Responses to Maverick

[Seagoon]

In another thread maverick asked

First you mentioned you believe the bible because of the author. In this regard are you implying of a single author for the entire volume, both old and new testament. Are you speaking metaphorically or specifically? Please note this is not in any way a dig at yourself or your faith, it's an attempt to discuss some items that were brought up in a philosophy socialogy classes back in college.

Secondly, how literaly should the bible be taken in detail? I know that is a broad spectrum question but it leads to other questions I have had rattling in my skull for some time. I prefer a scholarly discussion vs the usual prosletyzing type of discussion.

[/b]

Both good questions. Rather than re-inventing the wheel, I'm going to be quoting a couple of other men on this subject at length. I hope that this will not only begin to answer your question, but provide grist for the mill for later discussion.

But to give a brief synopsis before I do so, the Bible speaks of itself as having a single ultimate author, God, and the prophets & authors speak of themselves as his messengers or ambassadors delivering his message.  In fact the book of Malachi takes its name from the Hebrew Malak meaning "my messenger" and starts out: "The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi." That is indeed the way all of the books are framed - the word of the lord by so-and-so. Thus the bible thinks of all scripture as "inspired" literally theopneustos "god breathed" from 2 Tim 3:16 and goes to great pains to eliminate the idea that any of it is the uninspired words of men or is Peter put it: "no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. " (2 Peter 1:21)

Regarding the question of how literally should things be taken, that's more of an issue of hermeneutics, i.e. the study of interpretation and depends on the genre. Prophetic works are interpreted with an eye to the frequent use of allegory and using the general tool of "scripture interprets scripture." What this means is that when we read that "I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns" (Rev. 13:1) the bible is not instructing us that the antichrist will literally have multiple heads and crowns and arise out of the sea like a scene from a claymation monster movie, but that each of these symbols points to a dimension of the power of anti-christ. In other words, the bible never thinks of itself as "once upon a time" and miracles are spoken of as really having occurred but that a certain amount of interpretation is required nonetheless. You can see an analogy to this in the fact that Robert Frost isn't literally speaking of two diverging paths in wood and yet his famous poem "The Road Not Taken" is still true.

Anyway, I'll quote Dr. Morton Smith, and Dr. Cornelius Van Til on this subject, from their systematic theologies in the next post. Both of them were/are seminary profs with multiple grad. degrees from both European and American Universities. I say this only to affirm that I will try to keep the discourse, in so much as I am able, at the scholarly level you requested.

- SEAGOON

[Seagoon]

Hi Again Maverick,

When most people conceive of the idea of the inspiration of scripture, they think of some sort of mechanical system whereby God took control of the prophet or apostle  in a manner analogous to the "Automatic writing" of psychic world. This is not the methodology the bible sets out for us however.  While the bible itself claims to be the inspired word of God in all of its parts, the method of inspiration is what is often termed "Organic" rather than "Mechanical." Dr. Morton Smith explains:

"A.. Mechanical Dictation
The view of plenary verbal [every word] inspiration has often been represented as involving a mechanical dictation theory of inspiration. ....
 
In the history of the Church the term dictation has on occasion been used of Scripture, and this is taken to imply a mechanical dictation, which overrules all mental activity on the part of the human writer. .... the error of this view is its failure to recognize that the human authors were active in their production of the Scripture. The fact that this is true is easily seen in the differences of style found between authors. Thus, the Bible does not lead us to believe in a mechanical view of inspiration.

C. Organic Inspiration
That which best describes the Biblical view of inspiration has been called “organic” inspiration.
 John L. Girardeau calls this view the dynamic theory. He describes it thus:

It holds that both the thought and language are imparted by the inspiring influence to the inspired person, but in such a manner as not to exclude the voluntary exercise of human faculties, or the spontaneous employment of individual peculiarities in speaking and writing. . . . This theory is the same as that commonly styled the theory of verbal inspiration . . .

God acted upon the writers in an organic way. He used them in their own individual personalities. He created them, prepared them, prompted them to write, repressed their sinfulness, and guided them in an organic way to the choice of the very words they wrote. Sometimes inspiration may have involved the mechanical dictation. Often it involved the refreshing of the memory (John 14:26), the selection of the proper materials (Luke 1:1–4), or the expression of their own experiences of sin and forgiveness (Ps. 32; 51).

V. Inspiration Applies only to the Autographa

Of what use is this doctrine, if inspiration applied only to the autographa (the original writings of the Biblical authors). ...

VI. Preservation of the Original Text
As to the preservation of the original, Kenyon says:

The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church is so large, that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.

