homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:04 am
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:13 am 
Offline
His bark is worse than his scratch
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 11:56 pm
Posts: 846
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 6
First - SoCoNative, I'm so sorry for taking so long to get back with you. It seems as though my job may have sucked up all the time I normally spent browsing the internet.

SoCoNative wrote:
Some of the ideas, like the golden rule, aren't tied to historical events. But God's plan of salvation unfolded through history--starting with the fall, through God setting aside a specific nation for Himself and revealing Himself to them, and Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. God could have given us a theological textbook, but instead He gave us a book that probably has more history than straight theology in it. So yes, the truths in Scripture do have timeless significance, but they're also tied to temporal events. I don't see why God would give us a book grounded in history without ensuring that the history was accurate (of course, I don't see why God would do lots of things… I guess what I don't see is why we would assume that He's given us an inaccurate book when He's perfectly able to give us an accurate one).
Perhaps I should clarify: I'm not assuming that the Bible is full of inaccuracies. It may very well be a verbally inerrant book. However, I also don't think it has to be verbally inerrant in order to be sufficient for the business of salvation. To phrase this in another manner, I believe that God may have made the Bible in accordance with verbal plenary inspiration, but also that it wouldn't contradict scripture or undermined the Christian faith if He chose to make it in accordance with a different type of inspiration. Does that make sense? :)

SoCoNative wrote:
Another thing that makes me uncomfortable with saying that the history and science aren't entirely accurate is that it seems to make a distinction between spiritual truth and historical or scientific truth. Specifically, separating spiritual truths from the accuracy of historical facts makes spiritual things subjective and completely distinct from the objective realms of science and history.
That is an interesting point, although I would have to disagree with your basic assumptions. In my opinion (and this is merely an opinion), spiritual is far more objective than scientific or historical truth, because the former is intrinsically prescriptive, while the latter two are descriptive.

To phrase that in english, both scientific and historical truth are based upon observation, which is intrinsically subjective: we observe something (either a scientific anomaly or a historical event), we deduce facts about that something, and we formulate theories about what actually occurred. The problem with this is that it often results in a nimrod of equally factual theories. Now, obviously, as we gain more facts we'll be able to narrow down the number of legitimate theories until there is but one remaining. However, that's not always possible, and when it's not possible it opens the door to having a large number of equally valid beliefs coexisting. To use a scriptural example, what where the disciples thinking when they first cast down their nets to follow Jesus? We aren't explicitly told in scripture what they thought, only that they instantly cast down their nets. This lack of historical facts gives rise to a large number of perfectly factual theories about what they thought, and no legitimate way to determine which one is actually true (this, it should be mentioned, is hardly the only case this occurs in scripture. The Bible rarely provides us with every possible conceivable historical detail, resulting in a large number of historically viable theories regarding the same events being bounced around).

Spiritual truth, on the other hand, is far more objective. After all, God tells us right off the bat which one of the numerous theories is correct, which means that we don't have to figure it out using observation. So, I guess you could say I'm fine with drawing a distinction between historical/scientific truth and spiritual truth because I really do think that they are distinct forms of truth. Or at least, so I'd assume. I have no idea if the previous two paragraphs make a lick of grammatical or logical sense at this point, I'm afraid. XD

SoCoNative wrote:
Second, inspiration seems a lot more squishy if you say that the general ideas, not specific words are inspired. There seems to be much more leeway for coming up with all sorts of interpretations… but maybe I'm making too big a deal of it.
Hm...to be perfectly honest, I would argue that the exact opposite is the case. See, if we advocate the verbal inspiration of scripture, you can argue that some random phrase in scripture supports any crazy idea because you aren't limited to the author's intent. For example, I've heard it said that Galatians 3:28 is support for same-sex marriage, because of the phrase "neither man nor woman" (or, to be more precise, the original greek meaning of the phrase). From the context of the passage, it's pretty clear that that wasn't what Paul was trying to tell the Galatians, but, if we accept verbal inspiration, that doesn't matter because it is the words rather than the intent that is inspired by God.

SoCoNative wrote:
And one last thing… Isaiah, the dog in your avatar is ridiculously adorable. :D
Ahh, it feels so wonderful to agree with you about something. :D

_________________
- Isaiah
David Roth wrote:
Write it. Forget the truth, this is Journalism.
Drew wrote:
Blanket statements are bad.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:07 am
Posts: 268
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: RIX :D
Wow… I didn't mean to take nearly a month to get back to you. I'm really sorry about that!

