Geoff Trowbridge,
I am always interested to read articles such as yours on the New
Testament,
(http://www.qtm.net/~trowbridge/NT_Hist.htm)
as I have a keen interest in the NT. I am not an expert on the
subject but
it appears to me that you have missed several key points.
1. The NT is part of God's revelation to man. He will make sure
that
although we do not read the Aramaic that Jesus spoke, we will
know exactly
what he intended to communicate when he spoke. God promises that
the
disciples will be able to recall what Jesus said in John 15 (?)
(I do not
have a Bible in front of me). This point relies entirely on faith
in God.
However, in my opinion the NT is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS without
faith in God.
Incidently, it is remarkable (for eg) that the more archeologists
reveal
about the
time of Acts, the more they are made aware of the accuracy of
Lukes
writings. Doesn't that back up the promise of God to preserve
accuracy?
2. The people who were responsible for copying the scrolls
believed the
above. They meticulously copied the scrolls with great reverence
for God,
supremely concerned that they should not introduce error.
3. Ancient scrolls discovered at Qumran showed that OT scrolls
copied in a
similar way to NT scolls had remained virtually unchanged over
nearly 1000
years.
4. "Sifting through the scores of different English versions
of the New
Testament" is irrelevant to the discussion. Translations may
vary alot in
the words they use but the meaning is essentially the same. We
have the NT
in Greek, the language in which it was written, no translation
was involved.
Even if there were innacuracy in English translation, it proves
nothing
about the original. There are numerous other non-biblical texts
of a similar
era whose accuracy is never questioned.
5. The unity of the NT books in historical record and teaching is
astounding
considering the variety of authors and contributors. This is only
amplified
when the Old Testament is also considered, spreading across 1500
years,
different cultures, 40 different authors and yet the clear
purpose and unity
is evident after even a brief reading.
6. The number of copies within a few hundred years of the
originals of the
NT are numerous compared to other ancient manuscripts. If other
ancient
manuscripts were treated with the same suspicion that the NT is
treated
with, historians would have no confidence in their understanding
of any
historical events.
I hope you will consider these points.
==============================================
David
Hello David,
Thanks for your comments. I wish to address the points you have
made, but for starters, it will probably be useful to affirm my
reasons for creating this site in the first place.
Primarily, it is because the apocryphal NT literature is a
fascinating body of work and provides more than a few insights
into the development of the canonical bible. The
"Introduction" page that you have taken issue with is
merely a brief explanation as to why examination of these texts
is necessary. The secondary (and perhaps equally important)
reason is that a complete understanding of how the Christian
bible developed is irreconcilable with the fundamentalist
doctrine of "infallibility."
Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to attack anyone's faith, and
I am personally quite content with my own faith as a Christian.
The more I study Chistian origins, the stronger my faith becomes.
But the concept of biblical inerrancy has nothing to do with
faith. This fundamentalist view reduces the bible to little more
than a cold, rigidly defined rulebook which, if thumped loudly
and often enough, assures you of a one-way ticket to Heaven. This
view is more concerned with following the wording of the texts
than following Jesus; more effort is spent memorizing scripture
than developing a relationship with God. Jesus had a word for
this. It was called "Pharisaism."
That having been said...
<<The NT is part of God's revelation to man.>>
This may be nitpicking, but right away we need to clarify
something. The bible is revelatory only inasmuch as it relates
the experiences of those who directly received the revelations.
But nothing in the bible can transfer those revelations directly
into the mind of the reader. By definition, revelation can only
be directly between God and man. Anything else, while perhaps
truthful and inspired, is nonetheless only testimony of God's
revelation to someone else.
<<He will make sure that although we do not read the
Aramaic that Jesus spoke, we will know exactly what he intended
to communicate when he spoke. >>
It's really quite easy to refute this claim. Look around you.
There are literally hundreds of Christian denominations in this
world, each claiming to know "exactly what He intended to
communicate...," each in complete conflict with the others.
Yet all are using essentially the same bible.
<<in my opinion the NT is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS without
faith in God.>>
I wholeheartedly agree 100%.
<<Incidently, it is remarkable (for eg) that the more
archeologists reveal about the time of Acts, the more they are
made aware of the accuracy of Lukes writings. Doesn't that back
up the promise of God to preserve accuracy?>>
I have never claimed that the life of Jesus recorded in the New
Testament wasn't historically accurate; in fact, it's the best
historical record we have of the period. But this has little to
do with an imagined "promise" by God to preserve a
written record. God sent us His living word in Jesus. That was
His promise. The texts are merely human attempts to codify the
living word.
<<The people who were responsible for copying the
scrolls believed the above. They meticulously copied the scrolls
with great reverence for God, supremely concerned that they
should not introduce error.>>
Actually, this is only true of the Jewish scribes who maintained
the OT scrolls. For them, copying was a ritualistic task
involving steps of purification, etc. The NT, on the onther hand,
was mostly recorded by Gentile scribes who had no such
traditions. The incidence of errors in copying was, admittedly,
relatively low. But a glance at the footnotes at the bottom of
every page of a modern English translation will show you that
variations could, and did, often occur.
<<Ancient scrolls discovered at Qumran showed that OT
scrolls copied in a similar way to NT scolls had remained
virtually unchanged over nearly 1000 years.>>
I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion. The Dead Sea
Scrolls showed us that the Masoretic text had survived relatively
unchanged for a few hundred years afterward, but that is not
surprising, since the Jews canonized and preserved their
scripture in the first few centuries C.E. using the Masoretic
text as the standard. Prior to that, there were extreme
variations in the circulating texts, most notably with the
Septuagint, which was the source always quoted by the NT writers.
<<"Sifting through the scores of different English
versions of the New Testament" is irrelevant to the
discussion. Translations may vary alot in the words they use but
the meaning is essentially the same. We have the NT in Greek, the
language in which it was written, no translation was involved.