The careful use of textual study enables us to reconstruct the original text on the order of 999 words out of every 1,000. In the New Testament there are only 375 variations that bear on the meaning of the passages, and even here there is no change of a doctrine, precept or fact.

Though the situation of the Old Testament differs from the New, there is reason for a similar confidence in it. Gleason Archer concludes his chapter on the textual criticism of the Old Testament with the following statement:

In conclusion we should accord to the Masoretes the highest praise for their meticulous care in preserving so sedulously all the consonantal text of the Sopherim which had been entrusted to them. They together with the Sopherim themselves gave the most diligent attention to accurate preservation of the Hebrew Scriptures that has ever been devoted to any ancient literature, secular or religious, in the history of human civilization.. Because of their faithfulness, we have today a form of the Hebrew text which in all essentials duplicates the recension which was considered authoritative in the days of Christ and the apostles, if not a century earlier. And this in turn, judging from Qumran evidence, goes back to an authoritative revision of the Old Testament text which was drawn up on the basis of the most reliable manuscripts available for collation from previous centuries. These bring us very close in all essentials to the original autographs themselves, and furnish us with an authentic record of God’s revelation.34

Again Sir Frederick Kenyon says:
The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation, throughout the centuries. "
[Smith, M. H. 1996, c1994. Systematic Theology, Volume One : Prolegomena, Theology, Anthropology, Christology. Index created by Christian Classics Foundation]

Speaking on the instrumentality of man in producing the Bible, Dr. Van Til wrote:

"The Instrumentality Of Men
Of course, the fact that the Bible is the Word of God does not mean that it has dropped from heaven. It was given through the service of men. In the view of the writers of the New Testament, the Scriptures are the Word of God. This is true “in all its parts and in all its elements, down to the least minutiae, in form of expression as well as in substance of teaching.” Yet “the whole of it has been given by God through the instrumentality of men.” This does not mean that some portions of Scripture are human and some are divine. It means rather that in all of the Scripture there is a human side as well as a divine.  “The Biblical writers do not conceive of the Scriptures as a human product breathed into by the Divine Spirit, and thus heightened in its qualities or endowed with new qualities; but as a divine product produced through the instrumentality of men.”  The Spirit carried along the spirits of men so that they spontaneously spoke and wrote what they did.
...

The Organic View Of Inspiration
Further, Warfield, and other Reformed theologians with him, have spoken of their view of inspiration as the organic view. They do so because they stress the fact that the Holy Spirit, in employing the instrumentality of men, takes these men as they are in virtue of the general providence and common grace of God which has prepared them at every point for the event of inspiration. The words that men speak can, on this basis, be at the same time, the words of God. These men are, in the first place, wholly subject to the will of God."

Hence my original comments about trusting the author of the documents.

- SEAGOON

[JB73]

dont forget the Holy gift of interpretation.

IIRC both used to translate languages, and explain the meaning of texts.

MAN it has been a long time, but were't there like 7 divine gifts: tounges, interpretation, healing.. i can't remember any more

[Maverick]

Seagoon,

Thanks for the info you posted. It kind of related to what I recall of those classes (just about 30 years ago ).

FWIW, The view that I took from my earlier training in religious subjects (call it bible study catechism whatever) was that there was an impulse to take all the symbolism at strictly face value. When I was in College that changed a bit when the aspect of symbolism, understandable from the time of the author (human) and the audience (flock) is taken in to account.

The usage of the word "lamb" that you used is a good example. If you take the litteral "word as law" then the image is less than inspiring, rather than the implied one of a gentle demeanor.

The factor of symbolism that has meaning in the context of 2000 years ago is somewhat different that what a more modern person with a somewhat different level of education and experiance today.

By using the inspiration scenario you posted it tends to give a multidimensionality to God rather than a flat one sided version.

Certainly the idea that a supreme being with omnipotent powers gives a lot of lattitude as to how things get done. That is why I personally don't see so much of a conflict between science vs faith in explanations of the far past. I don't see the need of a supreme being being limited to the same time frame as a human or that creation was an instantaneous occurance. I don't see the "laws of nature" as understood by people as being in conflict with creation. Why should God be limited to a conception of creation as immagined like a magic trick? The same for time, with an immortal timeless being you have no need to be limited by a 24 hour "day" or that everything was done once with no room for modification or change (example, evolution).

Some fundamentalist interpretations I had been told, of course, indicated an instantaneous creation.


Your thoughts?

I hope that this makes a bit of sense, I have little practice in discussions of this subject through a typed "conversation".