with regard to claims of "eyewitness testimony" is that all of the documents are anonymous. They do not reveal who claims to have written them. They are not signed, and they do not bear any chain of custody. They just appeared anonymously and began circulating some forty (being generous) to ninety or more years after the dates of the events they allegedly cover. . . . . .

If a lawyer was to introduce an unsigned document with no chain of custody into a court trial as evidence that the person in question floated off into the sky and that's why nobody can find his dead body, what do you think the judge would do? The gospels were just made up stories whose purpose were only to serve for the spreading of the new religion and the personality behind the star of new religion.

@Krayola: Do you believe that in the synoptic gospels, all that Jesus said was expressed verbatim by the writers of the gospels?

InesQor:

@Krayola: Do you believe that in the synoptic gospels, all that Jesus said was expressed verbatim by the writers of the gospels?

I do not believe Jesus said most of the things even the synoptic gospels claim he did. But those are more complicated and harder to sort out, and I'm not even equipped to do such. I just read the arguments from both sides and try to stay informed, but it gets really messy. As for the gospel of John, it is left out an overwhelming majority of study of the historical Jesus. It is just extremely difficult to link that document to 1st century Palestine. One really has nowhere to go. It is not a Hebrew document, and does not even try to be.

There is a new team of scholars that just recently started a project to do a thorough historical study of the Gospel of John. I have a bunch of the 1st drafts of the stuff they are workin on. My "Jesus" prof attended a conference and told us about it and I got him to email me all the essays and reports he got. To be honest I haven't read any of them but If u want I can send some of them to u. But it's still in it's infancy and i'm really looking forward to see what they come up with. But the current status is that it isn't considered a historical document. Maybe some person received some special vision and interpreted it as such, me I dunno, and maybe sef it is historical, but when one looks at all we know of 1st century Israel and the world in which Jesus lived, the Gospel of John just doesn't fit in from a historical standpoint.

Thanks Krayola. Please forward those documents (essays and reports) to my email i.e. removed@email.com Thanks again!

I have it o. delete sharp sharp before awon boys pounce on u

Thanks bro, I got it removed!