Even if there were innacuracy in English translation, it proves
nothing about the original.>>
You're correct, of course, but you misinterpreted the context of
my statement. I was merely demonstrating the inherent
subjectivity of translation, to the end that the original writers
introduced their own subjectiveness when rendering the Aramaic
words of Jesus in written Greek.
<<The unity of the NT books in historical record and
teaching is astounding considering the variety of authors and
contributors... >>
You're arguing here for the veracity of the canon based upon the
fact that the included texts display unity of theme and purpose.
But of course they do; theme and purpose were among the criteria
used by the assemblers of the canon in selecting texts for
inclusion. The argument is circular.
<<If other ancient manuscripts were treated with the
same suspicion that the NT is treated with, historians would have
no confidence in their understanding of any historical
events.>>
A true historian must constantly reevaluate their views of the
past, particularly in the face of new evidence. The aprocryphal
NT literature is one such example. Thus, my site was created and
our discussion has ensued. :-)
Being raised Protestant myself, I once bought into the idea of
"sola scriptura" (only the scriptures)--the idea that
all truths can be derived from the book we call the Bible, which
apparently was lowered down from Heaven on a rope in a nice,
leather-bound volume. The problem is that a book written by
fallible human beings is a very poor foundation for your faith,
and it nearly destroyed mine. It doesn't take a genius to see
that obvious mistakes and contradictions exist in the Bible, and
attempts by apologists to explain and/or reconcile them are
simply acts of denial. Many denominations will avoid this issue
by arguing that only the "original" texts were inerrant
and infallible, which irregardless of fact is completely
irrelevant, since we have no original signatures of any of the
bible books. And even if we did, we must also grant that the
developing Catholic church had the inspiration to select exactly
which texts were the infallible ones in creating the canon... and
few would argue that the early Catholic church didn't make a few
huge mistakes in other important areas.
This sort of talk isn't harmful. What Christians, particularly
fundamentalists, must realize is that CHRIST, not the Bible, is
the ultimate source of truth, and that the Bible, while
imperfect, is the greatest TOOL that we have to bring you to
Christ. Instead, people prefer to worship the book instead of the
risen Lord. This sort of "bibliolatry" leads only to
confusion and intolerance (if you're not sure what I mean, check
out www.christiangallery.com).
I can only hope that our site can educate enough people to open a
few eyes, and eventually rescue the Bible from fundamentalism.
Hope this helps to clear up my position. I'd be happy to discuss
it further. Thanks again and God bless,
Geoff and Heidi Trowbridge
Hi again Geoff
Without laboriously picking through what you have said I will try
and group
together my main points.
I think it will help to clarify what I mean by "faith".
Faith is belief and reliance on something that is unseen.
Christian faith is
centred on two key historical facts
1. Jesus' death
2. Jesus' resurrection
The record of these events is found (as you know) in the New
Testament,
written down by eye witnesses who realised how life changing the
knowledge
of these events is.
Now, although faith is an "inner" thing and therefore
in the sense that it
is an
individual characteristic, is subjective, that does not mean that
it is not
objective, in the sense that it relies (entirely) on objective
fact. What
the apostles were doing in their day (and the same applies today)
was not
just to appeal to the people to have faith, but rather directing
them to
have faith IN something specific - i.e. Jesus' death and
resurrection. This
carries through to our day in the written record of these
testimonies.
If, as you affirm, these records are subjective and subject to
interpretation making them also open to error, how can I know for
sure that
these events have occurred? If I cannot be sure that these events
occurred,
then I have no faith at all (or at least no basis for faith,
which amounts
to the same thing). Please look at 1 Corinthians 15 verses 12-19.
You cannot
surely undermine any part of the NT without undermining (or
casting doubt
on) all of it.
This may explain the characteristic which you label as
fundamentalist
(Defending the Bible to the letter, explaining apparent
contradictions etc),
as these people are defending the basis of their faith (which is
incidentally what those people are doing when they attack the
fundamentalist). If however these same people represent the Bible
as nothing
but a cold and rigid rule book then they have missed the point.
My
understanding of faith as described briefly above does not
necessitate this
cold and rigid understanding of the Bible which you describe. Far
from it,
if Jesus died to give me a relationship with God and he did rise
from the
dead as proof of who he was, then this will affect me in a vital
and
refreshing way. You cannot separate fact from relationship. For
example, the
relationship I have with my wife, is not independent of the facts
relating
to that relationship. If I did not see her willingness to relate
to me
through the facts of what she did, I would begin to doubt that
the
relationship was all that it should be. The fact of the marriage
vows she
made enhance the relationship, they do not destroy it.
At the same time the Bible does give instructions for a way of
life. These
are not simply a rule book, but a reflection of God's character
and
therefore show us how to please the God who has saved us.
If eye witness accounts are not the basis of your faith then what
is? If you
regard the NT as subjective and unreliable, then what in contrast
would you
regard as being reliable and objective and from God himself?
<<There are literally hundreds of Christian
denominations in this world,
each claiming to know "exactly what He intended to
communicate...," each in
complete conflict with the others. >>
This is a sweeping statement which is not true. For a start, many
"denominations" which although have a loose association
with Christianity,
do not strictly adhere to what the Bible says - they would not
say that it
is innerrant and would BY THAT open themselves up to all sorts of
interpretations. Secondly, some who say they do adhere to the
Bible
contradict this by appealing to some higher authority - such as
an
organisation or individual. Thirdly, different denominations does
not equate
to difference of opinion on central truths/beliefs. In fact many
denominations would agree wholeheartedly with the main beliefs of
other
churches - separating only on issues such as organisation or
method - which
is not explicitly spelled out in the Bible.
It seems relevant to point out that our communication at the
moment relies
on several assumptions, such as, that what we type has meaning,
and conveys
what we intend, to the other. I have a purpose in writing - to
discuss with
you certain issues. This is clear to each of us and we would not
question it
at all. However, do you allow these basic assumptions to remain
true when
you attempt to interpret the Bible?