First, thanks so much for taking the time to discuss this with me and being patient with my sometimes fuzzy thinking. It's been good to be forced to think through and clarify what I'm saying. :)

Scratch wrote:
Perhaps I should clarify: I'm not assuming that the Bible is full of inaccuracies. It may very well be a verbally inerrant book. However, I also don't think it has to be verbally inerrant in order to be sufficient for the business of salvation. To phrase this in another manner, I believe that God may have made the Bible in accordance with verbal plenary inspiration, but also that it wouldn't contradict scripture or undermined the Christian faith if He chose to make it in accordance with a different type of inspiration. Does that make sense? :)

Yup, that does make sense. I'm definitely willing to say that believing in verbal inerrancy is not necessary for salvation. However, I'm not sure how serious the implications are if the Bible isn't verbally inerrant; it's probably something I need to read more about.

Scratch wrote:
That is an interesting point, although I would have to disagree with your basic assumptions. In my opinion (and this is merely an opinion), spiritual is far more objective than scientific or historical truth, because the former is intrinsically prescriptive, while the latter two are descriptive.

I think I see what you're saying; however, aren't both types of truth equally objective? The actual fact or truth is constant, although our interpretations and understandings of it may be subjective. Spiritual truth is the same: while the truths themselves are objective and are the same for everyone, we come up with vastly different interpretations of them. I'm not really sure how to clarify what I was trying to say that you were responding to; I'll try to figure out what I was driving at and get back to you (and I'll take less than a month this time ;)).
Scratch wrote:
SoCoNative wrote:
Second, inspiration seems a lot more squishy if you say that the general ideas, not specific words are inspired. There seems to be much more leeway for coming up with all sorts of interpretations… but maybe I'm making too big a deal of it.
Hm...to be perfectly honest, I would argue that the exact opposite is the case. See, if we advocate the verbal inspiration of scripture, you can argue that some random phrase in scripture supports any crazy idea because you aren't limited to the author's intent. For example, I've heard it said that Galatians 3:28 is support for same-sex marriage, because of the phrase "neither man nor woman" (or, to be more precise, the original greek meaning of the phrase). From the context of the passage, it's pretty clear that that wasn't what Paul was trying to tell the Galatians, but, if we accept verbal inspiration, that doesn't matter because it is the words rather than the intent that is inspired by God.

Huh, that's an interesting point. I think the issues that you described only come about if you advocate verbal inspiration without the concept of the ideas & intent being inspired. Question – since God uses words to convey His intent, how do we know what the intent is if the specific words aren't inspired?

Another issue that I thought of reading what you wrote above is different approaches to Bible translation. I tend to think idea-for-idea translation is more effective in communicating to other cultures and in other languages than word for word translations. That being said, one could argue that if you adhere to verbal inspiration, you should always go for word-for-word translation, even if it isn't as smooth or ends up being unintelligible to the culture who's receiving the translation.

I think we're getting a little closer to understanding each other, and I don't think we disagree as much as we seemed to at first. :)

_________________
"Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it?–every, every minute?" - Thornton Wilder, Our Town


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:09 pm 
Offline
Old Man with a Beard
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:11 am
Posts: 6763
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: California
I was actually thinking about you this yesterday, SoCoNative, because I am reading a relatively detailed study of the Gospels' passion narratives. There is an interesting issue that arises because of the discrepancy in chronology between the Synoptic Gospels (which place Jesus' meal with his apostles on Passover) and John's Gospel (which places instead Jesus' death on Passover). The author remarked that one way to understand the discrepancy is to assume that the references to Passover in the synoptic texts is a a later redaction in the originals (which are, of course, lost to us). I immediately thought of your theory that the requirement of contradiction only applies to original manuscripts, and I thought, "I bet SoCoNative would like this theory: the discrepancy is explained by assuming that in some earlier version the offending parts were simply not present."

(Incidentally, the author of the study I am reading does not find this explanation convincing, but that is not entirely relevant.)

Also, this caught my eye:
SoCoNative wrote:
Question – since God uses words to convey His intent, how do we know what the intent is if the specific words aren't inspired?

But I use words to convey my intent when I speak, and the specific words I use are not divinely inspired, yet people rarely have difficulty knowing my intent. What is the issue?

_________________
"Be forbearing when you compare us
With those who were the perfection of order.
We who everywhere seek adventure,
We are not your enemies.
We would give you vast and strange domains
Where flowering mystery waits for him would pluck it."


