You are viewing the older version of this Weblog. I have left this version available for those of you who do not have Javascript enabled in your web browser.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
July 11, 2005
The Canon vs. Sola Scriptura...
Some good thoughts by Steve Jones today:
Such “God’s word vs. man’s word” statements, however, give an impression that the 66 books of the Bible came together in a single volume and descended from heaven flanked by seraphim. But as we all know, humans — the species that the inerrantist says he does not trust for any guidance into truth — compiled the books, debated their merits and voted on which should be canonical. There’s no escaping the human element.Read the rest here.
Posted at 12:44 pm
Trackback:Trackback Link:
Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url
Comments (33):
That’s what makes the perfection, and I feel inerrancy (although there are levels of innerancy), of the Bible so incredible. To say that it isn’t these things might miss the point as well. They came together for the perfection. The personalities were allowed to come through but I feel in a perfect way.
dh () - July 11, 2005 at 1:05 pm
Tim:
The selection of canon to become the Bible is absolutely fascinating. I’d love to have been a fly on the wall during those sessions. Equally interesting, and not as well understood generally was the work of translation; especially, the King James translation. I find it absolutely incredible that many people who swear by the King James version as the “only true and valid translation”, are the same people who have no idea how that translation was developed. Probably the best single book on that subject came out a couple of years ago, and I highly recommend it. A real eye opener, and will make you hungry to know more about the derivation of the various translations/paraphrases, and the development of the canonical Bible. (There are others.) The book is “God’s Secretaries”. Again, a must read if you have any interest in how these things all developed to where and what they are today.
The selection of canon to become the Bible is absolutely fascinating. I’d love to have been a fly on the wall during those sessions. Equally interesting, and not as well understood generally was the work of translation; especially, the King James translation. I find it absolutely incredible that many people who swear by the King James version as the “only true and valid translation”, are the same people who have no idea how that translation was developed. Probably the best single book on that subject came out a couple of years ago, and I highly recommend it. A real eye opener, and will make you hungry to know more about the derivation of the various translations/paraphrases, and the development of the canonical Bible. (There are others.) The book is “God’s Secretaries”. Again, a must read if you have any interest in how these things all developed to where and what they are today.
Larry () - July 11, 2005 at 1:57 pm
> although there are levels of innerancy
Huh? Can you explain this? “Inerrant” means “free from error” — seems fairly single-leveled to me.
Larry ~ I have wanted to read that book, actually… I’ll have to check it out.
Huh? Can you explain this? “Inerrant” means “free from error” — seems fairly single-leveled to me.
Larry ~ I have wanted to read that book, actually… I’ll have to check it out.
timsamoff () (URL) - July 12, 2005 at 09:16 am
Many who are hyper strict inerencists don’t believe that the personalities of the writers are in the Bible. Many who don’t hold to inerancy claim this as well about inerancists, that inerancy takes away from the personalities of the Bible and that believing that the personalities of the writers are in the Bible takes away from the inerancy. The post is to show that even though the personality of the writers are reflected in the Gospels that doesn’t mean it isn’t “free from error”. Having a human element in the Bible doesn’t necessitate imperfection. Thats what makes the canon and Sola Scriptora so incredible together. The criteria used was God ordained.
dh () - July 12, 2005 at 12:48 pm
Hmmm… I don’t know if I’d classify any different dostinctions in the word, but I do get your point.
I have some of my own feelings about the inerrancy of the bible, but I’ll save those for another post sometime. In the meantime, Steve Jones (the guy I pulled the above quote from), has some new things to say today:
http://freethinkingfaith.blogspot.com/20..
His first point is pretty interesting:
> Jesus never, ever said anything in the
> gospel records about a coming body of
> writings that would serve as our absolute
> uide in all things spiritual. (If you
> disagree, please cite the reference and I
> will humbly retract this statement.)
(All of the three points are good ones to think about, though.)
I have some of my own feelings about the inerrancy of the bible, but I’ll save those for another post sometime. In the meantime, Steve Jones (the guy I pulled the above quote from), has some new things to say today:
http://freethinkingfaith.blogspot.com/20..
His first point is pretty interesting:
> Jesus never, ever said anything in the
> gospel records about a coming body of
> writings that would serve as our absolute
> uide in all things spiritual. (If you
> disagree, please cite the reference and I
> will humbly retract this statement.)
(All of the three points are good ones to think about, though.)
timsamoff () (URL) - July 12, 2005 at 12:55 pm
Just because He didn’t say it doesn’t mean that it is not the case. I feel God spoke through all of the writers especially in light of 1 Tim 3:16.
A great book that I read parts of that seems good on this issue is “The Canon of Scripture” by F. F. Bruce.
A great book that I read parts of that seems good on this issue is “The Canon of Scripture” by F. F. Bruce.
dh () - July 12, 2005 at 1:00 pm
And I’m not saying that the bible isn’t important… Just that there are other ways to look at it and think about it.
timsamoff () (URL) - July 12, 2005 at 1:08 pm
I personally just don’t see inconsitencies or “errors” in the Bible. So for me to say there is would do an injustice to myself.
Maybe we can read this book and see what we think? :)
Maybe we can read this book and see what we think? :)
dh () - July 12, 2005 at 1:30 pm
I don’t think I said that either. I did say that I had my own feelings, but I never said I thought there were errors.
Maybe I should work on a new post about this, eh?
Maybe I should work on a new post about this, eh?
timsamoff () (URL) - July 12, 2005 at 1:41 pm
I know, I wasn’t addressing what you said. It seemed the site implied the conclusion I mentioned. I hope you didn’t take what I said wrong. ;) Maybe I misunderstood Mr. Jones. He seems pretty hard on “my camp” even though he originally came from there. :)
dh () - July 12, 2005 at 2:03 pm
he’s the guitar player from the Sex Pistols! What does he know!?
dennisthemenace () - July 12, 2005 at 5:15 pm
I would like to add a thought here though i think the whole “canonical conspiracy” tends to cast undue doubt on the Bible. I won’t get really into it here. But what i will do is make an observation. The fact that Christ was human AND perfect should provide evidence that flesh doesnt necessarily prove falability or imperfection. This of course could be taken out of context and i stress that so as to avoid it. But certainly, if Christ was human then His ability to provide His word through other humans should not immediately induce skepticism. However, i do think it worthy of questioning and a good topic.
Also, its interesting that he is referencing canonized scripture to validate his thoughts about the possible imperfections on canonization. Another interesting thought.
Also, its interesting that he is referencing canonized scripture to validate his thoughts about the possible imperfections on canonization. Another interesting thought.
dennisthemenace () - July 12, 2005 at 5:28 pm
A couple of things. First, I do play guitar, but I’ve never crossed paths with the Sex Pistols. (Oddly enough, a guy from South America, not knowing how common my surname is here, e-mailed me thinking I really was that guy.)
About DH’s comment that I’m being hard on his camp: That’s not my intention at all and I hope I’m not conveying that. We’re only discussing ideas here. I mean no disrepect toward those with whom I differ.
I will say, though, that his camp (assuming he means conservative evangelical) can be awfully hard on people like me. While I may only disagree on an intellectual point, my detractors will go so far as to deny my Christian status outright or consign me to outer darkness.
There’s hard … and then there’s hard.
About DH’s comment that I’m being hard on his camp: That’s not my intention at all and I hope I’m not conveying that. We’re only discussing ideas here. I mean no disrepect toward those with whom I differ.
I will say, though, that his camp (assuming he means conservative evangelical) can be awfully hard on people like me. While I may only disagree on an intellectual point, my detractors will go so far as to deny my Christian status outright or consign me to outer darkness.
There’s hard … and then there’s hard.
Steve Jones () (URL) - July 13, 2005 at 06:57 am
While I definitely don’t deny your (Steve) Christian status or consign you to darkness, I am sorry for the minority in my camp who project this. However, I do think that this issue is a little more than intellectual and I feel that there are some problematic things that I won’t get into with the view.
DH () - July 13, 2005 at 08:31 am
I love how none of us want to “get into it here.” Hehe. 
No, I appreciate what everyone is saying, but I’ll agree that there’s much more to it all then what we could probably discuss here — not being face-to-face at all.
About Dennis’ statement that “the whole ‘canonical conspiracy’ tends to cast undue doubt on the Bible”...
Maybe… But, I’d hope that the Holy Spirit has maybe a little more power than any sort of “conspiracy.”
No, I appreciate what everyone is saying, but I’ll agree that there’s much more to it all then what we could probably discuss here — not being face-to-face at all.
About Dennis’ statement that “the whole ‘canonical conspiracy’ tends to cast undue doubt on the Bible”...
Maybe… But, I’d hope that the Holy Spirit has maybe a little more power than any sort of “conspiracy.”
timsamoff () (URL) - July 13, 2005 at 09:11 am
“Maybe… But, I’d hope that the Holy Spirit has maybe a little more power than any sort of “conspiracy.” “
Thats exactly what i was trying to say.
Thats exactly what i was trying to say.
dennisthemenace () - July 13, 2005 at 09:55 am
And more even:
http://freethinkingfaith.blogspot.com/20..
http://freethinkingfaith.blogspot.com/20..
timsamoff () (URL) - July 13, 2005 at 09:57 am
To say what Steve says implies imperfection at some level with regard to “God’s Word” and I just can’t say that. Especially when I personally see the consistency and accuracy that Scripture has.
dh () - July 13, 2005 at 12:18 pm
Maybe my whole problem with the concept of inerrancy is that inerrancy — like anything — can become an idol. Christians place so much importance the inerrancy of the bible, on God’s perfection, on God’s unchangability… But what is truly inerrant — what can never be changed (even if every copy of the bible in the whole world was destroyed) — is God’s graceful existence in our lives.
For me, even if the bible was chock-full of errors and contradictions, it still wouldn’t change the fact that God is real and He loves us.
In my opinion, it’s not the inerrancy of the bible that needs to be on the pedestal, but the inerrancy of God’s word — which goes far beyond the bounds of a simple book. (And, yes, I will defend that stance to the end.)
God’s desire for humankind… That is what is inerrant.
For me, even if the bible was chock-full of errors and contradictions, it still wouldn’t change the fact that God is real and He loves us.
In my opinion, it’s not the inerrancy of the bible that needs to be on the pedestal, but the inerrancy of God’s word — which goes far beyond the bounds of a simple book. (And, yes, I will defend that stance to the end.)
God’s desire for humankind… That is what is inerrant.
timsamoff () (URL) - July 13, 2005 at 1:01 pm
I don’t place it as an idol, some do but that doesn’t change the innerancy, perfection or unchageability just because some who believe this place it as an idol. If that makes sense. I personally feel God’s Word will never contradict the Bible. That is what the Berean’s did in Acts in how they responded in their Faith. That doesn’t mean the Bible is greater than “God’s Word”. I agree with you there. God is graceful but He is also requires obedience to “God’s Word”. To even suggest that the Bible is “chocked full of errors or contradictions” I personally take issue with but I understand your point of God’s love and His reality. “Though I speak with the tongues of men and have not love i am clanging gong..” There is a balance and I think we have found it. :)
dh () - July 13, 2005 at 1:34 pm
“For me, even if the bible was chock-full of errors and contradictions, it still wouldn’t change the fact that God is real and He loves us.”
I think it would change everything. It wouldn’t be from God. I think it would actually do exactly that, it would change the fact that the Christian God is real.
I think it would change everything. It wouldn’t be from God. I think it would actually do exactly that, it would change the fact that the Christian God is real.
dennisthemenace () - July 13, 2005 at 8:29 pm
But Dennis, didn’t God also give us apostles, prophets, pastors and teachers? These people have made errors, despite the fact that God sent them to us. And yet, their fallibility doesn’t damage the divine veracity, does it?
Steve Jones () (URL) - July 13, 2005 at 8:49 pm
Having a relationship with God is so simple, direct, and easy. God doesn’t make it difficult; he doesn’t put rules and barriers in our way; we do. It’s the old Pogo cartoon thing: “We have met the enemy, and he is us!”
Ya’ gotta love God!!!
Ya’ gotta love God!!!
Larry () - July 13, 2005 at 9:01 pm
Larry ~ Yeah, that’s true!
Dennis ~ I don’t think the bible was given to us so that we may believe in God — if that were true, the Jews would have never strayed (they were closer to the “word” of God than any of us will ever be).
In Romans 1:20, it says, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse…”
Even without the bible we should know God as the real Creator (not that we always do). The bible, therefore becomes a record of the works of Christ (if we read the entire text Christologically, that is). Through the bible we are able to get a glimpse of something that we will never get a chance to witness first hand — Christ working here on Earth.
Too often, we fall back on the bible as proof of God’s existence… But all we really have to do is look around us. It’s most likely the case that if someone won’t believe in God because of the creation that surrounds them, they probably won’t after being shown the bible.
Dennis ~ I don’t think the bible was given to us so that we may believe in God — if that were true, the Jews would have never strayed (they were closer to the “word” of God than any of us will ever be).
In Romans 1:20, it says, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse…”
Even without the bible we should know God as the real Creator (not that we always do). The bible, therefore becomes a record of the works of Christ (if we read the entire text Christologically, that is). Through the bible we are able to get a glimpse of something that we will never get a chance to witness first hand — Christ working here on Earth.
Too often, we fall back on the bible as proof of God’s existence… But all we really have to do is look around us. It’s most likely the case that if someone won’t believe in God because of the creation that surrounds them, they probably won’t after being shown the bible.
timsamoff () (URL) - July 14, 2005 at 06:13 am
For me, there are so many, many proofs of God’s existence and one of them is the perfection and innerancy of Scripture. So I totally agree with you. However, I feel the Bible is greater than a record but a foundation of how we should live. One of the many aspects of the Bible is to show the redemptive power over sin by a relationship by Faith in Christ. Just because the Jews didn’t Believe doesn’t mean that that wasn’t a reason for the Bible. It is greater than a record of works but the standard to live by having already been redeemed by Faith in Christ as well as how to be redeemed by Faith in Christ. Not that we can all of the time but it is still the standard. “I press on to the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenword in Christ Jesus.”
DH () - July 14, 2005 at 08:34 am
Yeah, DH shares my thoughts regarding the Bible. If it were merely a recording, it would not be his Word nor divinely given.
Steve, to lump apostles, pastors and teachers in the same gategory with the same authority is an error, quite frankily. Yes, they were all human but play diffrent roles. I think would be a different argument but it could definitely be argued. Thier fallibility doesnt damage cause we trust that the Word tells us that… otherwise all we have are our assumptions and thoughts. If we didn’t think the Bible was saying something concrete, I don’t think we’d be arguing its validity in the first place. Heck, what are we arguing again? haha.
Well, i disagree with my friend, Tim here. I don’t think our surroundings should be primary proof. The Bible should be our foundation and everything (including our surroundings) should be judged in accordance to that. That’s my view.
Steve, to lump apostles, pastors and teachers in the same gategory with the same authority is an error, quite frankily. Yes, they were all human but play diffrent roles. I think would be a different argument but it could definitely be argued. Thier fallibility doesnt damage cause we trust that the Word tells us that… otherwise all we have are our assumptions and thoughts. If we didn’t think the Bible was saying something concrete, I don’t think we’d be arguing its validity in the first place. Heck, what are we arguing again? haha.
Well, i disagree with my friend, Tim here. I don’t think our surroundings should be primary proof. The Bible should be our foundation and everything (including our surroundings) should be judged in accordance to that. That’s my view.
dennisthemenace () - July 14, 2005 at 10:10 am
Actually, I don’t think our surroundings should be our primary proof either — just trying to make a point. What I do believe is that our surroundings could be our primary proof if our surroundings were all we had.
timsamoff () (URL) - July 14, 2005 at 10:14 am
I don’t know on the could be primary proof because I believe that even if all Bibles were destroyed God still would not go against the Bible that was originally written. However, I dislike hypotheticals. Tim trying very hard to be “Emergent” here. Hopefully you can appreciate that (hypothetical thing). :) Dennis I enjoyed your response to Steve.
dh () - July 14, 2005 at 10:33 am
I feeel the bible does not give God enough credit. It takes away the perfection that we all know as Gods children it is all perfection. The bible is too basic and the only problem I have with the bible. Where is Jesus story? I know as a child of God , and because I AM inlove with God , I write and read everyday. Jesus died for rhe love of God, and tell me something. Whre in the bible did it say that Jesus said “ He came to die for our sins”. I feel that i am not against the bible, the bible is against my heart. I love God regardless of the bible, i see God in everything and everyone. But humans need their 5 senses to be fulfill and Gods knows that. Therefore the bible was presenting, but not all true. Their is truth in every religion. And God loves all
rozelle white () - August 09, 2005 at 5:37 pm
Rozelle. stop smoking crack.
dennisthemenace () - August 09, 2005 at 7:22 pm
Hey, now, Dennis… People are entitled to their opinions. Please don’t insult.
timsamoff () (URL) - August 09, 2005 at 8:03 pm
Yeah Tim I agree with you on Dennis. However, for Dennis sake in a way that is respectful tho, I will say that the Bible says in Paul’s epsitles how Christ died for our sins. Also the Bible says thou shalt have no other gods before Me. If there were truth in every religion there would be no need for the Bible to say this. I also want to ask: Where in the Bible is it not true, Rozelle? I say this with all dignity and respect. I care about you Rozelle. I hope you can see that in my response and question being that you can only see my writing and not the attitude which I can honestly say from my heart is care for you. :) Dennis I hope you respect my agreement with you but with better phrasiology. :)
dh () - August 10, 2005 at 3:48 pm
haha… yeah. I’m just having fun. although the “i care about you” part made me think about tom cruise, haha. I was in one of my sarcastic moods…
good explanation.
good explanation.
dennisthemenace () - August 10, 2005 at 5:06 pm