<<You're arguing here for the veracity of the canon
based upon the fact that
the included texts display unity of theme and purpose. But of
course they
do; theme and purpose were among the criteria used by the
assemblers of the
canon in selecting texts for inclusion. The argument is
circular.>> From
this statement, although you are attempting to prove something
else, you
take for granted that the theme and purpose of these books is
obvious to
both me and the compilers of the canon hundreds of years ago. Why
do you not
assume this in both understanding the written record, and in the
understanding that the writers of the NT had of Jesus' words when
they heard
them? Surely they would not be able to miss the point of what
Jesus was
saying?
It seems rather arrogant that you say you have the correct way of
interpreting the Bible, particularly as you appeal to no
authority but your
own knowledge. Whilst undermining the ability that individuals
have to
understand written records, you simultaneously attempt to
communicate using
the very same method. I would prefer to trust a God who alone is
able to
make himself known.
David
Hi again. Sorry about the delay in replying; life gets hectic
at times.
<<Faith is belief and reliance on something that is
unseen. Christian faith is centred on two key historical facts
1. Jesus' death
2. Jesus' resurrection
The record of these events is found (as you know) in the New
Testament, written down by eye witnesses who realised how life
changing the knowledge of these events is.>>
Agreed. I hope you understood from my last message that I accept
the historical validity of these events without question.
<<If, as you affirm, these records are subjective and
subject to interpretation making them also open to error, how can
I know for sure that these events have occurred?>>
How indeed? Perhaps I could pose to you the same question. You
must have some reason, outside of the biblical record, for
believing the truth of these events. Believing them simply
because "the Bible says so" is no different than
believing that the stories of Merlin or Odysseus really happened
on the basis of a written text.
The New Testament is an incredible collection of writings. It
presents a very strong case for the historical validity of the
accounts within, regardless of the level of
"inspiration" that went into the writing process.
Therefore, to claim that every single detail of the biblical
writings MUST be inerrant and infallible in order to be at all
useful is a dangerous position indeed, and one that practically
compells you to question your faith. Why force yourself, on the
basis of a questionable verse or two, to throw out the baby with
the bathwater?
Think of it this way: It would be just as reasonable to argue
that the testimony of a star witness in a small town criminal
trial should be thrown out because at one point he accidentally
stated that the character of George on "Seinfeld" was
played by Danny DeVito. Such a mistake, while obviously
completely wrong, does nothing to undermine the validity of the
rest of his testimony. It only proves that the witness is HUMAN.
Certainly the Bible can contain some level of human perspective
and subjectivity and still be an indispensable resource.
Understand this: You cannot encapsulate the "logos" of
God in written form. Language by nature is fallible. That's why
the "logos" was incarnated in the form of Christ.
("Logos" is the Greek term generally translated as
"Word" in John 1:1.) I would even go as far as to argue
that the idea that we can hold the eternal wisdom of God within
the pages of a book is probably quite insulting to Him. After
all, this is what the Pharisees believed about the Old Testament
scriptures. When Jesus came to say they were wrong, they arranged
for his execution. How is the situation any different today?
<<If I cannot be sure that these events occurred, then
I have no faith at all (or at least no basis for faith, which
amounts to the same thing).>>
Yikes! Think for a moment about what you're saying here. You're
stating that you cannot have faith without proof. This runs
contrary to the very definition of faith. Proof DENIES faith.
Faith comes from experiencing the risen Christ in your life. If
the discovery of a biblical error here or there would cause your
faith to crumble, I implore upon you to reevaluate your
relationship with God. I say this from personal experience. At
one time, I was ready to dump Christianity altogether because I
could no longer pretend not to notice the problems with the
bible. Had I done so, it would have been the greatest mistake of
my life. Instead, I plunged myself into biblical study,
evalutating exactly what this book was that I was struggling
with. And slowly I found a Jesus that I'd never known before.
<<This may explain the characteristic which you label
as fundamentalist (Defending the Bible to the letter, explaining
apparent contradictions etc), as these people are defending the
basis of their faith (which is incidentally what those people are
doing when they attack the fundamentalist). If however these same
people represent the Bible as nothing but a cold and rigid rule
book then they have missed the point. >>
I've already explained why, if one finds it necessary to defend
inerrancy to protect their faith, they are in a poor spiritual
state of affairs. So if inerrancy is so inconsequential, why to I
so feverently argue against it? Because inerrancy, like any
doctrine which supresses logic, reason, and freedom of thought,
is downright dangerous.
I have never met a biblical inerrist who, despite being an
otherwise upstanding citizen, didn't have at least a few
biblically grounded prejudices that undermined their
responsibility as Christians to love one another. Those are minor
cases. The extreme cases result in Christians who refuse medical
treatment for their children, or handle poisonous snakes, or
commit hate crimes, even including murder, all perfectly
justifiable upon biblical grounds. Waving the banner of biblical
inerrancy allows me to twist any passage I wish to suit my means,
losing sight of the forest behind the trees.
<<If eye witness accounts are not the basis of your
faith then what is? If you regard the NT as subjective and
unreliable, then what in contrast would you regard as being
reliable and objective and from God himself?>>
How about the fact that, even as I sit here typing this, Jesus is
here with me, and God's spirit is within me? I would hope that
you can say the same.
<<you take for granted that the theme and purpose of
these books is obvious to both me and the compilers of the canon
hundreds of years ago. Why do you not assume this in both
understanding the written record, and in the understanding that
the writers of the NT had of Jesus' words when they heard them?
Surely they would not be able to miss the point of what Jesus was
saying?>>
For one thing, Jesus himself was often frustrated by his
disciples' inability to understand his teachings. And the
disciples' disagreements with each other and with Paul were well
attested in Acts. But most of all, if you have to ask the
question, you must not have examined the apocryphal texts
discussed on my site in any detail. There are substantial numbers
of additional gospels and epistles that display an incredible
diversity of theme and theological perspective. It's not hard to
see why they were excluded from the canon. But nonetheless,
assuming that the prevailing "orthodox" perspective was
in fact the most accurate record of Jesus's teachings (which I
believe, for the most part, it was), there was still a great
number of other writers who "missed the point." It was
the Catholic Christians who eventually sorted out the wheat from
the chaff as the canon slowly developed.
<<It seems rather arrogant that you say you have the
correct way of interpreting the Bible, particularly as you appeal
to no authority but your own knowledge. Whilst undermining the
ability that individuals have to understand written records, you
simultaneously attempt to communicate using the very same method.
I would prefer to trust a God who alone is able to make himself
known.>>
There is nothing arrogant about using the mind that God has given
me to seek out the truth for myself. It is quite arrogant, on the
other hand, to claim that one has cornered the market on truth. I
have never claimed to have all the answers. I only refute the
suggestion that anyone else does. Only CHRIST is the inerrant
Word of God, not the texts that have attempted to codify him.
David, you and I are not fundamentally different in our beliefs.
We both accept salvation through the death and resurrection of
Jesus Christ. Regarding the subsequent writings by pious
Christians that eventually became our New Testament, you have
admitted that you have not studied this process to any great
extent. I have, and have found it to be a fascinating and
insightful part of Christian history. I have also painstakingly
arrived at a place where I am completely comfortable with both my
faith as well as the legitimacy of my biblical views. I hope that
you, if for no other reason than to defend your position upon
scholarly grounds, actively pursue a study in biblical origins.
And I am confident that, despite the surprises that are in store
for you, you will find your faith strengthened in the same way
that mine has been.
God bless,
Geoff and Heidi Trowbridge
Hi
><<Faith is belief and reliance on something that is
unseen. Christian faith
>is centred on two key historical facts
>1. Jesus' death
>2. Jesus' resurrection
>The record of these events is found (as you know) in the New
Testament,
>written down by eye witnesses who realised how life changing
the knowledge
>of these events is.>>
>
**>Agreed. I hope you understood from my last message
that I accept the
**>historical validity of these events without question.
>
><<If, as you affirm, these records are subjective and
subject to
>interpretation making them also open to error, how can I know
for sure that
>these events have occurred?>>
>
**>How indeed? Perhaps I could pose to you the same
question. You must
have
>some reason, outside of the biblical record, for believing
the truth of
>these events. Believing them simply because "the Bible
says so" is no
>different than believing that the stories of Merlin or
Odysseus really
>happened on the basis of a written text.
Perhaps you could answer the question I asked you. If the records
are to be
questioned, how can you accept their validity without question?
(The **
highlight your contradiction)
In answer to yours, I can say because "the Bible says
so" because I believe
the Bible to be God's word.
>The New Testament is an incredible collection of
writings. It presents a
>very strong case for the historical validity of the accounts
within,
>regardless of the level of "inspiration" that went
into the writing
>process. Therefore, to claim that every single detail of the
biblical
>writings MUST be inerrant and infallible in order to be at
all useful is a
>dangerous position indeed, and one that practically compells
you to
>question your faith. Why force yourself, on the basis of a
questionable
>verse or two, to throw out the baby with the bathwater?
>
>Think of it this way: It would be just as reasonable to argue
that the
>testimony of a star witness in a small town criminal trial
should be thrown
>out because at one point he accidentally stated that the
character of
>George on "Seinfeld" was played by Danny DeVito.
Such a mistake, while
>obviously completely wrong, does nothing to undermine the
validity of the
>rest of his testimony. It only proves that the witness is
HUMAN.
> Certainly the Bible can contain some level of human
perspective and
>subjectivity and still be an indispensable resource.
I am not talking about throwing out the Bible because of errors
found within
it. (Any differences found in the ancient documents are very
minor, very
infrequent, and never affect the plain meaning of the text.) What
I am
talking about is your insistance that in effect, ANYTHING the
witness says
is to be viewed with suspicion as he is subjective and has
personal
interests at stake. This is a fundamental difference. In this
example, you
might be caricitured as a man at the back of the court room
shouting "Don't
trust him!". Presumably you would also think the use of a
jury pointless, as
"truth" is subjective and no group of jurors should be
expected to arrive at
the same conclusion about what truth is.
>Understand this: You cannot encapsulate the
"logos" of God in written
>form. Language by nature is fallible. That's why the
"logos" was
>incarnated in the form of Christ. ("Logos" is the
Greek term generally
>translated as "Word" in John 1:1.) I would even go
as far as to argue that
>the idea that we can hold the eternal wisdom of God within
the pages of a
>book is probably quite insulting to Him.
You mean that God is insulted by something he instigated himself?
Fascinating.
> After all, this is what the
>Pharisees believed about the Old Testament scriptures. When
Jesus came to
>say they were wrong, they arranged for his execution. How is
the situation
>any different today?
Their fault was to add to what the OT said and to thus distort
it. Jesus,
although radical, was in complete harmony with the true teaching
of the OT
(See Matt 6) and quoted it thoroughly.
><<If I cannot be sure that these events occurred, then
I have no faith at
>all (or at least no basis for faith, which amounts to the
same thing).>>
>
>Yikes! Think for a moment about what you're saying here.
You're stating
>that you cannot have faith without proof. This runs contrary
to the very
>definition of faith. Proof DENIES faith. Faith comes from
experiencing
>the risen Christ in your life. If the discovery of a biblical
error here
>or there would cause your faith to crumble, I implore upon
you to
>reevaluate your relationship with God. I say this from
personal
>experience. At one time, I was ready to dump Christianity
altogether
>because I could no longer pretend not to notice the problems
with the
>bible. Had I done so, it would have been the greatest mistake
of my life.
> Instead, I plunged myself into biblical study, evalutating
exactly what
>this book was that I was struggling with. And slowly I found
a Jesus that
>I'd never known before.
You misunderstand. The events are not proof. It is impossible to
prove that
historical events occurred. You are always reliant on those who
were there.
Faith is based on these events. There is faith in God that these
records are
correct, and faith in the promises that are associated with them.
The events
do not undermine faith, they are the heart of it.
>I have never met a biblical inerrist who, despite being
an otherwise
>upstanding citizen, didn't have at least a few biblically
grounded
>prejudices that undermined their responsibility as Christians
to love one
>another. Those are minor cases. The extreme cases result in
Christians
>who refuse medical treatment for their children, or handle
poisonous
>snakes, or commit hate crimes, even including murder, all
perfectly
>justifiable upon biblical grounds. Waving the banner of
biblical inerrancy
>allows me to twist any passage I wish to suit my means,
losing sight of the
>forest behind the trees.
That is not the result of Biblical innerancy. You have used
examples which
are irrelevant. The cases you quote above are cases of taking the
Bible out
of context. The ones you don't quote are presumably the same.
><<If eye witness accounts are not the basis of your
faith then what is? If
>you regard the NT as subjective and unreliable, then what in
contrast would
>you regard as being reliable and objective and from God
himself?>>
>
>How about the fact that, even as I sit here typing this,
Jesus is here with
>me, and God's spirit is within me? I would hope that you can
say the same.
How do you know he is? On what basis can you say that? (Note: I
do not doubt
that he is, merely want to know your basis)
><<you take for granted that the theme and purpose of
these books is obvious
>to both me and the compilers of the canon hundreds of years
ago. Why do you
>not assume this in both understanding the written record, and
in the
>understanding that the writers of the NT had of Jesus' words
when they
>heard them? Surely they would not be able to miss the point
of what Jesus
>was saying?>>
>
>For one thing, Jesus himself was often frustrated by his
disciples'
>inability to understand his teachings.
How do you know that? Surely not from the NT? But that is part of
a
subjective eye witness account. By what rule do you accept one
part without
accepting the other?
> And the disciples' disagreements
>with each other and with Paul were well attested in Acts.
Yet these were resolved. That is why they are recorded.
etc
I have attempted to a large extent to provide answers to the
statements you
have made. It seems to me that you have not made the same effort.
You
restate you position again and again (in what is largely a
patronising way)
without answering points that if true undermine you whole
position. This is
dissappointing.
Sadly you cannot grasp hold of the NT as God's word. Perhaps this
was
because you yourself took small parts out of the context of the
whole. Many
do, and miss the point.
You have, it appears, grasped hold of Post modern ideas of
relative truth
and applied them to Christianity. However, the two are
incompatible. The end
result of this is to reduce all religion to just one
"faith" and attempt to
empty the cross of Jesus of it's power. I sincerely hope that you
do not go
this far. Perhaps the inconsistancy of your postion will convince
you. You
are obviously a person who thinks, although prejudice is a
powerful thing.
It is very hard in today's world to proclaim that the Bible is
The Truth,
which you have perhaps found. However, if it is not the truth,
you might as
well be Muslim, Hindu, Atheist or whatever suits you. What then
will guide
you?
David
Greetings once again,
<<Perhaps you could answer the question I asked you. If
the records are to be questioned, how can you accept their
validity without question? (The ** highlight your contradiction)
In answer to yours, I can say because "the Bible says
so" because I believe the Bible to be God's word.>>
There is no contradiction unless you continue to insist that
reliable historical testimony can only occur with direct
intervention from God. I have plenty of reasons for accepting the
validity of the NT writings, including but not limited to the
following:
1) The biblical accounts of Jesus's ministry and crucifixion are
consistent with known extrabiblical records,
2) The early Christians would have had nothing to gain and
everything to lose by perpetuating myths that painted a negative
image of both the Jews and the Romans (though the Jewish threat
was effectively neutralized after the war of 70 C.E.),
3) The speed with which the oral traditions spread through
Palestine, then gentile Europe and Asia Minor, is not easily
explained unless the traditions had some basis in fact,
4) My own experiences have convinced me that the Spirit is a
genuine force in people's lives, and my own prayers and
meditations upon the spirit have done nothing to dissuade me from
the truth of Jesus's death and resurrection.
Note that, while all of the above statements argue very strongly
for the RELIABILITY of the gospel accounts, none of them (except
possibly #4) could be used as evidence that the Bible is the
"infallible word of God." Perhaps the NT is 100%
historically accurate. I could argue the same for a high school
history book. Would that make the textbook the "eternal word
of God?" The NT may very well have been written by holy,
inspired men. I could say the same of Billy Graham's latest book.
Does that make Graham's work "infallible" and argue for
its inclusion in the canon of scripture?
<<In this example, you might be caricitured as a man at
the back of the court room shouting "Don't trust him!".
Presumably you would also think the use of a jury pointless, as
"truth" is subjective and no group of jurors should be
expected to arrive at the same conclusion about what truth
is.>>
I am baffled and somewhat frustrated by this continuing
misrepresentation of my position. How can I possibly be
characterized as someone who would find a jury
"pointless?" Quite the contrary; we all have a
responsibility as spiritual "jurors" to examine the
evidence before us. And again and again I have tried to impress
upon you that I believe the preponderance of evidence supports
the RELIABILITY but not the INFALLIBILITY of the biblical record.
To compare me to an arrogant troublemaker who refuses to listen
to any testimony is completely unfair. And as long as we continue
to use this tired analogy, it is actually the inerrists who have
no need for a jury, for they will accept any and all testimony as
truth, without question, regardless of the circumstances.
<<You mean that God is insulted by something he
instigated himself? Fascinating.>>
I suppose that would be fascinating if we had cause to believe it
was true. But Jesus never instructed his disciples to write down
his words. As far as we know, he never left any writings of his
own. So what justification is there for concluding that God's
intention was to run the church based upon a written text? What
evidence is there that God instigated the creation of the NT?
Especially when Christianity grew quite well without an
established biblical canon for over three centuries. The adoption
of Catholicism as the Roman state religion is what made a canon
necessary, and I cannot be persuaded that the atrocities of Roman
Catholicism were part of God's plan.
