@Kjvav I agree with this statement of yours
"The first five books of our Bible are not what Moses thought, not what people of the time thought, but what the Lord told Moses."
And that is why similarities in Ancient Cosmologies don't matter, except that Satan likes to deal in clever counterfeits for the Truth.
I think that most lies (falsehoods) are mixed with truth to make them more believable. We can see this with the various ancient Creation myths, which incorporate elements of the true Creation account found in Genesis, but which then deviate from the Genesis account in important and significant ways.
I suggest you read this excellent article and the comments/discussion that follows it:https://billmuehlenberg.com/2017/05/21/genesis-ane-accounts-creation/
Looks like most of the points in the article are the same ones I've already made in this and other threads. So it sounds like we're in agreement then. Works for me
"In sum, the biblical writers were likely aware of some of the other creation accounts in circulation at the time, but that does not mean they heavily relied on them or simply copied them. Instead it seems the biblical writers went out of their way to repudiate and refute these pagan cosmologies.
So even if they did do some borrowing, it was more the imagery of the myths. The theology and worldview of them were clearly denounced and shown to be deficient."
It's great that we have found some common ground.
I also appreciated this comment on the article by Peter Newland:
As others have implied: This raises the question re what Creation account came first: the Biblical or the ANE pagan myths. While the Bible tells us that Moses wrote the Genesis account ...there is internal evidence in Genesis that Moses edited pre-existing written accounts of named patriarchs (Adam, Seth, Noah, etc.). Note that Abraham spoke to Terah, who overlapped Noah about 100 years, and Noah had several hundred years to talk with Methuselah, who had about 200 years to talk with Adam. Genesis thus systematically records what happened during the lifetimes of named patriarchs – with the exception of course that the implication is that God told Adam what happened in the five+ days before the creation of Man.
In that sense, the Genesis account predates ALL other ANE accounts, none of which even claim to have the eyewitness records of people who lived through those events. But it also means that, yes, when Moses compiled Genesis from the written records of his ancestors, he had the opportunity to add polemic showing the deficiencies of the pagan myths of the ANE creation accounts that had arisen by the time of Moses.
@Kjvav
As usual you jump to conclusions once again reading things into my statements that aren't there. First, let's look at what you wrote:
"You start out your argument with “Anyone familiar with the history of the doctrine of inerrancy...” and I absolutely couldn’t care less about what you will say next because if you think that the validity of a doctrine depends on the lineage of people who believed it, we don’t believe the same thing about the Bible."
Now let's look at what I actually wrote:
"Anyone familiar with the history of the doctrine of inerrancy, the diverse viewpoints Christians have on it, and the host of other issues involved know that the simple "cut and dry" view is a superficial one and that the matter is indeed very complicated."
*All I said is that people who know about the history of the doctrine, and diversity of beliefs about...KNOW THAT IT'S COMPLICATED
*I mean seriously: WHERE IN MY STATEMENT DID I EVER SAY THAT THE VALIDITY OF A DOCTRINE DEPENDS ON WHAT A LINEAGE OF PEOPLE BELIEVE?
ANSWER: NO WHERE DID I STATE THAT
*IF A DOCTRINE IS COMPLICATED DOES THAT MEAN IT'S INVALID AND CAN'T BE TRUE? NO
*ARE VALID DOCTRINES ONLY THE SIMPLE, UNCOMPLICATED ONES? NO
You really have a lot of nerve to make the accusations and assumptions that you do (*And then on top of that to insinuate that I'm comparable to Satan??? Wow, you have serious issues). The only "pattern" is your continual misreading of what I actually say. Seriously, please read more carefully and stop jumping to conclusions.
I believe the Bible is inspired and inerrant. My point regarding the doctrine being complicated is due to the fact that there remains so much disagreement among Christians about what it means for something to be inerrant. Let me clarify what I mean by way of an illustration: please let me know how you would answer each of the following questions:
(1) True or False: Inspiration and inerrancy mean that all parts of Scripture are equally clear and equally important.
(2) True or False: We should use grammatico-historical method to determine the meaning of a biblical text.
(3) True or False: The Bible should be interpreted literally.
(4) True or False: To interpret the Bible literally means to interpret the Bible according to its correct grammatical forms and according to its correct historical and cultural context.
(5) True or False: To interpret the Bible literally is to interpret the Bible according to its original, intended meaning.
(6) True or False: Every biblical text has a single correct meaning
(7) True or False: The correct meaning of scripture is the original meaning
(8) True or False: The correct meaning of scripture is the original meaning and this meaning is singular and cannot change to something else later in.history.
(9) True or False: That the Bible is inerrant means that every number quantity in the Bible is precise, accurate and factually true. In other words, if the Bible says something was X number of cubits long then it was X cubits long. If it says there were X number of people present then there were X number of people present. If it says something weighed X then it weighed X. The Bible means precisely what it says.
(10) That the Bible is inerrant means that all four gospels present 100% historically accurate narratives/biographies of Jesus' ministry and interactions with people on earth exactly as they happened, when they happened, where they happened and in the true, correct chronological order in which the events in the life of Jesus happened.
(11) True or False: There are absolutely 0 false statements recorded in the Bible
(12) True or False: In order to faithfully preserve the inerrancy and integrity of the Bible any translations of the Bible must be precise, literal translations.
(13) True or False: To correctly understand the Bible we should employ historical grammatical methods that take in account literary forms and type of genre.
(14) True or False: To be inerrant and preserve the integrity of the word of God, a Bible translation for a new culture does not have to be an exact translation as long as it communicates the same message
(15) True or False: Science can aid our understanding of Scripture and identify false inferences and even actual misinterpretations of the Bible.
The irony of your statements that my reading comprehension is low, coupled with your remark that I compared you to Satan is amusing.
@Kjvav I agree with this statement of yours
"The first five books of our Bible are not what Moses thought, not what people of the time thought, but what the Lord told Moses."
And that is why similarities in Ancient Cosmologies don't matter, except that Satan likes to deal in clever counterfeits for the Truth.
Thanks Steve. That’s been the reason my guard has been up so high for the last week in here.
@Kjvav
There you go yet again reading things into what I write that aren't there. When did I ever say your reading comprehension is low??? Answer: I didn't. I'm simply tired of your false accusations and ongoing misrepresentations, which you have now just done yet again. I'd love to be able to dialogue.
Didn’t you say...As usual you jump to conclusions once again reading things into my statements that aren't there.
Seems like an insult on my reading comprehension skills. Doesn’t matter, this is going nowhere.
@Kjvav I agree with this statement of yours
"The first five books of our Bible are not what Moses thought, not what people of the time thought, but what the Lord told Moses."
And that is why similarities in Ancient Cosmologies don't matter, except that Satan likes to deal in clever counterfeits for the Truth.
And I agree with the statement too, which is why God repudiated those ANE cosmologies in Genesis
Didn’t you say...As usual you jump to conclusions once again reading things into my statements that aren't there.
Seems like an insult on my reading comprehension skills. Doesn’t matter, this is going nowhere.
How do you get an insult out of that?????? I'm simply stating what you're doing without making any judgments about your cognitive abilities whatsoever. Why do keep twisting things around?
I say the doctrine of inerrancy is complicated and then you accuse me of saying it's invalid. I would say that's reading things into my statement that aren't there, wouldn't you? If not, then what would you call it? I don't know why you're doing it. I'm not making conjectures or speculating about your motivations like you keep doing with me. I'm simply asking you to stop. @stevetuck and I are having no difficulties conversing (and NO that is NOT an insult of your conversational abilities. You are the one who keeps making this personal with ad hominens)
I think that most lies (falsehoods) are mixed with truth to make them more believable. We can see this with the various ancient Creation myths, which incorporate elements of the true Creation account found in Genesis, but which then deviate from the Genesis account in important and significant ways.
I suggest you read this excellent article and the comments/discussion that follows it:https://billmuehlenberg.com/2017/05/21/genesis-ane-accounts-creation/
Looks like most of the points in the article are the same ones I've already made in this and other threads. So it sounds like we're in agreement then. Works for me
"In sum, the biblical writers were likely aware of some of the other creation accounts in circulation at the time, but that does not mean they heavily relied on them or simply copied them. Instead it seems the biblical writers went out of their way to repudiate and refute these pagan cosmologies.
So even if they did do some borrowing, it was more the imagery of the myths. The theology and worldview of them were clearly denounced and shown to be deficient."
It's great that we have found some common ground.
I also appreciated this comment on the article by Peter Newland:
As others have implied: This raises the question re what Creation account came first: the Biblical or the ANE pagan myths. While the Bible tells us that Moses wrote the Genesis account ...there is internal evidence in Genesis that Moses edited pre-existing written accounts of named patriarchs (Adam, Seth, Noah, etc.). Note that Abraham spoke to Terah, who overlapped Noah about 100 years, and Noah had several hundred years to talk with Methuselah, who had about 200 years to talk with Adam. Genesis thus systematically records what happened during the lifetimes of named patriarchs – with the exception of course that the implication is that God told Adam what happened in the five+ days before the creation of Man.
In that sense, the Genesis account predates ALL other ANE accounts, none of which even claim to have the eyewitness records of people who lived through those events. But it also means that, yes, when Moses compiled Genesis from the written records of his ancestors, he had the opportunity to add polemic showing the deficiencies of the pagan myths of the ANE creation accounts that had arisen by the time of Moses.
I must point out that Newland's account is entirely speculative and contradicts what kjvav has said about God communicating directly with Moses. Indeed, most Christians believe God gave Moses Genesis and the rest of Torah at Mt. Sinai. To say that Genesis came from God tellling Adam who then handed it down through the ages until it finally reached Moses (*in order to solve a preceived problem w/ANE cosmologies predating Moses' reception of Genesis at Mt. Sinai) and then turning around and saying that God delivered divine revelation to Moses....eh, that doesn't seem right, does it?
Plus, it then requires the Egyptians to somehow have learned about Genesis and then changed it to make it pagan before Israel was even in slavery in Egypt (*It also requires the Egyptians to know of Genesis without the rest of Israel knowing of Genesis except for Abraham who only tells certain people who tell Moses who then tells Israel at Mt. Sinai he received it from God. That would seem a little fishy)
Not only that, did you notice that Newland states that it was not God but Moses who added the anti-pagan polemic into Genesis!? I must say I find this most telling. @Kjvav you make assumptions about my views--stating that it didn't come from Moses and wasn't Moses' words (*falsely implying that I claimed Genesis didn't come from God when I even said it came from God at Mt. Sinai in the same post where I gave information about the pagan Egyptian creation accounts!)--- and yet here is this statement from Newland that is literally claiming that Moses, not God, is the one who added the anti-pagan polemic into Genesis, himself. In fact, at the beginning of his statement Newland even says that it was Moses who wrote Genesis! Where is the outrage over this kjvav??? Your selective criticism is most telling. Newland is correct about at least one thing: it is true that there is evidence of editing, but if I had been the one who said such a thing you would fly off the handle and accuse me of desecrating the very word of God like Satan himself.
*It seems like Newland's inventing an ad hoc theory to solve a perceived problem that's only apparent. The Egyptian creation accounts go back to the Old Kingdom period and about a thousand years before the Exodus and Mt. Sinai. I see no problem with this. As I said in an earlier post, the close correspondence between Genesis 1 and these Egyptian creation accounts suggests a scenario where Israel has been in slavery for 400 years and immersed, indoctrinated with Egyptian paganism and thus God not only frees them from slavery but has to counter their indoctrination on Mt. Sinai by taking the pagan creation account they've been indoctrinated with and repudiating it line by line.. My scenario is speculative too, but has the advantage of keeping with long held tradition that Moses received Genesis from God at Mt Sinai....But I am completely open to other scenarios that can explain the close correspondence between Genesis and the Egyptian creation accounts if you have something else in mind. I'm all ears.
@Kjvav
Unfortunate that you take this tack, but that's your perogative. I'm still willing to work through things, and even take responsibility if I'm the one who has caused any misunderstanding between us, or said something in a less than adequate or articulate way that has colored your perception of me. I'm guessing that must have something to do with it, based on your statement to @stevetuck about how much your guard has been up. But hopefully now you can take my statements at face value. I, too, believe the revelation came from God at Mt. Sinai. I would also hope by now that you see I'm not trying to alter Genesis to fit some old age, evolutionary view, but instead trying to figure out how to account for the close correspondence between Genesis and the Egyptian creation stories in a way that rejects these pagan accounts while still maintaining the integrity and sacredness of Scripture.
I don't think that our doctrine of the Divine Inspiration of Scripture means we have to choose between God handing or dictating Genesis-Deuteronomy to Moses (I too accept Moses as the human author God used to write the first five books of the Bible (except for the account of Moses' death).
I think that God could use both direct speech as with God speaking to Moses through the Burning Bush and giving him the Law on Mount Sinai, as well as using an Oral tradition passed from Adam down through the Generations.
I believe that the ancient people loved to tell stories, like we do today and that is why we find Creation and flood stories in many different ancient cultures. These stories have changed some of the details over time and telling, and this accounts for the differences between them and the Genesis Creation and flood account, which I believe has been accurately preserved by God, and if the oral tradition handed down from previous generations had departed in any way from what actually happened, Moses had the benefit of God being there to set the record straight, and thereby ensuring Moses got all the details down correctly.
To set the Divine against the Human element in Scripture is to create a false dichotomy; requiring an 'either this or that' choice, when in reality it is "both this and that".
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16, NIV)
"We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:19-21, NIV)
I don't think that our doctrine of the Divine Inspiration of Scripture means we have to choose between God handing or dictating Genesis-Deuteronomy to Moses (I too accept Moses as the human author God used to write the first five books of the Bible (except for the account of Moses' death).
I think that God could use both direct speech as with God speaking to Moses through the Burning Bush and giving him the Law on Mount Sinai, as well as using an Oral tradition passed from Adam down through the Generations.
I believe that the ancient people loved to tell stories, like we do today and that is why we find Creation and flood stories in many different ancient cultures. These stories have changed some of the details over time and telling, and this accounts for the differences between them and the Genesis Creation and flood account, which I believe has been accurately preserved by God, and if the oral tradition handed down from previous generations had departed in any way from what actually happened, Moses had the benefit of God being there to set the record straight, and thereby ensuring Moses got all the details down correctly.
To set the Divine against the Human element in Scripture is to create a false dichotomy; requiring an 'either this or that' choice, when in reality it is "both this and that".
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16, NIV)
"We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:19-21, NIV)
Agree with 99% of this. The only thing I’d say is that I believe (but would not be dogmatic about) that God actually gave Moses the details of his death to write. I may be wrong on that, it’s just what I think.
@stevetuck agreed
@stevetuck
I imagine the only area where we might diverge in our opinions is a rather common one among Christians: namely, the acceptance of biblical inerrancy but a wide diversity and range of opinions on what precisely we mean by "perfection." There is this unspoken assumption that when Christians say they believe in inerrancy that everyone means the same thing by it. But closer examination reveals that this is simply not true. The book Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy exemplifies the range of beliefs that exist. In keeping with original meaning and historical context (the standard in biblical exegesis), I believe that it is incorrect and anachronistic to apply definitions of "perfection" synonymous with technical precision and accuracy that were born out of the "Enlightenment" and "Rationalist" eras and ways of thinking. Such approaches are foreign and alien to the Bible and the Semitic way of thinking and storytelling that you mention. But as this is not a salvation issue I do not believe it should be a divisive issue that causes disunity and takes our focus off of Jesus and the gospel.
Thanks for your comments.
Inerrancy, for me, means ‘without error in the originals’
Thanks for your comments.
Inerrancy, for me, means ‘without error in the originals’
Thanks Steve, yes I hear what you're saying and agree. As topics go, biblical inerrancy is one that I haven't actually studied in depth--at least not as in depth as other topics like christology and historical evidence for the resurrection--so my "position" is not dogmatically set in stone but open to change as I hear and consider other Christians' views like in conversations such as this. More often than not I find that I have to confess ignorance on the subject because I'm not entirely sure where to put the "error-vs-perfection" dividing line. I simply have unanswered questions that I tend to mull over out-loud with people. I forget that when I do so that it is quite natural for people to draw the conclusion that I'm rejecting biblical inerrancy when I'm not. So that's entirely my fault for forgetting the effect of my "out-loud" musings.
Again, for me the question is not whether the Bible's inerrant but what we mean by the term and "perfection" and "error-free."
For example, if I say the Bible doesn't always give exact, precise numbers but will often give round number figures that we are not supposed to take as exact. Or if I say there are some passages in the Bible that purposely employ hyperbolic exaggeration to make a point (even in historical narratives). Or if I say that the Bible does not meet our modern technical standards for accuracy, or say that it contains grammatical errors, or say that it records false statements; or even if I say that the gospels don't always present events in chronological order but will rearrange events to make or emphasize a particular theological point (such as the gospel of John putting Jesus' cleansing of the temple near the beginning of his ministry instead of during the Passion week when it actually happened)--many Christians will see this as tantamount to rejecting biblical inerrancy and me saying that the Bible does actually have errors.
But you see this is where the problem of how we define "inerrancy" comes in. The truth of the matter is that when I say things like this most people don't realize that EVERY one of the examples I have just given above are addressed in the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI), which acknowledges ALL these types of examples are, in fact, true of the Bible, but the CSBI does not recognize such as constituting "errors" in the way that the CSBI defines inerrancy.
I'm actually less concerned about how we ultimately define "inerrancy" and more concerned about Christians setting themselves up for theological "suicide." That is, many Christians' view of inerrancy is actually more strict and exacting than the CSBI requires or even advocates, and they conceive of "perfection" in a modern, rationalist "enlightenment" era scholastic sense that the Bible can't live up to (but that it also doesn't have to---even by CSBI standards---because such "standards" are alien to the Bible and inappropriate to use with the Bible). Thus, if a Christian discovers that the gospel writers don't follow strict chronological ordering of events (which was completely acceptable and a recognized practice by ancient historiography standards), or that numbers aren't always exact, or that there are indeed grammatical "errors" (that don't effect any theological doctrine), or that historical narratives sometimes employ purposeful hyperbolic exaggeration to make a point and that are not to be taken as strict historical occurrence (again, accepted and understood practices in ancient times)---my greatest concern is that Christians may needlessly lose their faith over such things, unaware that even the CSBI--which is adopted by the vast majority of evangelical churches--recognizes the occurence of such things in the Bible and doesn't actually define biblical inerrancy in the way that a lot of Christians (who've never actually read the CSBI) think that it does.
So again, that is my greatest concern: Christians having a wrong definition or conception of biblical inerrancy that needlessly sets them up for a crisis that could result in them walking away from the faith.
@Kjvav
As usual you jump to conclusions once again reading things into my statements that aren't there. First, let's look at what you wrote:
"You start out your argument with “Anyone familiar with the history of the doctrine of inerrancy...” and I absolutely couldn’t care less about what you will say next because if you think that the validity of a doctrine depends on the lineage of people who believed it, we don’t believe the same thing about the Bible."
Now let's look at what I actually wrote:
"Anyone familiar with the history of the doctrine of inerrancy, the diverse viewpoints Christians have on it, and the host of other issues involved know that the simple "cut and dry" view is a superficial one and that the matter is indeed very complicated."
*All I said is that people who know about the history of the doctrine, and diversity of beliefs about...KNOW THAT IT'S COMPLICATED
*I mean seriously: WHERE IN MY STATEMENT DID I EVER SAY THAT THE VALIDITY OF A DOCTRINE DEPENDS ON WHAT A LINEAGE OF PEOPLE BELIEVE?
ANSWER: NO WHERE DID I STATE THAT
*IF A DOCTRINE IS COMPLICATED DOES THAT MEAN IT'S INVALID AND CAN'T BE TRUE? NO
*ARE VALID DOCTRINES ONLY THE SIMPLE, UNCOMPLICATED ONES? NO
You really have a lot of nerve to make the accusations and assumptions that you do (*And then on top of that to insinuate that I'm comparable to Satan??? Wow, you have serious issues). The only "pattern" is your continual misreading of what I actually say. Seriously, please read more carefully and stop jumping to conclusions.
I believe the Bible is inspired and inerrant. My point regarding the doctrine being complicated is due to the fact that there remains so much disagreement among Christians about what it means for something to be inerrant. Let me clarify what I mean by way of an illustration: please let me know how you would answer each of the following questions:
(1) True or False: Inspiration and inerrancy mean that all parts of Scripture are equally clear and equally important.
(2) True or False: We should use grammatico-historical method to determine the meaning of a biblical text.
(3) True or False: The Bible should be interpreted literally.
(4) True or False: To interpret the Bible literally means to interpret the Bible according to its correct grammatical forms and according to its correct historical and cultural context.
(5) True or False: To interpret the Bible literally is to interpret the Bible according to its original, intended meaning.
(6) True or False: Every biblical text has a single correct meaning
(7) True or False: The correct meaning of scripture is the original meaning
(8) True or False: The correct meaning of scripture is the original meaning and this meaning is singular and cannot change to something else later in.history.
(9) True or False: That the Bible is inerrant means that every number quantity in the Bible is precise, accurate and factually true. In other words, if the Bible says something was X number of cubits long then it was X cubits long. If it says there were X number of people present then there were X number of people present. If it says something weighed X then it weighed X. The Bible means precisely what it says.
(10) That the Bible is inerrant means that all four gospels present 100% historically accurate narratives/biographies of Jesus' ministry and interactions with people on earth exactly as they happened, when they happened, where they happened and in the true, correct chronological order in which the events in the life of Jesus happened.
(11) True or False: There are absolutely 0 false statements recorded in the Bible
(12) True or False: In order to faithfully preserve the inerrancy and integrity of the Bible any translations of the Bible must be precise, literal translations.
(13) True or False: To correctly understand the Bible we should employ historical grammatical methods that take in account literary forms and type of genre.
(14) True or False: To be inerrant and preserve the integrity of the word of God, a Bible translation for a new culture does not have to be an exact translation as long as it communicates the same message
(15) True or False: Science can aid our understanding of Scripture and identify false inferences and even actual misinterpretations of the Bible.
@Kjvav
On second thought, don't bother answering the questions. The effort it would take to explain the illustration only to have you misunderstand and falsely accuse is simply not worth the time or effort.