The Inerrancy of Scripture II
I first of all want to clarify that I believe that the scriptures are true. They are beautifully accurate historically and practically.
The stories told in the Old Testament and especially in the Torah are based on Oral tradition. The stories existed for centuries. The stories purpose was to give Israel identity, to inform them of where they'd been so that they might decide where they are going. What we have to question, every time we read it, is whether the point that was being made needed historical accuracy for it to be conveyed.
for example; the point of the person of Abraham, in the book of Genesis, is to explain the covenant between God and His people. To not only explain it's origin (Abraham) but it's nature of being passed "from generation to generation" (to Isaac and Jacob). The stories were true. An actual covenant was made to God's people and it was passed from generation to generation. With this all in mind we must ask, did it have to be a man named Abraham? Does the story have to be 100% historically accurate for it to be true? Would God be lying if it wasn't historically accurate?
The point of the Bible is that the stories are true, not weather they actually happened.
As you'll notice this opens up a whole new series of questions. And that's ok. If you read the Bible with an open heart then it'll always bring up tons of questions, possibly more questions than answers.
What you'll find, if you study history, is that there is a great majority of stories in the bible that are well verified by history and some that have very little real historical backup at this point. If history repeats itself then we will soon find explanations for the stories that can't yet be verified (like much of the book of Joshua). Abraham's described to have lived in a real place (Haran, Genesis 12.4) that we know really existed. This suggests to me that he was probably real. There are also other things that suggest his historicity which we will not discuss here. But we still have to ask the tough questions. What if there was no historical verification to scripture?
We have this beautiful concept called faith. It is one I will always base my life around. I have faith that the Bible is true. Not blind faith (I don't study for no reason) but faith indeed. And it is with faith that we approach the Bible. Faith is a non-negotiable.
The stories told in the Old Testament and especially in the Torah are based on Oral tradition. The stories existed for centuries. The stories purpose was to give Israel identity, to inform them of where they'd been so that they might decide where they are going. What we have to question, every time we read it, is whether the point that was being made needed historical accuracy for it to be conveyed.
for example; the point of the person of Abraham, in the book of Genesis, is to explain the covenant between God and His people. To not only explain it's origin (Abraham) but it's nature of being passed "from generation to generation" (to Isaac and Jacob). The stories were true. An actual covenant was made to God's people and it was passed from generation to generation. With this all in mind we must ask, did it have to be a man named Abraham? Does the story have to be 100% historically accurate for it to be true? Would God be lying if it wasn't historically accurate?
The point of the Bible is that the stories are true, not weather they actually happened.
As you'll notice this opens up a whole new series of questions. And that's ok. If you read the Bible with an open heart then it'll always bring up tons of questions, possibly more questions than answers.
What you'll find, if you study history, is that there is a great majority of stories in the bible that are well verified by history and some that have very little real historical backup at this point. If history repeats itself then we will soon find explanations for the stories that can't yet be verified (like much of the book of Joshua). Abraham's described to have lived in a real place (Haran, Genesis 12.4) that we know really existed. This suggests to me that he was probably real. There are also other things that suggest his historicity which we will not discuss here. But we still have to ask the tough questions. What if there was no historical verification to scripture?
We have this beautiful concept called faith. It is one I will always base my life around. I have faith that the Bible is true. Not blind faith (I don't study for no reason) but faith indeed. And it is with faith that we approach the Bible. Faith is a non-negotiable.
Comments
You're missing my point completely. The bible is not always an historical document and it is rarely a report like the one in your example.
Think of peotry. Now If a police officer asked for an account you would never recite a poem to him. There is alot of peotry in the bible. The point of the stories in scripture is not always to give an account of what actually happened. you have to focus on what the scripture is trying to tell you. What's the point of the story? it won't always be history.
Apply what I've already said to Abraham's story. What's it really trying to tell us? It's an explaination and description of the covenant. It's never promised to us that is literal. Poetry was my easy example. in this case we ask, what's the point. This story explains the covenant and its nature. It can be argued that it's history (a view point which you have expressed). It doesn't have to have happened for it to still accomplish its goal. Obviousely something like it happened but it certainly is not obviouse that it occured verbatim. The point is a sort of history and it is very possible that it is aligorical history. It gives us an Idea f how this whole covenant thing works.
I hope my explaination makes sense this time. I appretiate your involvement in this discussion. I don't expect you to agree with me but I hope you'll continue to adress what I'm saying.
I will often refer to the book of Moses but I don't believe that Moses actually sat down and wrote it all. We atribute the books to Moses out of tradition. make sense?
And yet, traditionally speaking, Abraham had ancstors and if it's not allegory then yes, he's an historical figure. But what if it is allegory...?
to answer your question about who i think Jesus was would take a long time. People have filled books about Jesus and still didn't cover everything. In short I believe that Jesus was a Rabbi who came to show His people what it really looks like to live the Torah. He also came to establish a new kind of kingdom, where the first would be last and He would rein. He also came to bring ultimate salvation to everyone in every nation. He was a man and is also YHWH, the one true God, and through the power of His resurrection we can be saved and live a life of freedom from the curse.
This little description might lead us to more questions than answers but the truth often does.
Am I universalist? Hell no... (that's a joke, get it... Hell... think about it). I believe there is a reality called Hell and many people will experience it both here and into eternity.
Hopefully the curse will not always be around us.
I'll answer your question by suggesting some books.
There's a chapter by Tony Campolo in "Adventures In Missing The Point" called "The Kingdom Of God."
"Velvet Elvis" by Rob Bell pages 147-150 (but read the whole book if you get a chance).
Chapter two of "The Challenge Of Jesus" by N.T. Wright
Especially!!!! the chapter called "The Eternal kind of life Now" in "The Divine Conspiracy" by Dallas Willard.
These books changed my life and are written by people much more credible than me. If you've never read Dallas Willard you should consider it. His work is outstanding.
"...Hell: a way, a place, a realm absent of how God desires things to be. We can bring heaven to earth; we can bring hell to earth... For Jesus Heaven and Hell were present realities... For Jesus the question wasn't, how do I get into heaven? but how do I bring heaven here?"
-Rob Bell
"Throughout his [Jesus] brief public career Jesus spoke and acted as if God's plan for salvation and justice...was being unveiled through his own presesnce"
"He told the story of the Kingdom in such a way as to indicate that Israel's long exile was finally coming to it's close." "...A kingdom that would overturn all other agendas..." "...we now implement that work today... to implement the redemption of our world."
-N.T. Wright
"God's Kingdom is a new society that Jesus wants to create in this world- within human history, not after the Second Coming or a future apocalypse or anything else. But right now."
"Dispensationalists -that is, fundamentalists and most evangelicals - contended that the world was a sinking ship, and that time and efforts were better spent trying to get people off the ship and saved before it went under... The only problem, however, was how such bad news could really be good news..."
-Tony Campolo
I encourage you to read these books before you argue with their suggestions.
You can't interperet the Bible without knowing something about it. Books help for that. If I could just read the bible and get all my answers I'd be wasting my money on school.
I hope you don't really mean to be so insulting. Please think about what you're saying. I've enjoyed this conversation, thanks for your thoughts. At least we agree that Jesus is Lord and Savior.
Hahahaha - ROFLOL - that IS hillarious. Thanks for this gem.
:-)