<<Jesus, although radical, was in complete harmony with
the true teaching of the OT (See Matt 6) and quoted it
thoroughly.>>
The "true teachings" of the OT must have been something
very different than what was recorded in the Mosaic law;
otherwise, there would have been no need for a new covenant and
Jesus's death served no purpose. Jesus said that the law would
remain in effect until his prophecies were fulfilled, but I
believe in the Preterist view that all such prophecy came to
fruition with the fall of Jerusalem a generation later. (Jesus
himself was quite clear that these things would come to pass in
their generation.) But all interpretation aside, if we are to
remain in "complete harmony" with OT teachings today,
we must return to eating kosher foods, practicing purity laws, as
well as killing pagans and raping their captured wives and
daughters.
<<That is not the result of Biblical innerancy. You
have used examples which are irrelevant. The cases you quote
above are cases of taking the Bible out of context. The ones you
don't quote are presumably the same.>>
The examples are quite relevant. Do you believe that woman should
never cut their hair, or wear jewelry? The bible clearly says so
(I Tim 2:9), and some Christians (i.e., Pentacostals, Mennonites)
accept this as infallible truth. However, most Christians
(including, I would assume, yourself) are willing to compromise
the inerrancy of scripture by ignoring these verses, or at least
dismissing them on the basis that Paul's opinions in parts of the
Pastoral letters were, in fact, quite subjective. Churches that
preach inerrancy yet waffle on issues like this out of fear of
alienating women are being hypocritical, plain and simple.
But even worse, those that DON'T waffle on certain issues were
responsible for perpetuating slavery in the 1800's, genocide in
WWII (and more recently in Bosnia and N. Ireland), and today
promote racism, homophobia and the opression of women. Some even
go as far as to advocate theocratic government. And every one of
these positions are COMPLETELY defensible upon scriptural
grounds. These are not questions of context. These are positions
we have no choice but to accept if we also choose to accept an
infallible Bible.
<<How do you know he is? On what basis can you say
that? (Note: I do not doubt that he is, merely want to know your
basis)>>
You know I couldn't possibly answer that in a few short
paragraphs. But as a brother in Christ, I'm sure you understand.
<<How do you know that? Surely not from the NT? But
that is part of a subjective eye witness account. By what rule do
you accept one part without accepting the other?>>
There is no "rule" of thumb. Nor is it a case of simply
picking and choosing which passages appeal to me personally,
which many so-called "traditional" Christians seem
quite fond of doing. The only "infallible" testimony in
the NT is the words of Christ himself. Unfortunately, all of his
words have been relayed to us secondhand. Nonetheless, the
testimonies in the gospel accounts are reliable witnesses. This
doesn't mean they are without contradiction, but studies of the
Synoptic Problem and general textual criticism will help to
resolve these and arrive at a more authoritative picture of
Jesus. This is of primary importance to me, as well as other
scholars who dare to search for that elusive "Historical
Jesus." As for Paul (and the other epistle writers), I
believe Paul was the greatest spiritual commentator ever to have
lived and his work was certainly inspired. But to give his words
the same authority as those of Jesus is just wrong. Paul was not
Christ.
<<I have attempted to a large extent to provide answers
to the statements you have made. It seems to me that you have not
made the same effort. You restate you position again and again
(in what is largely a patronising way) without answering points
that if true undermine you whole position. This is
dissappointing.>>
I'm surprised and troubled to hear you say this. I have made no
effort to patronise you or your position. I have only tried to
make my position clear. If I have still failed to satisfactorily
answer your questions, by all means please explain where I have
failed to do so.
<<Sadly you cannot grasp hold of the NT as God's word.
Perhaps this was because you yourself took small parts out of the
context of the whole. Many do, and miss the point.>>
On the contrary, I believe very strongly in the whole picture. It
is the taking of small parts out of context that is precisely
what I wish to avoid.
<<It is very hard in today's world to proclaim that the
Bible is The Truth, which you have perhaps found. However, if it
is not the truth, you might as well be Muslim, Hindu, Atheist or
whatever suits you. What then will guide you?>>
As I've said before, my guide is the light of Christ in my life.
The Bible is a tool to bring you to Christ. Jesus is the
foundation. The Bible is the work of men. Jesus is the work of
God. That is as clear as it gets.
God bless,
Geoff and Heidi Trowbridge
Hi Geoff
I think it may help to clarify how I see our two positions.
Yours:
You accept that Jesus died and rose again in order to save you.
You have
accepted this as the way of your 'salvation' by faith. You accept
these two
events (Jesus' death and resurrection) as historical facts. They
are
historically true and you know this because of:
"1) The biblical accounts of Jesus's ministry and
crucifixion are
consistent with known extrabiblical records,
2) The early Christians would have had nothing to gain and
everything to
lose by perpetuating myths that painted a negative image of both
the Jews
and the Romans (though the Jewish threat was effectively
neutralized after
the war of 70 C.E.),
3) The speed with which the oral traditions spread through
Palestine, then
gentile Europe and Asia Minor, is not easily explained unless the
traditions had some basis in fact,
4) My own experiences have convinced me that the Spirit is a
genuine force
in people's lives, and my own prayers and meditations upon the
spirit have
done nothing to dissuade me from the truth of Jesus's death and
resurrection."
These are not the only reasons but are presumably the main ones.
The Bible is not to be trusted on it's own merit, but is subject
to the
critical analysis of those who study it - they may accept/reject
parts
depending on this analysis.
I am sure that I have not done justice to your position but hope
that it is
not innacurate.
Mine:
For starters, God is in complete control of history. He is not
subject to
anyone, and is also perfect in every way. Out of his kindness for
mankind,
and wanting to show us his character, allowed the fall of mankind
and has
since then progressively revealed to us his plan of salvation. He
did this
firstly through the OT prophets (who he instructed to record what
he told
them) and this culminated in the ultimate revelation, Jesus who
is God
himself made man and dying to save us. The apostles were
witnesses of this
ultimate revelation and wrote down their witness of the events
(the Gospels)
and their explanation of the events (the NT letters). The primary
criteria
used in recognising these NT writings was apostolic input and the
books we
have in the present canon were recognised by the believers of the
early
centuries BEFORE the councils of the 4th Century. All these did
was to
recognise formally what had been used and recognised for hundreds
years
already.
The writers were writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Although
with their own flavour of character, God was in control and the
meaning of
what they said was directly what God intended and is therefore
(as God is
perfect, and able to communicate) not subject to our own approval
or
disapproval. This is what I would mean by "inspired",
although the word is
misleading. (Although of benefit to many, Billy Graham is not
inspired in
this
sense). The identity of the Bible writers is therefore
significant, and ways
are given in the Bible to identify who is God's prohet and who is
not.
This understanding of God is principly a matter of faith - faith
in what he
has revealed to us and who he is. The list of reasons you gave
for accepting
the truth of the events of Jesus' life are all ones I would agree
with.
However they are not the primary reason for acceptance, but
secondary.
Neither would any of these reasons be used as primary evidance
for the
infallibilty of the Bible. That comes through a recognition of
who God is
and faith in him. However, the evidence is important as this
secondary
evidence does not deny the possibility that the Bible is
infallable, and in
fact reinforces it.
Neither does the fact (which I acknowledge totally) that people,
and
"churches" have in the past and in the present
justified their immoral
actions by the Bible DENY it's infallibility. These are examples
of what is
warned about in the Bible - people who distort the Bible for
their own
advantage, and sometimes just through pure ignorance. The Bible
sets up no
"named" organisation to be the interpreter for
Christianity in the way which
for instance, the Roman Catholic church has done so. In fact it
condemns the
idea of any authority other than God revealed through His Word.
With regards to the OT, let me clarify. The OT law and
regulations are
understood in both the NT and the OT as a "shadow" and
a "picture" of the
future. They were never the final way for people to reach God.
The OT is
waiting for something better - a perfect way which came with
Jesus. Of
course there were those who did not understand this, but as I
have
already said, peoples' misunderstanding of the Bible does not
affect what it
says. Also, the history recorded in the OT must always be
interpreted by the
teaching which goes with it. God's commands to kill pagans must
be
interpreted in the light of the teaching about God and his
character, and
even the people of the day did not consider that these commands
were
anything but specific to those situations (the command to kill
women
children and livestock etc only applied to certain cities in the
conquest of
Canaan for instance).
NT instructions about wearing jewellery etc are to be understood
in the
context in which they are set. These are specific instructions to
specific
people. What is important for us and what the writers (and God)
want us to
understand is not the instruction to not wear jewellery but the
issue that
is at stake. But more than that, what we understand them to mean
or how we
behave in the light of them does not affect the innerancy of the
NT. If I
ignore the instructions I receive with a new watch for example,
that does
not therefore mean that the instructions are from that moment
incorrect. You
may decide that my understanding of the commands re: jewellery is
waffle -
but that does mean the Bible is now full of errors - it just
means at the
very worst that I have waffled (according to you).
The clear principles taught in the NT regarding the role of women
(be
careful to distinguish the Bibles teaching from the corruptions
men have put
over the top of it), and homosexuals are hard to stomach in a
world of
feminism and gay rights. (By the way, the NT teaching re: women
was hard to
stomach in the NT times as well - it gave them too much
liberty!). The Bible
clearly condemns the actions of homosexuals BUT SIMULTANEOUSLY
offers
unconditional love and acceptance for any individual REGARDLESS
of who the
person is. This is not an inconsistancy, but a reflection of the
example of
Jesus.
The Bible has always been at odds with the shifting culture of
the day. But
should the culture be the judge? Of course not.
The crux of the matter is really one of authority. I believe the
Bible
primarily because it carries the authority of God. If you take
away the
Bible's authority, then what you have left is indefensible. Your
position
must take into account every religious/non-religious writing as
surely the
Koran carries as much authority as the Bible. Also as so much
weight is
place on individual "light" then every individuals view
must be considered.
Who is to say (without an outside authority) that my
understanding is not
better, or contains more "light" than yours?
Thankyou for your continuing responses
David
Welcome back!
<<I am sure that I have not done justice to your
position but hope that it is not innacurate.>>
Your summation is both accurate and fair, though I would stress
that the critical analysis of the Bible, both textual and
historical, is exceedingly complex and would merit extensive
discussion in a full explanation of my position.
You have also done a fine job of explaining the proper context
within which to interpret the more "difficult" passages
in the Bible. In fact, if more Christians would see the "big
picture" of Christ's love and grace and focus less upon the
confirmity to certain (sometimes irrelevant) ideals, I'm sure I
would not be nearly as passionate about fighting the doctrine of
inerrancy. On the whole, if you express your faith with love,
respect and tolerance for those around you, be they Christians or
not, it makes little difference to me whether you believe in an
infallible bible.
I find myself in agreement with much of what you state in
explaining your position. However, I must point out that,
although you explain what "inspiration" entails and why
it was an important criterion for assembling the canon, there is
still no compelling reason to assume, prima facie, that the NT
writers were under any sort of divine guidance in composing their
works. To any disinterested reader unfamiliar with the early
Catholic creeds, the Bible would be seen simply for what it is:
four fairly typical historical accounts of Jesus's ministry
(including Acts as the "second volume" of Luke),
followed by a collection of various correspondences between the
parties involved. Nowhere is there any claim that the authors
write on behalf of YHWH God. In fact, the only person who ever
dared claim to speak on behalf of God was Jesus, who never even
instructed anyone to write down his words.
Even the Roman Catholic criteria for inspiration were not evenly
applied. The Church rejected, for example, the Epistle of
Barnabas as not having been written by one of the twelve, nor
possibly even by Barnabas himself. Yet the Epistle to the Hebrews
was accepted, despite being of unknown authorship. (Some, but not
all, church leaders of the time believed it to be Pauline -- a
prospect that present-day scholars universally dismiss.) And the
Epistle of Jude is a complete aberration, having neither
apostolic authority nor a unique message, and even containing
quotes from apocryphal books (I Enoch and the Assumption of
Moses) given as scripture. Even if some texts WERE divinely
inspired, it seems painfully clear that the Romans lacked the
proper guidance in selecting them for canonicity. And if God
Himself did in fact directly intervene to guide them into the
creation of an infallible canon, why did He allow the myriad of
alterations to the original texts, including, for example, the
alternate endings of Mark, the drastically different Western text
of Acts, the Adulterous Woman in John and the Johannine Comma?
Surely a God who had painstakingly arranged for an infallible
text would not have permitted it to become corrupted so quickly.
Please understand that I don't doubt God's ABILITY to give us an
infallible scripture if that was in fact His will. I fully
appreciate and revere God's power. But given that God's
infallible wisdom was incarnated in the person of Jesus, a
God-breathed text becomes redundant. And unlike Jesus, the text
can and does occasionally contradict itself. Did Joseph and Mary
live in Bethlehem or in Galilee prior to Jesus's birth? (Matthew
vs. Luke) Did Jesus "cleanse" the Temple at the
beginning of his ministry or near the end? (John vs. the
synoptics) I know that apologists will claim that the events of
both birth narratives can be interlaced to form one consistent,
albeit ridiculous, storyline, and some also claim that Jesus may
have stormed the Temple twice, making both accounts accurate. But
these are simply efforts to twist the observations to support a
preconceived conclusion. The unavoidable fact is that, while the
creation of an infallible text would certainly be within God's
power and providence, there is no cause to believe that God has
done so. The evidence does not support such an assumption.
<<The Bible clearly condemns the actions of
homosexuals>>
Uh-oh. I'm about to stray completely off-topic here, so bear with
me. Since you brought this up, I can't help but address it. For
the sake of continuity, let's pretend this is a totally separate
thread:
-----------------<snip here>-----------------
I find it both troubling and inexplicable that the Christian
community as a whole spends so much time and energy attacking
homosexuality. I'm not talking about the so-called
"homosexual lifestyle," which conjures up images of
wild orgies and depraved one-night stands. That kind of
promiscuity is sinful in any respect, whether gay or straight.
I'm talking about committed, monogamous relationships between
consenting adults who happen to find themselves with identical
sets of genitalia. I'm talking about people who are no different
than you or I except for a harmless and completely private sexual
disposition.
Take a good hard look at http://www.godhatesfags.com.
Kinda throws the whole "cast the first stone" lesson
right out the window, huh? But these cowards would never be able
to come to grips with their own sinful natures, preferring
instead to attack others for the one "sin" that they
can be sure they've never committed themselves. But it's not just
the extremists. How much time to preachers and evangelists spend
discussing, for example, adultery or divorce? Very little by
comparison. Yet Jesus was very clear about the sinfulness of each
of these, while he never once mentioned homosexuality, despite
the fact that such relationships were more common in ancient Rome
than they are today. Paul does mention it, but his words get
shamefully twisted in most English translations.
Take the NIV. A prohibition against "homosexuals"
appears in I Cor 6:9. The same Greek word,
"arsenokoitai," appears again in I Tim 1:9 where,
inexplicably, it is translated as "perverts." It turns
out that both are wrong. The actual meaning in Koine Greek was
"those who solicit male prostitutes." The translator
who worked on Corinthians simply took advantage of the word's
archaic definition and issued a blanket prohibition where none
was intended. Paul's other relevant passage is Romans 1:26-7,
which clearly addresses homosexual activity but speaks only of
lust and turning against one's own "natural"
orientation, neither of which would apply to monogamous
homosexual couples. And besides all that, my bottom line is that
Paul is a great teacher, but must be, as you yourself have said,
placed within the context of his setting and his audience. His
words do not always have the universal application nor carry the
same weight as those of Jesus Christ.
Finally, there are those who love to trot out the Mosaic Law to
justify their prejudices despite the 600+ other components of the
Purity Code that no one would ever dream of instituting today.
'Nuff said. Anyway, that's about all I have to say on the
subject. It just saddens me to see consistent, unending
condemnation heaped upon innocent members of God's kingdom when
there is so much genuine evil in the world that goes ignored. The
Christian homosexual should be afforded the same standards of
behavior that apply to heterosexuals--no more, no less.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming...
-----------------<snip here>-----------------
<<If you take away the Bible's authority, then what you
have left is indefensible. Your position must take into account
every religious/non-religious writing as surely the Koran carries
as much authority as the Bible. Also as so much weight is place
on individual "light" then every individuals view must
be considered.>>
Although I disagree with your conclusion, I think you have hit
upon the crux of the matter. Inerrancy was established as a
doctrine and is vigorously defended primarily because of
fear--fear that too many people with too many ideas will turn
Christianity into a chaotic mess. This is the same fear that kept
the Bible out of the hands of the laity for over a millenia; only
the church leaders could be permitted to interpret scripture. But
this sort of fear can only arise from lack of faith in the Spirit
to do its work in the body of the Church. I look around and see
Christians in Unitarian congregations, or perhaps not attending
services at all, who are dramatically closer to the example set
by Christ than most so-called "orthodox" members of
specific bible-based Christian denominations. It's not a question
of the "authority" vested in the Bible. The Bible is
infinitely more useful as a guidebook than a rulebook. Rather
it's a question of knowing Jesus, and utilizing the Bible to help
us understand what we, as Christians, are called to do. When
individuals inevitably see things differently, we need only ask
ourselves what Jesus would say (or perhaps is TRYING to say). The
Bible need not be inerrant to present a clear picture of Christ's
example for us. And in those situations where the answers may not
be so clear, at the risk of sounding like a Universalist,
sometimes people must be left to find their own path. That's how
I truly found Jesus, and no one can take that away. There's room
in God's kingdom, even for heretics like me.
Cheers and God bless,
Geoff and Heidi Trowbridge
"Protestantism was the triumph of Paul over Peter; fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ." — Will Durant
Return to the Introduction
Proceed to the Analysis of the Canonical and Apocryphal Scriptures.
Return to Geoff and Heidi's homepage