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 8:00 pm 
Offline
I know not this "leverage" of which you speak.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:52 pm
Posts: 2285
Home Schooled: Yes
Green Tea wrote:
SoCoNative wrote:
Question – since God uses words to convey His intent, how do we know what the intent is if the specific words aren't inspired?

But I use words to convey my intent when I speak, and the specific words I use are not divinely inspired, yet people rarely have difficulty knowing my intent. What is the issue?

Who's intent?

When you speak, you speak for yourself, so we can safely say that your words indicate your intent. If, however, you spoke for someone else, determining the intent of the original source becomes significantly more challenging.

_________________
This account doesn't express the opinions of my employers and might not even express my own.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:07 am
Posts: 268
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: RIX :D
Green Tea wrote:
I was actually thinking about you this yesterday, SoCoNative, because I am reading a relatively detailed study of the Gospels' passion narratives. There is an interesting issue that arises because of the discrepancy in chronology between the Synoptic Gospels (which place Jesus' meal with his apostles on Passover) and John's Gospel (which places instead Jesus' death on Passover). The author remarked that one way to understand the discrepancy is to assume that the references to Passover in the synoptic texts is a a later redaction in the originals (which are, of course, lost to us). I immediately thought of your theory that the requirement of contradiction only applies to original manuscripts, and I thought, "I bet SoCoNative would like this theory: the discrepancy is explained by assuming that in some earlier version the offending parts were simply not present."

(Incidentally, the author of the study I am reading does not find this explanation convincing, but that is not entirely relevant.)

Yup, you're right; that theory does make sense to me. What solution did the author prefer?
Green Tea wrote:
Also, this caught my eye:
SoCoNative wrote:
Question – since God uses words to convey His intent, how do we know what the intent is if the specific words aren't inspired?


But I use words to convey my intent when I speak, and the specific words I use are not divinely inspired, yet people rarely have difficulty knowing my intent. What is the issue?

Pretty much what Elijah said… Of course your words aren't divinely inspired; I'm pretty sure your intent isn't inspired either. But you use specific words (one could say they're inspired by you) to convey your intent. People can only understand your intent because of the words you use. Likewise, God used particular words to communicate the meaning He wanted to get across.

_________________
"Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it?–every, every minute?" - Thornton Wilder, Our Town


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:23 pm 
Offline
Old Man with a Beard
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:11 am
Posts: 6763
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: California
Regarding the problem of the contradiction between the synoptic and Johanine accounts, they both agree that John's account is likely the correct one (although we cannot know for sure) . The theory holds that the synoptic account represents a theological redaction; the author merely finds the arguments for this point unpersuasive.

As far as inspiration goes, my point is simple: the conveyance of intent does not require inspired specific word choice. The two are different (the same intent can be conveyed by different specific words, and the same specific words can convey different intent). The intent of what I wish to say can be communicated just fine by my words or the words of anyone else who speaks for or about me, even though those words are not divinely inspired.

Now, words that convey a certain subject matter are "inspired " by that subject matter. If this is all you mean, then what I am saying above is not all that relevant.

_________________
"Be forbearing when you compare us
With those who were the perfection of order.
We who everywhere seek adventure,
We are not your enemies.
We would give you vast and strange domains
Where flowering mystery waits for him would pluck it."


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 3:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:07 am
Posts: 268
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: RIX :D
Green Tea wrote:
As far as inspiration goes, my point is simple: the conveyance of intent does not require inspired specific word choice. The two are different (the same intent can be conveyed by different specific words, and the same specific words can convey different intent). The intent of what I wish to say can be communicated just fine by my words or the words of anyone else who speaks for or about me, even though those words are not divinely inspired.

Now, words that convey a certain subject matter are "inspired " by that subject matter. If this is all you mean, then what I am saying above is not all that relevant.

I think I'm missing something; what's the difference between conveying intent (what you're talking about in the first paragraph) and words being "inspired" by their subject matter?

_________________
"Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it?–every, every minute?" - Thornton Wilder, Our Town


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:29 pm 
Offline
Old Man with a Beard
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:11 am
Posts: 6763
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: California
I suppose I was unclear. One can say, "God inspired Paul to communicate God's message, but the specific words are due to Paul's talents and idiosyncrasies." One assessment might be that the specific words are therefore not "inspired." Another assessment might be that the specific words, since they nevertheless communicate the message, are "inspired" by that message. In the two cases, the term "inspired" is being used a bit differently.

_________________
"Be forbearing when you compare us
With those who were the perfection of order.
We who everywhere seek adventure,
We are not your enemies.
We would give you vast and strange domains
Where flowering mystery waits for him would pluck it."


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited